Clothing is Incredibly Inexpensive

There isn't a day in your life, when you aren't in one form of another wearing clothes, sometimes, in fact, making several clothing changes throughout your day, and almost always without exception, the origin of the clothes that you are blithely wearing are not from America, and haven't been made in America for over a generation, as they are predominantly made overseas in Asian countries, such as China, Bangladesh, India, and Vietnam.  Offhand, there isn't a thing wrong with wearing and purchasing clothes manufactured from overseas, as first of all, your consumer choice in regards to this issue is rather limited, since pretty much all of these various pieces of apparel are predominantly being sold to you from big box stores such as TJ Maxx, or Forever 21, or Marshalls, or WalMart, and so forth, so it isn’t like you are buying your clothes in some underhanded manner.

In fact, clothing appears to be on the surface one of those delightful win-win situations, as it most definitely is a win for the big box retailers, as their cost for product has remained flat for twenty-five years, meaning that they have been able to pass on these savings to consumers throughout America by maintaining insanely low clothing prices on behalf of a nation that loves to shop for clothes.  In actuality, the Consumer Price Index for Apparel was at 127.5 in April 1991 and as of FEB 2016 it was at 127.5.  This means, that for twenty-five years there has been no inflation in apparel whatsoever, yet there has been inflation in America, as demonstrated by the fact that Consumer Price Index itself was at 135.2 in April 1991 and now rests as of FEB 2016 at 237.11, or an increase of 75%.

This points out again, that it isn't your imagination that the pricing of clothes has remained flat for twenty-five years, a boon to consumers as well as to stores, with consumers able to consistently take advantage of either "everyday low pricing" or the invariable discounted specials which seem to occur at just about every day in some store in America.  However, all of this good stuff for cheap has a hidden cost to it, and that is the fact that the clothes being manufactured for our utilization and benefit are being done overseas, and while most Americans pretty much follow the policy of "out of sight, out of mind", there most definitely are human hands in impoverished countries that produce our clothes for cheap, that were these workers in America, would be considered to be exploited.

While on the one hand you can make a strong argument on behalf of the garment manufacturers that their employees are better off in a factory rather than in the outside world of poor rural communities, without real or good access to education, modern amenities, healthcare, or clean water; that argument though is countered by the conditions of these factories which are centered primarily on treating humans as pretty much cheap and replaceable cartel, to which their only true worth is what they can produce and make via quota, period. 

The bottom line is that efficient overseas factories utilizing cheap labor can readily produce clothing that undercuts all domestic manufacturing of such, because the labor costs in America are way too steep.  This means in practicality that the clothes that we wear each day on our backs in a manner of speaking comes via the sweat of an ill-educated foreign woman's brow.

Can Dividends be Gamed?

In an era in which investors don't make a dime in a money market fund, or a savings account, and 10-year treasuries yield less than 2%, the making of money on money, has become far more difficult than a generation ago, and while pundits and governmental authorities state over and over again, that interest rates will go back up, when this one thing or that other thing happen, it just hasn't been happening for the last decade, which makes one to reasonably conclude that it isn't going to happen in reality, anytime soon.  All of this means, for conservative investors, that they are literally between a rock and a hard place, with nowhere safe to park their money to which they can be assured of both making a smallish profit as well as being secure that their investment is sound.

However, if one looks at the stock market, there are a fair amount of seasoned and well tested stocks, that have dividend yields of 4% of greater, such as Ford, General Motors, Hewlett Packard, Philip Morris, and Abbvie, to name just a few of them.  In today's world, a yield of 4% is definitely something to pay attention to, but as you might expect there are a few caveats.  For one, dividends themselves are not guaranteed, they can be lowered, raised, kept the same, or eliminated, and that decision is left to the Board of Directors; that said, though, companies with long standing historical records of consistently paying out dividends have a strong tendency to keep doing the same thing, come thick or thin.  Another issue, perhaps the elephant in the room, is that stock prices are not stable, they can go up or down, so that in theory, on the one hand, you would not only get your dividend but also stock price appreciation, then again, you could also get the dividend but stock price reduction, placing yourself in the position of receiving the 4% yield, but having that yield wiped out by a greater than 4% loss in the subject stock price.

The way most dividends are paid in America, is that they are paid out quarterly to those that are the stockholders of record, and the stockholder of record, is he who owns the stock before the ex-dividend date, so if you buy the stock before the ex-dividend date and then decide to sell the stock on the ex-dividend date, you will still receive that dividend.  This means, quite simply, that you don't need to own the stock for one year to receive dividends, nor ninety days, you only need to own the stock for one day, and that day has to be before the ex-dividend date and if done correctly you will receive that scheduled dividend payment.   However, there is an important caveat, which is that on the ex-dividend date typically the stock price is set to open at the previous close minus the dividend share dollar amount, so that if the dividend paid was $1 on a $100 stock, the opening would be set for $99, thereby canceling out your entire dividend payment.  That said, the fact of the matter is, that on any given day, stocks fluctuate and never remain stagnant, so that the stock price during that day and subsequent days will not remain the same. 

This means that at a minimum you have gained the dividend, and if somehow or someway, you were to average selling back the stock at a price to which you have sacrificed, for instance, only half of the dividend payment, such as fifty cents of the $1, by selling at $99.50, and do this time and time again, on various other high yielding dividend stocks you will make over a period of time a fair amount of money, readily.  However, there are two more considerations; one is the tax consequences of all this trading in and out, as well as also the commission costs of buying and selling of these equities.  In regards to the former, there are no tax consequences if these trades are made through your IRA, and in regards to transaction costs there are brokerages that offer either free trades as a matter of policy or for a period of time and those too that offer significantly discounted trading costs which are almost immaterial.

There are websites that allow you to practice theories without costing you a dime of real money, and while practicing specific techniques, such as trying to game dividends, is never going to be quite the same as trying to do it in the real word, it will afford you the opportunity to test out a theory without sacrificing anything other than the time to do so.  The bottom line is that every day there are buyers and sellers of equities to which each side believes that they are getting over on the other, in regards to dividends, and the correct pricing of the stock come the ex-dividend date, it's no different.

Trailer Park Homes

In you drive around just about any community far enough and in every conceivable direction; you will often eventually find a trailer park.  These trailer parks willvary considerably in quality, location, desirability, and looks, with some being near a beach or river and on land that appears to be of high value whereas others look run down, forgotten, and in areas that seem to have been abandoned or forsaken by time.  As reported by bbc.com: "Mobile homes make up 6.4% of the US housing sector," which certainly means that manufactured housing in America appeals to a fair amount of people for whatever reasons, with affordability and freedom being the most prominent ones.  The basic situation in most trailer parks is that the occupant of the trailer owns the trailer itself, but rents the land that it rests upon, and depending upon the trailer park may have amenities such as a community pool, playground, cable hookups, and so forth, but at a minimum the rent paid to the landlord will include the right to their lot locale, access to water and trash removal, with the tenant being responsible for the paying of his own heat and electricity.

