No government will stand the test of time if it is not just

Governments come and governments go; even those governments that have written Constitutions and have stood the test of time for more than two hundred years. For no government is immune to suffering the fate of its own demise, even when such governing words as written and propagated are exceeding wise and of immense value for the people.

The very first problem that any government that so desires to be of the benefit to the union of the people, is when the governing representatives of that country are not true to the words of its governing principles, in practice and in its effective operation.  After all, when a country states that all are equal before the law, and that all are equally created, in which each of its compatriots are entitled to fair opportunity, liberty, and their pursuit of that which brings them satisfaction; in which, none of these things are actually occurring in the here and now for that union of people, then that country is obviously not true to its governing principles and that country is not just to the very people that it claims to legitimately represent.

So then, in the governmental compact, that has been voluntarily agreed upon, in which the words and ideals so being disseminated, are not being aided and abetted in principle by the actions and activities of that government, in which, in actuality some of the people are clearly being benefited in an unfair and dishonorable manner, whereas a significant swath of that constituency is  suffering the ill effects of things such as discrimination, unfairness, and injustice; then that government cannot be, a government of, for, and by the people, but rather this represents a government that serves a specific some at the expense of the impotent many.

All of this, makes very clear, that when those that are our governmental representatives, have the audacity to claim that they are supporting justice, fairness, and equality but are none of those very things themselves; then the people have been cheated from their rightful place and position within that sacred compact of those people joining together into one body politic for the benefit of the people.  So that, where there is no justice, there will be no lasting peace; and where there is no fairness, there will be no tranquility; and where there is no equality there will be no fair opportunity.

Those that believe that mere governmental edicts, and laws upon laws, will somehow bring peace, fairness, and prosperity for all are grossly mistaken.  Rather, good governance requires an active government, of which those representatives as well as the enactors and makers of the laws, are by their actions and activities, always open and transparent with the people; in which the abiding principle of that government, is that no one individual is ever above the law, but rather that all are to be held equally accountable to good Constitutional law, so as to provide to each of those people, a fair chance to benefit from that union of the people, for the betterment of the people, and be therefore the land that truly embodies justice for all.

The global economy

So many of the common products that we utilize in our lives, come either directly from foreign nations, or contain some components or input from foreign nations.  So too, significant markets of many of our biggest corporations are foreign, and those products being sold are in many instances, containing components that are foreign in origin and/or foreign in some aspect of the manufacturing process. 

All of the above basically means that mankind has recognized the wisdom of utilizing people and materials that are available for such, all over the world, which makes for a far more efficient and effective way to bring products that people desire to the market; of which, some of these products would not be able to be manufactured or created, without that ability to utilize foreign involvement. 

As might be expected, when it comes in particular to businesses, that once any company becomes dependent upon things such as cheap foreign labor being available, or the need for the sourcing of product to come from foreign nations, or any these various forms in combination, of which, to lose that access, would thereby leave these corporations quite vulnerable to having their ability to create profitable product, reduced or truncated, than those companies will as a matter of course, want to be in the position, to the degree that such is possible, to prevent these very things from happening.  Additionally, once market doors are open so that exports can be made into foreign countries, corporations have a strong vested interest that those doors shall ever remain open, and that they not be barred ever, especially by unexpected or unwarranted tariffs, or unanticipated foreign governmental actions, of which if any of these adverse things should occur, corporations would thereupon have a strong desire of wanting to see such, overturned.

The fact that so much trade is global both in its sourcing as well as in the selling of such, would appear to be one of those things that is beneficial for all parties involved; for consumers become the beneficiaries of products that are of more value to them at a cheaper price point, as well as corporations are able to sell more product and typically do so at a higher gross margin.  On the negative side, though, is the fact that domestic industries that utilize a labor component in which that labor element is not competitive in contrast to foreign nations, puts not only intense pressure upon those domestic wages being maintained, let alone increased, but also intense pressure upon the continuance of even gainful employment.  Further, those corporations that are dependent upon sales to foreign nations and/or foreign sourced components and cheap labor, will not look kindly to seeing such, disrupted.

This thus means that on the one hand while global connections makes for nation-states realizing the obvious benefits of trade routes being continuously open, it would also be indicative that strong and powerful corporations prefer to work almost exclusively within domains in which once a deal is structured, it is held inviolable, and are not terribly interested in democratic institutions that could possibly upset that status quo.  Additionally, major corporations also find especially pernicious, a given country’s revolutionary actions, unless such is instigated or sponsored by the nation-state the corporation is located in.