The quality and age of trailer homes varies considerably, from park to park, and from person to person, so that while there are some trailers that appear to be on their last legs, there are, on the other hand, trailers that have both the look and the space on the inside that would remind most people of a real home.  There isn't any doubt that nicer looking trailers as well as the more pleasant or desirable looking trailer parks have a different demographic than most trailer parks that you might run across on a given day, and the reason for that, is typically the type of person that is attracted to or makes a decision to make their residence within a trailer, is the type of person that doesn't usually have access to a lot of income, yet prefers the more open space and room that a trailer represents as well as the impression that by owning their own trailer, they own their own housing, even though they still have a landlord, and a HOA to respond to, and in most cases it is the land, not the trailer, that will appreciate in value over time.

Because there are so many trailer homes in America and the fact that so many of them appear to be in various states of disrepair, those that own trailers, have typically been confronted at one time or another with being summoned by the pejorative term: "trailer trash", and/or people that come across as low-class, crude, dressing poorly, smelling, are often associated with the same term: "trailer trash", even if it is pretty much understood that they don't actually come from or live in a trailer park home.  That, unfortunately, for better or for worse, is the way trailer residents are viewed often by those that don't live in them, don't care to live in them, and don't really care to know anything further.

In an era in which typical housing for sale such as townhomes, condos, and houses may be permanently out of the reach for a significant swath of Americans and with an understanding that apartment dwellings themselves are expensive for what they bring to the table, an opportunity to purchase a trailer is something worth considering as not only is that trailer home your own castle, it is and can be a way to raise a family that feels traditional, and pretty much works.

The Japanese Stock Market Peaked in 1989

On December 29, 1989, the Nikkei Index  stock market index peaked at 38,915.87. As of March, 29, 2016 it stands at not even half of that amount at 17,103.53, which means that those that have invested a substantial amount of their savings into the Nikkei Index or a basket of stocks that are part of that index, have seen their investment eviscerated over the last twenty-six years.  Japan is not some third world country, as it was for a considerable period of time, the second largest economy in the world, second only to America, and even today, it stands as the third largest economy worldwide.  The fact that the Nikkei index has done so poorly in recent times, should be a wakeup call to stock market pundits worldwide, to which, it can be said, that stock markets price in anticipated future events and when that future looks rather bleak for GDP growth, along with aging demographics, little or no population growth, and declining labor participation rate in the workforce, than the stock market will surely reflect those facts.

For instance, as reported by socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com, the decade of 1980-1989 saw Japan's annual GDP growth of 3.95%, followed by a GDP growth rate for the next decade at just 1.19%, and then the GDP growth rate of 2001-2010 was just 0.75%, with the projected rate of GDP growth for this current decade expected to stay under 1%, which is has for the first five years of this decade.  The aging of Japan's population has increased dramatically since 1989, to which at that point, approximately 12% of the Japanese population was 65 or older, whereas as reported by zerohedge.com in 2015, this percentage had increased to an incredibly high 26.7% of the Japanese population, a more than doubling of just over twenty-six years ago. The population of Japan in 1990 was 123,611,000 and by 2015 had grown to just 127,110.00 a paltry increase of less than 3%, but even more worrisome for Japan, in 2010 their population was 128,057,000 so in the ensuing five years, Japan's population had actually decreased, and is projected to continue to decrease, essentially because of Japan's no or very limited immigration policy, with deaths of an aging population now exceeding births.  Finally, in order for GDP to grow, you need both workers and machines, and while the industrialization of Japan is high, its workforce as reported by tradingeconomics.com was at: "…an all time high of 74 percent in June of 1955 and a record low of 58.50 percent in December of 2012," and now rests at 59.30%. 

The bottom line is the underlying fundamentals of a given country are going to be reflected in their stock market and those numbers for Japan have been rather bleak, but a fair reflection of the fact that there is little hope, if any, that their GDP will ever again hit around 4% per annum, as it did during the 1980s; as their population is too old, and older people do not produce nor care to produce as much as those that are in their prime years which is further why the labor force participation rate will not come close to approaching 74% ever again, nor do senior citizens consume as much as those that are in their 30s or 40s or 50s, and with net deaths outnumbering net births in Japan there isn't any realistic prospect of internal growth. 

The thing about stock markets is that they are international, and money has a tendency to gravitate to where both the bargains are, or more importantly, where the growth will be, and that picture would imply that Japan has seen better days, whereas a country such as India has plenty of room to grow and prosper.

NFL Games Times Need to Be More Varied

The majority of NFL games are played on Sunday, and depending upon what part of the continental United States you live on, those games could start as early as 10 AM Pacific time, or as late as 4:25 PM Eastern time, with an additional evening game typically at 8:30 PM Eastern time.  The NFL has 32 teams, of which 17 are in the Eastern time zone, 8 are in the Central time zone, 2 are in the Mountain time zone, and the balance of 5 teams beginning in the 2016 season are in the Pacific time zone.  In every other major sport, except for the NFL, the game time of the sport is typically based on the time zone that the team is located in, so that in basketball the Washington Wizards game would typically start at 7:05 PM Eastern time, whereas the Chicago Bulls game would typically start at 7:05 PM Central time, which is 8:05 Eastern time,  the Denver Nuggets game would typically start at 7:05 PM Mountain time, which is 9:05 Eastern time, and the Los Angeles Lakers game would typically start at 7:05 PM Pacific time, which is 10:05 Eastern time, thereby essentially making each of the games tipping off at the exact same local time, which makes sense, because if 7:05 PM is in the NBA's opinion the best time to schedule a game, they then make sure to schedule it for that local time in all of the markets that the NBA has teams.  On the other hand, the NFL, breaks down their time schedule into essentially two zones, to which the Eastern and Central-based teams typically have their games scheduled at 1 PM Eastern time, which means the Central division home games at actually being held at 12 PM in their respective time zone, and these two time zones as of 2016 season encompass 25 out of the 32 teams.  The Pacific and Mountain-based teams typically have their games around 4:15PM Eastern time, or 1:15PM Pacific time, and therefore 2:15PM Mountain time, for the balance of the 7 out of the 32 teams.  Because of the game time structure as well as the fact that there are many more teams located on the Eastern and Central time zones, most of the NFL games on any given Sunday are the "early" games, meaning that there are far fewer selectionsto watch in the afternoon games.  In addition, probably not taken into account often enough, when a West coast team visits an East coast team, the visiting team is typically playing the East coast team at 1 PM Eastern time, which equates to 10 AM Pacific time, probably giving the East coast team, an additional small percentage of favor against their West coast opponent.

In any given sport, and the NFL is no different, people that live in close proximity to a given NFL team, have a more abiding interest in that local team, so that it makes much more sense that schedules should reflect that fact, indicating that first off, if 1PM is the magic local time for games to be played at on the Eastern and Western coasts, it should also be the magic time to be played at for the Mountain and Central time games.  Additionally, with the exception of games not coming into conflict against the late Sunday night game, NFL teams should have more flexibility to determine their game times so as to maximize their revenue and viewership, in addition to the fact that the NFL should make a concerted effort to have far fewer games scheduled at 10 AM Pacific Time for America's most popular sport.  The bottom line is the NFL needs to take a much more discriminating look at their game times, as by so doing, viewership and interest should incrementally increase.

Mandatory Fingerprints for a Driver's License

To the best of my knowledge there are four States that require either a fingerprint, or thumbprint, in order to receive a driver's license in that State, which are: California, Colorado, Georgia, and Texas; in addition Texas is the only one of these States requiring a complete set of fingerprints in order to receive a driver's license, to which, this law, was overturned in February of 2015.   The fact that these States collect fingerprints whatsoever is disturbing as a driver's license is the primary way that most adults identify themselves.  For many people, fingerprinting carries the stigma of guilt and is typically mandated only for those that are arrested for certain criminal offenses as well as for those that are required to submit to background checks for certain, particular employment opportunities. 

The general purpose of fingerprints is to correlate fingerprints to a database of crimes that have been committed for review, and the fact that all citizens of these respective States have to submit their finger or thumbprint in order to receive a driver's license from such State, seems of questionable Constitutional validity, as this gives the State government, in one place, facial (as in the driver's license color picture), current address of the driver's license applicant, physical description of the driver's license applicants' height, weight, date of birth, as well as eye color, all of which is individually applied to that unique driver's license number, along with the finger or thumbprint to which all of this information can easily be analyzed, correlated, and processed through databases supposedly to make sure that the driver's license applicant has not fraudulently applied for more than one driver's license, to which this information can easily be cross-checked against numerous other databases for crimes of the past, now, or in the future.

When you take a finger or thumbprint along with the other physical and factual characteristics of an individual or instead take his DNA, you have effectively made it public or in this particular case, State policy, that any citizen, using his most likely source of identity, his most likely source to have a means of independent transportation, his most likely source for employment or enrollment of all sorts, a de facto ward of the State, under the thumb of the State, unable or not easily able to escape from the watchful eye of the State.  Today, it is finger or thumbprints, in order to have the privilege to drive in certain States, tomorrow, it may well be DNA, and DNA is considered to be the most accurate forensic tool for law enforcement agencies.

As always, laws such as these are justified by stating that they are to protect us from criminals, terrorists, or to identify illegal aliens, amongst other hobgoblins of fear that the populace needs to be protected from, and as good citizens, it is our duty to obey.  The truth of the matter is that fingerprinting for a driver's license is just one more forge in the chain of our own making, that makes us lesser citizens to those that control our fates, to which these authorities answer to no one but their own fellow privileged and elite mates, who want us docile and under their collective thumbs for their continual exploitation of and for their own enrichment of in return for the safety a hamster gets in a cage with a wheel that goes nowhere but to travel back to where it began.

Knowledge--From Previous Generations to the Next

Knowledge may be acquired by many means of which one of them is experience, and while experience can be a great and wonderful teacher, it isn’t necessarily the best way and certainly isn't the only way to acquire knowledge.  In fact, a significant amount of knowledge that we acquire each and every year comes from school, mentors, fellow associates, and documents in any of its many forms.  This knowledge that we draw upon can be numerous generations old, or of more recent vintage, and all of this knowledge is necessary for the world to continue to advance and to become a better place.  That is to say, it is because of the hard work and discoveries that we have from previous great men and women that we are able to build upon that base and to create even more of worth for our fellow members of mankind and to learn from history of our errors.  This then signifies that knowledge and the passing on of it, is fundamentally a gift that is of great service to our communities and country.

Because knowledge is so important it certainly makes sense to state that those that are selfish in their discoveries and wishing to keep such special knowledge that they have developed to themselves, are doing a grand disservice to mankind, whereas those that take their knowledge and collaborate and pass on this information to others, understanding that a team working together, brick by brick, from one generation to the next, are brightening and making the world a better place.  This signifies that scientific papers, research, conferences of like-minded people, active listening, and good communication, are absolutely essential for the continual improvement of not only people in your community, your State, your country, but also the world at large.

While it is intriguing when two disparate groups are able to essential discover another scientific truth thru independent paths, there are unfortunately far more groups that come to an impasse, for lack of knowledge of things that have previously already been discovered, but unfortunately for these people, they are blithely unaware of. That is why in this era of the worldwide web, so much of our scientific knowledge, should be readily available throughout the world, and thereby like the editors of Wikipedia, that allows worldwide contribution from all, or open source code that allows others to modify the code or to enhance it, changes and improvement can be made "on the fly".

The importance of knowledge being passed successively from one generation to the next, can be viewed as understanding that if each generation had to count on re-discovering the things that other great scientists have discovered, we would, almost at best, barely be able to tread water, which is why we have had epochs such as the "dark ages" to which mankind in a lot of respects, lost the continuity and knowledge of the previous age and regressed in their growth and development to the detriment of living standards, freedom,  happiness, and health. 

The thing about knowledge is everything of worth that you have learned and understood, if you are unable to pass that knowledge onto either your family, friends, or associates in some way, form, or manner, than that knowledge dies within you and will therefore have to be re-discovered or unearthed by someone else, whereas all that you pass on to your progeny or associates will continue to live on in the minds and ideas of generations of today and hopefully for generations yet unborn.  To be selfish with your knowledge is to die onto yourself, whereas to be selfless is to never taste death because your knowledge lives on and is transported through the wisdom of others.

John 10:11-12

In Holy Scripture at John 10:11-12 we read: "I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep. But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep."  This passage is very important because it echoes and crystallizes many of the other actions and sayings of the Christ in his ministry, to which truths built around sheep and shepherds are common throughout scripture, because it was an era when the people were intimately familiar with the importance of both sheep as well as the need for a good shepherd because the community understood well the value of sheep, as sheep provided meat, wool, hides, skin, and milk.