So that, a world filled with global trade and global connections, is a world that probably cedes more control to corporations and their profit interests than is prudent, which may not be as benign as it might initially appear, for money and the lust for ever increasing profit and sales, tends to lead to decisions that favor the few and connected over the many.

The ties that bind us

We all have ties to other people and principles, some of which are stronger than others, of which these ties are created so that we bond, for instance, with our family, our friends, our fellow laborers, our community, our fellow church members, and our country.  To the degree that these bonds are in conformance one with another, all is good; but, to the degree that these bonds are not compatible with each other or in conflict one with another, such thereby determines which of those bonds actually is of more significance and often of more merit.

After all, each of us has a responsibility to uphold the integrity of whom and what we really are, and what it is that we are thereby representing.  So that, when one bond conflicts with another bond, a determination must be made as to what we will be true to; in which, therefore, there must be a hierarchy of where each of those bonds resides within our given psyche.

The true test of anybody’s faith, belief, or ties one with another, is when that faith is tested by something else that is tugging upon the conscience or commitment of that person.  So that, as it has been said, a house divided, will not stand; for each of us must either be wholly one thing or wholly another, or else our integrity will not only be called into question, but such will vacillate from time-to-time and day-to-day, making us, at best, a fair weather friend, that stays true only to the direction that the prevailing wind is blowing at that moment.

This signifies that each of us must take a thorough inventory of who and what we really are, in the recognition that we will be tested in the real world, and that in acknowledgment that those that are prepared fare far better than those that are not, we thereby prepare ourselves.  For if we are not true to that which means the most to us, than our lack of courage and integrity reflects that we are not in reality, the type of person that honors their most important bonds.

The ties that bind us most closely to others are those ties that we stand by, come what may.  This means that the decisions that we reach and the actions that we subsequently take, should be in harmony with those ties that are of utmost value to us.  So that, we are consistent that our beliefs and thereby our actions, are true and inviolable.

Those ties that bind us most intimately to one another, are those ties that when combined with similar believers, makes those bonds appreciably higher than they ever could be, separately.  This indicates that the very best communities and families are those communities and families that have found a common cause, typically that is beyond their own self-serving interests, that benefits the collective in whole, in which, those that have joined together into one body politic, will not break; for that which has bound them one to another, has made them wholly one.

Those that will not pay their fair share in taxes are not good for their country

There aren't a lot of people or corporations that are eager or delighted to pay their hard earned money via taxes; yet, in consideration that governments, need taxes in order to perform necessary and structural governmental functions for the benefit of the people, such taxes need then be paid.  Further to the point, the more that taxes are straightforward and compulsory, without options, loopholes, and avoidances, the more that the public and corporations will hold accountable those that are our representatives in government, so that the budgets so proposed and subsequently enacted, are budgets that consist of needful things for those members that make up the republic.

Obviously, based on the fact that America in the 21st century, has consistently run massive national deficits, of which, there does not currently appear to be a pathway for America, becoming fiscally sound anytime soon, it can only be reasonably concluded that, first, those that are supposed to pay their fair share of taxes are not doing so; and secondly, those creating governmental budgets for the expenditures of monies that are not scheduled to be collected in harmony with such a budget, are not being fiscally responsible.  After all, when governmental expenses consistently run higher than the revenues that are being collected, this then is not a sustainable model for a given country, for as deficits and thereby debts grow ever larger, these are inimical to the fiscal soundness of that country.

According to the thebalance.com it is anticipated that income taxes will contribute about 50% of taxes so collected by the national government in fiscal year 2021, in comparison to corporate taxes that are estimated to represent just 7%.  To place such a great burden upon the laborers of the corporate products so created, while allowing corporations to pay an appreciably smaller burden is hardly fair or appropriate.  This present situation isn't terribly surprising, since corporations have billions upon billions of dollars at their disposal to influence all sorts of governmental policies, including, in particular, taxing policies, of which, quite clearly they have been quite effective at such.  In fact, as reported by americansfortaxfairness.org, corporations back in the 1950s actually paid about 33% of the federal tax revenue collected at that time as compared to the current projection of just 7% for 2021.  Further to the point, the richest of the rich, are paying less in individual taxes than they did in the 1950s, and their estates are also being taxed today at a lesser rate, than they were in the 1950s.