As with many passages of the Christ, there are many layers of interpretation, to which quite clearly we can see that Christ indicates that he is the good shepherd, that is to say, that he is the one to monitor and to take responsibility of his sheep, of his flock, and of his people.  This signifies for the flock that Christ the Shepherd is the one to follow and to respect because He is the one that will protect us and guide us, even unto His own death.  The fact that Jesus refers to himself as the good shepherd is of immense importance, as in other Biblical passages He said that only God was good, so the declaration that he was the good shepherd, indicates that he is one with God. Then too, there is a comparison of the hired hand to a shepherd, to which Christ quickly discriminates between he who cares and is willing to sacrifice all for the good of his community as compared to a man merely working for wages so that when the going gets tough and this hireling finds himself in difficulty of life or limb or of having to take an action of courage, abandons the sheep, because the sheep are not of his own.  This abandonment leaves the sheep without a leader, leaving the sheep susceptible to the ravages that a wolf brings as part of his natural character, along with the fact that the sheep are no longer united, but have scattered to the winds.

This demonstrates too the importance of having true leaders, to which it can be said, that those that perceive that they have no skin in the game, will, when the going gets tough, often abandon their posts without any unnecessary compunction.  Additionally, Christ makes it clear that he is no "fair-weather" shepherd, indeed that He will not as the flock's shepherd abandon his charges, even unto death; it is this sort of responsibility that demonstrates the true merit of a man, it is not therefore how a man behaves when the going is good, but instead how a man behaves when the going gets terribly wrong. 

Christ makes it clear that in this world our decisions matter and that those that profess that they know what is best for us, must not just preach the word, but must also live the word, because the difference between a good shepherd, a hireling, and a wolf are as follows: one will do all he can to protect and to lead his charges, dedicated inexorably to their welfare; while the hireling is just a shell of a man, just a pretender; and the wolf will do what wolves do, which is to exploit situations and weaknesses to their advantage, testing the waters, so as to know whether the shepherd that leads the sheep is the real deal or just a pale imitation of.

Hotels That Refuse to Service Locals

I was very surprised to discover that there are some hotels in America that refuse to provide accommodation for "locals", to which their verbiage reads something like: "No Local rentals, any guest checking in with a ID within a radius of 30 miles from the property will not be able to check in."  In general, a policy like this smells distinctly like another form of discrimination but under the color of, an arbitrary callout, of "no locals". 

To begin with, hotels in general are always going to get a certain percentage of business from locals, for a variety of reasons, some perhaps eminently justified such as needing a room to accommodate unexpected guests, defective plumbing or other issues within their current residence making it uninhabitable, or a prudent break from a spouse to escape from an escalating argument; as well as fairly obvious reasons such as a rendezvous with someone for pleasure, or a meeting with someone about business that rests outside the law, or for general partying.  In all of these above cases, people are going to want to rent at a local hotel because it is convenient for them, which means, that any hotel refusing business to locals, are most definitely turning down business.

From a hotel perspective the reason why a hotel would have a policy of not renting to locals, probably comes down to two basic reasons: the first is that their experience has been that locals have utilized their hotel in a manner that causes inconvenience or headache to management such as noise, unwelcomed visitors, and general partying; the second reason would be that the hotel prefers to rent to tourists because tourists spend more money and are in general, easier to deal with.  Still even taking into account that there might be legitimate reasons for a hotel to want to promote their brand exclusively to non-locals, in general, the more people that you draw upon to stay at your hotel, the higher pricing you will often get, because higher occupancy typically means higher hotel rates.

The real reason though that certain hotels refuse local business, is, no matter how they package it, to be discriminatory, to which the first step, is to paint with a very broad brush stroke, and gave yourself the power to refuse everyone within your community, and then within that power, allow exceptions.  This then follows the path of the old discrimination to which the target, whether they are of the wrong race, creed, age, or whatever, is denied admittance because that is the company policy, to which you as the hotel proprietor simply shrug your shoulders, and state, that is just the way that it is.  The thing is that isn't legal, and no matter how you dress it up, when you make it a policy not to rent to locals, and then proceed to allow in exceptions for those that have the right and appropriate demographic, code words, or excuse, that isn't right.

Now, no doubt, some of these hotels will argue that they really don't rent to any locals, whatsoever, ever.  The thing is what is really the point of a policy like that, because if your concern is that locals will run down the place because they are too loud, too destructive, too much this or that, there are plenty of laws on the books that are able to deal with real disturbances; so then rather than judging all guilty for a few bad apples, why not deal honestly with the content of a man's character.

Hedge Fund Managers Pay Dominates CEOs

If you didn't know any better, you would think, have to think, that the CEO of companies such as Walmart, McDonalds, IBM, and so forth, that employ hundreds of thousands of employees would be the highest paid Executives on earth, and you would be wrong, by a very long shot.  The fact of the matter is even though CEO pay is absolutely currently insane for so many of the largest public companies  in America, to which their pay as reported by Fortune  magazine was brought to light by the reality that: "the ratio between average American CEO pay and worker pay is now 303-to-1," and with huffingtonpost.com reporting that: "In 2014, CEO pay had risen to an average of $16,316,000 compared to only $53,200 for workers,"  you might think with that pay that the monetary compensation for CEOs of the most powerful corporations in the world is insurmountable by anyone else at anytime;  this wouldn't even come close to the real truth, is not even in fact in the same picture frame, as the truly astronomical salaries of today's most highly paid hedge fund operators which are absolutely beyond belief.  For instance, the Institutional Investor reported that the top paid hedge fund manager in 2014 and 2015 was Ken Griffin,  who made $1.3 billion and $1.7 billion in each of those years, respectively, whereas in 2013, the highest paid hedge funder manager, David Tepper, made $3.5 billion, and the numbers of the rest of those in the top 25, in 2015, still are staggering, as the bottom man on that list made $100 million, whereas in comparison in 2015, there was only one CEO that crossed over $100 million, that being Charif Souki of Cheniere Energy.  When it is all said and done, the average yearly CEO pay of an astonishing $16,316,000 in comparison to Ken Griffin's $1.7 billion indicates that Griffin's ratio to average yearly CEO pay is a stunning 104:1.

While hedge fund managers can talk all day about how they have "skin the game" as they invest their own money in their fund and further that nobody is forced to invest with them, and also that their returns on the money invested with them is stupendous, or whatever, even if it really isn't, the bottom line is that hedge fudge managers don’t actually produce anything, they make their money via leverage, arbitration, market inefficiencies, derivatives, information, sources, superior technological throughput, and whatever else that they can successfully exploit for their benefit, which means in a nutshell, that greed  for them is very, very good.

All of the above might be okay, on some basic capitalistic level, but as always, the most powerful and richest people in the world, have unfairly gamed the system for their own benefit, and in this case, probably the most important asset to hedge fund managers, is the fact that their income is very tax efficient because of their ability to use the carried-interest category which allows their gains on investments to be treated as long-term capital gains at a much lower tax rate as opposed to the significantly higher tax rate of ordinary income, to which the likes of you suffer to pay via our hourly pay rate; in addition, they also make it policy to park their assets outside the USA via reinsurance and hence defer profits from any taxation till repatriated back to the United States. 

While CEOs of major corporations are in the business of actually providing a desirable product to customers throughout the world, and subsequently are running companies that provide a valued good or service, hedge fund managers are simply in the business of making money on money, for the sake of making money, while providing nothing of real merit, nothing of real value to society at large, nothing real but their profits at the world's expense.

Debt Accumulation, Debt Payback, Inflation, and Deflation

To anyone that remembers the very high inflation rates that America when through from 1973 through 1982, it may come as a surprise, that pundits  today as well as government policy are intent that there should be a modest inflation rate as promoted by the Federal Reserve of around 2% yearly.  Because inflation erodes the value of money over time, as well as the fact that the rate of inflation has immense implications when it comes to business, corporate, as well as personal investments, you would think that having a stable currency without inflation would be preeminent, but in point of fact, while in a perfect world, that would be true, in the real world, a little inflation is considered to be necessary so as to ward off all fears of the pernicious effects of a downward spiral of economic slowdown or inactivity and pricing declines that outright deflation brings, which occurred to America during the Great Depression, that brought to the fore financial destruction, massive unemployment, and ruin to a wide swath of humanity.  In today's society any return to a depression like economic condition, would bring massive and dangerous civil unrest and thereby must be avoided at all costs.

There are two basic types of money in America, real money in the sense that this is money that you have earned and saved, as compared to money that you have borrowed from a bank or other financial institutions through consumer loans such as a mortgage, car note, school loan, or through a credit card.  Borrowers in America come in all sorts of flavors and sizes, such as: individuals, companies, corporations, stock and bond investors, and government entities of all sorts, and typically the accumulation of that debt has the tendency to become inflationary because that expansion of easy money chases too few goods which artificially pushes up the price of those goods.  It then follows that when borrowed money is being paid back, when debt is being paid off, such as student loans, or credit card debt, or margin accumulation, that because there is now less money dedicated to the purchasing of goods that therefore the pricing of goods must now decrease as well as businesses, in general, slowing down.

A case in point, is the stock market crash of 1929, which is attributed to the fact that speculators need only put down 10% of the value of a given stock, and could therefore leverage up the balance of 90%, so that in point of fact, a brokerage account with a cash deposit of just $10,000, could control $100,000 worth of stock, and while this can be a powerful way to leverage up and make easy money while the going is good, it can also be the fast route to financial ruin when the going gets really bad as it did during that crash.  The bottom line is that when any economy runs on borrowed money and the amount of that money being borrowed hits a ceiling or comes close to maxing out for whatever reasons, than pricing overall will begin to deflate, because the capacity of money has hit a plateau.  In addition, money is loaned out by banks and bank-like instruments to which those banks are dependent upon that money being paid back, as if it is not, than the banks themselves become subject to failure and collapse, because their loans have to be effectively written off or discounted heavily, signifying that the elasticity of money has snapped.

This means that in general the accumulation of debt is inflationary for the economy and correspondingly the paying back of that debt is deflationary, so that when a country and its citizens have borrowed as much as they can reasonably borrowed and probably beyond that prudent point, pricing for goods as well as labor, must fall.

America's ticking Deficit Debt Time bomb

In 1981, America's accumulated public debt first crossed over the $1 trillion dollar mark, to which America's GDP at that point was $6.59 trillion, or a ratio of GDP to accumulative debt to be about 6.5:1.  America, has not had a surplus fiscal budget since 2001, and in the four years of 2009-2012, ran a deficit amount of over $1 trillion dollars in each of those respective years, so that at the present time, our federal accumulated deficit is estimated by usgovernmentspending.com to be at $19,199,207,411,000, of which none of that deficit amount takes into account unfunded liabilities to entitlement programs such as Medicare or Social Security, and America's annual GDP is currently estimated to be at $17,419 trillion or a ratio of GDP to accumulative debt to be about a troubling .907:1, with all this happening in less than two generations.

This type of historic shift to which the accumulative deficit now exceeds the GDP of this great country, as well as the fact that this deficit has picked up an enormous amount of momentum since the turn of the century, basically only indicates one fundamental thing and that is that this government has no intention whatsoever of ever making good on this debt.    We know this because this nation has not been in any Congressional declared war, although it has been at war, since World War II, in addition to the fact that America has not suffered the economic woes of the Great Depression, although it has been in a great recession.  The problem that the American federal government has is basically that they want or demand both "guns and butter" to satisfy both major parties and they don't have the resolve to force the taxpayers to pay for it all.

The basic reason why taxpayers aren't stuck making good on all these deficits is not because the middle case or median paid worker isn't paying enough or their fair share in taxes, because they basically are, but because so many multi-national corporations as well as sophisticated, powerfully connected, and elite rich people aren't paying their appropriate share, but even if all were being taxed fairly, this country would still be running significant deficits, that would still be unsustainable, but not as extreme as they have been over this last generation.

The real issue with this ever growing deficit is the fact that America keeps postponing till tomorrow what it needs to address today, and will not make the cuts necessary in their budget, nor close the loopholes in the tax system to amend these problems, and all that, at best, would perhaps just stop the rot, but do little, if anything to knock down the actual deficit.  When you live in a country to which nobody ever wants their policy budget to be cut, but instead demands or requests more, and further that in this country, nobody wants to pay any more than necessary to the tax man, as even that is too much, and further when you have feckless politicians that just pander to the crowd, and say one thing while doing the exact opposite, than you are dealing with a country that fundamentally is dishonest, imprudent, and a poor steward of its people's money and governance. 

The bottom line is that you wouldn't keep loaning money to a "friend" if he didn't even try to pay you back, and his monetary requests kept getting larger, and he kept postponing paying you back, and he spent your money on wine, woman, and song; you would, at some point have to cut him off.  The party in America keeps going on and on and on, the lies keep growing, but the train long ago left the station, and the people if not of this present generation, than of future generations, will pay for the sins and malfeasance of their fathers.

Honor Killings and Southern Honor

It seems almost inexplicable that honor killings, that is killings of family members for bringing shame upon the family unit, as in a given female family member refusing to participate in an arranged marriage, inappropriate contact by a female with an outside male, elopement, fornication, victim of rape, and other various unsuitable behaviors that demonstrate either outright rebellion against the family unit, or unacceptable events that have disgraced the family,  or in particular obstinacyin any of its forms against one's parents , may lead to actual honor killings in this day and age, but in point of fact, they do.  Perhaps even more upsetting is the fact that these killings against defenseless females are typically not contracted out to "hit men" such as it might be done in America, but are actually committed by family members, against their own family member -- making this filicide or sororicide.   The belief, held by these families that commit these honor killings is that in order to maintain their "honor" within their community they must kill their own daughter or female member that has brought shame of some form onto the family, and only by this blood sacrifice can their family name and status be faithfully restored.

In the antebellum south, there most definitely was a code of southern honor, a code that any good southerner obeyed and was not often recognized as existing in those that hailed from the northern climes.  This southern honor code was primarily based around family and class, especially in recognition that the father was the head of the family, and that females of that family, must have their virtue protected and secured by the males members of said family, as well as for family to maintain at all times, the gentility, manners, courage, and respect that southern blood was made for.  Not too surprisingly, there were times when that southern honor was invaded or violated, to which as part of that honor, the patriarch of the house would for sake of the family and of their honor, respond to this provocation.

The most significant difference between honor killings of today as opposed to southern honor back then is that while the former is the killing of a family member by a family member, sanctioned by the head of the family, the later is the defense of a family member by a family member, sanctioned by the head of the family.  The southern way was never to believe that their woman had voluntarily given themselves up to another man, or compromised themselves in some way, but to believe instead that the honor of their female member had been violated or seduced under false pretences somehow; whereas in honor killings of today, the female is considered to be guilty and held to blame for whatever violation she is accused of, with the family name and position trumping all else.

Primarily, honor killings as well as southern honor both suffer from the same vice, which is the sin of pride.  It is this pride that wrongfully puts family honor as perceived by the patriarch, above all; above truth, above justice, above love, above grace, and above true honor, for to truly honor someone is to humble oneself in front of He who has gifted us all, recognizing that we have, each of us, been founding wanting, yet in His wisdom, our Creator waits for us in timeless patience, wanting to take us back into His fold, for we once were lost, but now we are found.

Welfare Benefits and Labor

 In 2 Thessalonians 3:10 we read: "For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat."  It certainly makes sense that all should contribute in their own way for the benefit of themselves and as members of a given community, and while some may be limited in their contributions by virtue of their age, their health, their mind, and other pertinent considerations, most everyone in some sort of way can provide some contribution to the whole.  In America, aid for the poor and indigent is provided via church organizations and other organized aid facilities akin to it, along with this aid being supplemented or replaced by various governmental welfare agencies.

In regards to churches and the like, the aid that they receive comes from the donations of their constituents, which is primarily voluntary and without compulsion.  However, for various governmental facilities welfare support is provided by compulsory taxation, of which some of that taxation is from the current generation, but yet a significant portion of that relief is provided by future generations that are stuck with paying for the relief and aid of the current poor and indigent, that is passed to them by virtue of the deficit that our federal government runs on a seemingly continuous basis.

America is quite generous in providing welfare benefits for all, including apparently those that are quite capable of contributing to the good of our nation but for whatever reason choose not to do so.  For instance, in any nation or community of substance charitable welfare must be provided for the truly indigent and weak, such as the feeble elderly, the helpless newborns, as well as others that are handicapped to such an extent that they aren't able to provide for themselves without aid.  On the other hand, there are many people that physically and mentally are fine, or at least are capable of being fine, but for whatever reason, aren't willing to apply themselves to work whatsoever for various reasons, some legit, and some most definitely not.

The thing about welfare benefits and aid is that these provisions are not provided out of thin air, instead they are in essence provided by other productive individuals to which, some recipients of said benefits are merely milking the system to their benefit.  This signifies that the government has an obligation to good tax payers to make it their mission policy that those that are desirous of the State providing them with foundational aid in the form of shelter, food, and money, or its equivalencies must also make sure that individuals that are capable of contributing to their community in whatever way, provide a reciprocal service to the State at some minimal level.

If you look around this country, and around your community, there are always things that need improvement or to be repaired or people that need comfort or attention, to which those that desire benefits from the State must do their part in order to serve their community.  The provision of welfare benefits should be carefully monitored for many good and valid reasons, as the more benefits that are handed out as aid to which the government demands nothing in return, or attempts to get nothing back, the more nothing that will be received, and thereby the more corresponding burden that will be placed upon the shoulders of those that are productive, subsidizing in effect those that will not work, have no intention of working, and in effect, supporting the failure of those that will not even try or be held accountable for their lack of labor in any of its myriad forms.

The Racial Genie

There are considered to be five races globally which are: white (Caucasian), black (African-American), brown (Latin American), red (Native American), and yellow (Asian).  In today's society you can choose to identify yourself using one of these or similar categories, or if desired, select that you are mixed.  Whether racial classifications should even matter, or be tracked by the government or other State agencies is debatable but it's done as a matter of policy.

The history of America from the time of its colonization has demonstrated conclusively that race matters, and that the favored race is quite clearly white.  Every other race in America has been suppressed, exploited, discriminated against, and so forth, through force, extralegal means and also quite frequently through the justice system itself.  This racial preference for whites and oppression of all non-whites has been systemic throughout most of America, although within certain religious groups, and communities, there has been historic accommodation. 

That said, America has made enormous progress over the last fifty-odd years to being what it proclaimed it always wanted to be, which is a true melting pot for all, the golden door of freedom and justice; however despite these great strides, study after study demonstrates that America is still a nation that is unequal and unfair especially to many minorities.

Imagine that one evening, a strange dream comes to you, or at least you believe it is a dream, in which a genie enters your room, but before you can even contemplate making your three wishes, the genie makes sure to tell you that he isn't that type of genie, that instead he is a racial genie, and simply states that he can change your race, if you so desire.   To make it more enticing for you, the genie quickly creates four holograms of the races that you could be, to which you find that just by looking at one, you discover that your mind and body melds completely into this hologram and you become that race and that person, in a manner, that feels so real, that it just has to be real. 

While in this body of a different race, you realize as you take on each of them one by one, that many scenes begin to formulate within your mind, as you picture yourself, for instance, as this different person, in an argument at a retail store, or being stopped and questioned by a policeman late at night, or at an interview for college admission, or for a job, or for a promotion, or for a pay raise, or in a negotiation to purchase a home, or looking at your future children, and so forth.  The scenes dance and play within your mind and you remember and are able to recall everything, about how you felt, your fear, your confidence, and your interactions throughout.

Then it all comes to an end and the genie looks at you and asks you whether you wish to make that racial change, and if so, which one,  or whether you prefer to just stand pat with what you have.  The genie makes sure that you understand that this change is permanent and that it cannot be undone, and as a side note he mentions that he is in a bit of a hurry. 

Perhaps the decision you make is easy, perhaps not; perhaps the whole game just seems annoying, but whatever it is, it's probably a mistake to feel that your decision, whatever it is, won't make a difference in your life, cause in almost all instances, it most certainly will.

The Poor v. the Dependent Poor

In 1900 about 40% of Americans lived in urban areas, and the balance lived in rural America.  In 2014, as calculated by tradingeconomies.com, the percentage of Americans living in rural areas was 18.55%.  The advantage of urban areas is that virtually all of life's amenities are readily available, such as: transportation, communication, electricity, indoor plumbing, air conditioning, schools, entertainment and so on.  That isn't to say that these things in some other form aren't typically available in rural areas, as they may well be, but certainly it is indicative that city life offers more modernity, convenience and variety in virtually all aspects of life that just aren't readily available in rural areas.  Of course, one caveat amongst many, is that all of the really good things that you might desire in urban life, cost money, or its money equivalency, so that although there may be great riches and services in city life, that doesn't necessarily mean they are available for the likes of you, especially if you are poor.  In fact, if you are poor in an urban area, you will often find yourself, not only segregated physically from real money and wealth, but also subjected to more arbitrary law and rules that keep you in your place.  Not only that, but because of the guidelines and perverse incentives of the welfare state, you often will find that the most underprivileged of urban residents aren't particularly skilled at much of anything, including work ethics and responsibility, and are therefore not only effectively wards of the State, but in the manner of speaking, totally dependent on the State for their upkeep and welfare.

There was a time back in America when it was far more rural, back before the great mechanization of agricultural and back before the great migration of the underclass to the northern and upper Midwest States, to which in this previous time many of the poor and disadvantaged worked as sharecroppers and/or tenant farmers.  While this existence for those sharecroppers was often exploitive, unfair, and unjust, it did have its merits, namely that the sharecroppers working the land, knew how to grow crops and raise livestock and from this work they were basically self-sufficient and knowledgeable in these areas.  While the sharecroppers were often caught in a cycle of debt that would never allowed them to own their own land outright, at least they were able to provide food and shelter for their families, in an era before governmental handouts.  In addition, and most importantly, this meant that most tenant farmers knew not only how to raise and to tend agricultural produce, such as corn, soybeans, and oats, but also typically how to manage livestock, such as chickens, and goats, and other barnyard animals.  Further, these skills were passed from one generation to the next, so that a poor tenant sharecropping family, knew in effect, how to grow, process, and cook their own food, as well as how to make their own clothes, in addition to maintaining their own shelter and other creature comforts that they needed, to which each member of a given family contributed to the whole.

While sharecroppers were poor and caught up in a system which often exploited them and their labor, at least, they were gainfully employed, dedicated, and self-sufficient with real world skills that they relied upon each and every day--passing on this knowledge from generation to generation.  In today's world, the poor are still with us, with far more amenities to make for a better life, however, too often there are undereducated, with little or low skills, little or no future, oppressed, bored, substance abusers, discriminated against, imprisoned, subject to arbitrary violence, and wouldn't know the first thing about how to pluck a chicken or hoeing the soil and probably don't really care.  

The Media, Access, Police, and News

Most everyone is interested in the news of the day, and of particular note, news that interests them.  While the internet has blown the lid off of our ability to access news in new and interesting ways, such as people that use their cell phone cameras to record and distribute actionable news events, through social media and the like, for the most part, though, media is most definitely controlled by a combination of mass media companies, police agencies, and governmental agencies.

For instance, perhaps in your community there has occurred a particularly notorious crime and you rush to the crime scene, however since you are just a regular citizen you're not going to be granted access to this scene without having proper press credentials, and despite the fact that this particular crime scene is on public property to which all citizens typically are given access to, your access has been denied, in order to keep integrity to the scene, even though you can readily see a couple privileged other authorized press personnel within it .  The bottom line is that access to crime scenes are typically controlled by the local police department, in other words, the police department will issue press passes to certain people and organizations that meet their standards as to the distribution of such a pass and not too surprisingly those press passes will be issued to recognized named media organizations as opposed to those that are freelancers or known muckraking news consortiums.  This means, that the press in order to get access to noteworthy crime scenes and the like, have to on a very basic level, have a symbiotic relationship with police organizations as if they do not, they will not have any product to produce, edit, and present to their audience, and without an audience they will not have the advertising monies that keep them in business.  This means, in these situations, the media whether they want to own up to it or not, will as a matter of policy, make sure to in their presentation and editorial policy not to bite the hand that feeds them, unless there is a firestorm of protest that forces their hand.

The fact of the matter is in order to get access to political, entertainment, and basic newsworthy events, beyond what the average citizen can do, you need to have a press pass and the distribution of press passes are controlled by known mass media outlets, governmental approvals, and police paperwork.  The result is that often times the video that is shot along with the editorial comment that goes with it, are spun by whatever bias that particular media outlet is known for, but in any event, the spin won't be too far outside the acceptable norm of the community standards, so that there may be in effect, only two flavors presented, the conservative viewpoint and the liberal viewpoint and nothing much outside either of these mainstream realms. 

This quid pro quo relationship that the media has with newsworthy events, affects directly the product that is delivered to the public, which means in essence that we are being told what to think by the narrative that is delivered to us.  The best way to verify that this is true, is simply to go to a big media event, and then compare your recollection of the events to what is actually reported, and carefully note the differences, recognizing that, if your story and theirs diverge significantly, this proves the point that the storyteller fits the story to the script that they desire, and the devil with the truth.

The Educational Lie

Study after study has demonstrated that the more educated that you are the higher your salary will be, but like most statistics, there are deceptions within this truism.  For instance, if you live in a small little rural town, and either don't have the ambition or desire to ever leave there, for whatever reason, does it avail you of anything to incur amassive amount of debt, and time spent, to attend a given college to get a degree that will never be actually utilized?  Further, consider people that have not demonstrated academic success at the high school level or the maturity or the study habits or the intelligence to actually take on successfully college materials, should these people even be applying to college?  Additionally, consider the fact that in all likelihood that the most successful college graduates were going to be successful whether they attended a college or not, by virtue of the fact, that they are focused, perceptive, dedicated, responsible, prepared and self-motivated.  The bottom line is not everybody has the right stuff to attend college and further that college is not free--in fact, college can be quite expensive and time consuming.

In June 2014, the Economist reported that: "U.S. student loan debt exceeded $1.2 trillion, with over 7 million debtors in default."  Further, as reported by the Huffingtonpost.com, "Fewer than half of all students who entered college in 2007 finished school where they started, and almost a third are no longer taking classes toward a degree anywhere."  This effectively means that a significant portion of students have attended college but failed to complete their college studies, so they are out both time and money, to which, even bankruptcy, will not discharged these debts which can easily be at $25,000, $50,000, or even more.

Then too there is the problem of Bachelor's degrees, of which, the whole purpose, one would think of receiving the Bachelor's degree, is to find gainful employment using that degree, but in fact, as reported by careerbuilder.com, "Nearly half (47 percent) of college-educated workers said their first job after college was not related to their college major."  This doesn't mean that the Bachelor's degree was of no value, what it does indicate is that their given major had little relevancy to the job that they found employment at, indicating that colleges and employment opportunities appear to be significantly out of sync.  While there is something to be said for pursuing the major of your desire or preference; from a practical level that should also mean that remunerative positions that necessitate that major should also be widely available.

Another mark against the current drive for all to get educated at colleges is the fact that even though there never has been so many with advanced degrees, the GDP in America as a whole over the last decade has been anemic.  As reported by cnsnews.com, as of February 26, 2016, "The United States has now gone a record 10 straight years without 3 percent growth in real Gross Domestic Product."  This would seem to strongly indicate that despite what all the administration big hats wish to propagandize, more educational achievement, does not appear to be the fundamental key to higher GDP growth.  Instead, it would be reasonable to conclude that if students take classes in college, that often don't teach them anything of practical real world value and purpose, but are instead frequently empty of any actual utility value but cost these students real money, you will stagnate growth to the detriment of America as a whole.

The very worst part of the structure of today's higher education, though, is the sticking of massive debt onto the shoulders of young students that have been sold a bag of goods much akin to yesterday's huckster selling elixir that supposedly would cure most every human ailment that you could possibly imagine.  Today's college experience has degenerated and degraded itself far too often into a scam of epic proportions, and instead of that American dream become closer for the millennial generation it is instead getting pushed out further; with census.gov reporting that the home ownership rate by age of householder for those under 35 years of age for the 4th quarter of 2015 stood at 34.7%, the second lowest quarterly rate from 1994 to year ending 2015, with only the 1st quarter of 2015 at 34.6% being even lower, with all this occurring in an era of historically low mortgage interest rates.

Taxes on Groceries

The ubiquitous taxman likes to get his fingers on just about anything and then to tax it, forever.  There are income taxes, property taxes, and all sorts of consumption taxes to which a grocery store tax is a form of a consumption tax.  At the present time there are only fourteen States that charge some sort of sales tax on groceries, with half charging the full State sales tax rate, and the other half charging a reduced percentage of the State sales tax rate.  The thing about groceries is that they are an absolute necessity, and because the poor pay an appreciably higher percentage of their income on groceries, a sales tax on groceries is a very regressive tax and hence unfair.

For instance, according to theatlantic.com, those in the lowest 20% income rate spent 16.1% of their income on food, whereas the upper 20% spent 11.6% of their income on food.  In addition, those in the lowest 20% income rate spent just over 70& of their food budget at home, whereas the upper 20% spent just 53% of their food budget at home.  This means that the poor spent more money as a percentage of their income for food, of which a significantly higher percentage of that food budget was spent at grocery stores as compared to the high income people, signifying that the poor are consciously spending their money in a manner that is of greater efficiency and value to them, yet having at the same time, to pay in certain States, a sales tax penalty for having done so. 

While States have budgets and need to meet their budgetary expectations, charging a sales tax for buying food in a grocery store, even at a discounted rate, unfairly burdens the poor in any given State.  Should any State be in the business of charging a sales tax, against the people, for their necessity of purchasing food at a grocery store in order to live?  While most of the States that charge the full State sales tax provide a route to recover some of the monies spent via a State tax return through rebate or credit, the poorest of the poor won't be able to qualify for this rebate, typically for lack of a tax return, and in addition the rebate itself is not going to recover the amount of monies spent in taxes for groceries throughout the year.

The fact of the matter is if any State is so intent that they absolutely must tax food, they should exempt all grocery store purchases whatsoever from a sales tax, and if necessary, charge a higher tax rate for food that is bought at restaurants.  At least by making this change, you are clearly providing the people a choice, whereby for those that are impoverished they will not have to sacrifice additional monies in order to eat by virtue of their buying groceries, unless they deliberately make a conscious decision to bypass this choice by frequenting a restaurant; whereas for the rich and the well off they probably pretty much won't care, although no doubt they will grumble a bit as is their wont.

Refined Carbohydrates and Acne

While you won't find too many people willing to argue that you don’t need food in order to live and further that too much eating of foods will have a tendency to produce obesity after a certain period of time, there is often a disconnect that the food that we eat probably doesn't affect our skin conditions, even though it affects the amount of space our skin encompasses, and of especial concern, the primary cause of embarrassing acne.   While, there is plenty of documentation or propaganda put out there that says that the food that you consume has absolutely nothing to do with your possible development of acne, there are also medical doctors that have stated that diet most definitely makes a material difference in regards to whether you will or will not get facial acne.  Taking into account, that few people actually desire to have acne, you would think it would behoove them to want to discover the truth of the matter.

For instance, Dr. Bailey at her website: www.drbaileyskincare.com states that: "Scientists have found that people who eat lots of highly refined carbs are more likely to get acne."  In addition, as reported by www.abc.net.au, " There is a growing amount of research suggesting there is a link between diet and pimples (or acne), says Melbourne dermatologist Dr George Varigos… Varigos' research has found a diet high in refined, processed foods creates perfect conditions for pimples."    These medical doctors make it clear that diet and in particular, refined carbohydrates have a strong correlation for the development of acne, which means rather than looking at acne, as a rite of passage for teenagers going through their hormonal changes, it is something that teenagers can take control of, apparently by changing their dietary habits.

Of course, on the other hand, acne and the resolution of it, is something that is very big business for not only Dermatologists but also companies such as Guthy-Renker's industry leader in acne treatment: Proactiv, which was developed by two Dermatologists.  According to Wikipedia.org: "Sales amounted to $800 million a year as of 2010," and Proactiv is just one of many acne treatment products which are sold over-the-counter and are marketed to those suffering from acne and strongly desiring for something to alleviate their skin and acne problems.  Additionally, Dermatologists can and do prescribe medications specifically to address skin acne.

The thing about medicine in the United States is so often the medicine prescribed or the solution offered is to treat the symptom but not to try to diagnose and to treat the underlying problem.  The monetary advantage for doctors or providers of over-the-counter skincare products or medicine is that if the treatment is only of the symptoms, and not of the underlying cause, you will have a constant, consistent, and continuous revenue stream which benefits yourself and your company.  On the other hand, if you deal with the underlying cause, to which the major responsibility of dealing with acne is handed back to the patient in the form of a more proactive course of action in regards to diet, and of the consumption of particular foods that are better for you and your skin as opposed to foods that have a strong tendency to exacerbate the conditions that bring on acne, you have provided good and practical advice, but on the other hand, have possibly undercut your own business income.

For anyone that has children going thru adolescence or remembers that stage themselves, or are in that stage presently, it seems fair and prudent to provide to them information that will empower them to take charge of their lives, and if by so doing, it eliminates or reduces acne, so much the better, as adolescence itself has troubles enough.