The bottom line when it comes to taxation, is that this country and its present day policies, focus far more than they really should on getting ordinary Americans to carry far more taxation weight than they need to; as compared to concentrating on collecting a lot more money from those corporations and select individuals that already have more than enough money than they really need.  The reason that this is occurring is because our feckless governmental representatives are unwilling and seemingly unable to enact fair and transparent taxing policies that will tax those that have way more than enough, thereby placing an unfair burden on ordinary Americans and an unnecessary burden on those future Americans, not yet born.

Only the Master Controller, has no fear

The fear of lost, of abandonment, of health, of employment, of wealth, of security and so many other things are part and parcel of most people's lives.  We fear these things not only because losing such could seemingly cost us everything, but mainly we fear them greatly because in many instances, we do not have the power or the inherent ability to completely stop or to fully control that which fears us excessively; and lacking that power, means that we are vulnerable, and being vulnerable means that we apparently are not the master controller of our lives or our destiny.

In point of fact, only that which is the Creator of it all, of which that Creator is immutable, invincible, and unassailable, never knows fear; for nothing, not now, and not ever, can ever take what is rightfully in the domain of the Creator from that omnipotent Creator.  On the other hand, we as fallible human beings, should recognize at a very early age, that because we are fallible, and further that within this incarnate experience here on earth, being that we are beholden to the laws and limitations that our physical body presents to us, as well as the complications of integrating with others that have different minds, different priorities, and are free agents, themselves; that we as much as we might try or wish, cannot control others, or even to a certain degree, control our own life as it relates to our desires for our self.

This thus signifies that those that cannot control the outcomes that they so deeply desire, or are ever fearful of what they have at the present time and do greatly value, such as good health, a good family, or a good job, are worried that what they do currently have is something that try as they might, they won't be able to forever hold onto.  To a very large extent, this is true, for everything that relates to this planet and our physical presence upon it, is only ours for a finite amount of time, no matter, how long we battle or how determined that we are that such will be different.

So then, logically, to be fearful or afraid of that which cannot ever be ours on a permanent basis is to worry about something that need not be worried about, for it could never be fully ours, to begin with.  So too, an enormous amount of time and resources are spent in the vain hope that we, at some future point, will be able to control that which is not in our control, and never will be in our control.  Even those, that intuitively recognize this truth, will somehow still believe that if they store up enough goods in their inviolable storehouse, that all will be well, but earthy treasures are susceptible to not only the ravages of time, but to the vagaries of life, which can be quite sudden and very sure.

We fear that which we believe we own, being wrested away from us, but that which we truly own, cannot ever be taken away from us.  So that, only those attributes which are eternal and good such as love, justice, and truth -- only these are eternal, and these are the very building blocks that drive out fear, for fear only lives in that which lacks these very characteristics.

Punishment certainty and punishment severity

According to Wikipedia.org, "In September 2013, the incarceration rate of the United States of America was the highest in the world at 716 per 100,000 of the national population."  This indicates that America is a prime believer that those that commit criminal acts need to be certainly punished.  Or does it?  The reason why there appears to be some legitimate debate about this, is the fact that the American jurisprudence allows, for certain crimes, notorious or not, a multitude of ways to petition the courts, so as to delay judicial actions within courts, so that justice is delayed again and again; or else through negotiation between lawyers and the court, decisions are thereby molded and subsequently rendered; or through plea bargains; so that the effect is that what may appear to be certain as in the law as written, does not nearly appear to be so certain, as the law so exercised.

The reason that this matters is because, those that believe, that the illegal actions that they are taking are subject to being interpreted in a manner in which those lawbreakers will not personally have to suffer, or suffer much because they are, for whatever reason, effectively above the law to the degree that the law will not impact them negatively as it would for someone of lesser stature or position, then there clearly is no punishment certainty in that case, which therefore makes the punishment severity of the law so written, pretty much irrelevant.   Further to the point, when those that have a lot of influence and/or money, are able to buy time by that influence and money, so as to delay justice, in which, while such justice is pending, they are able to thereby live their lives as if they weren't even charge of a crime, then any punishment certainty or punishment severity have taken a backseat to the fact that the wheels of justice are not even in motion, and those that are able to buy time in the justice world, are often those that are able to buy an acceptable result to that justice, when such is eventually rendered.  Finally, there are those that are protected in regards to their illegal actions by virtue of such being done through the means of a corporate entity, so that that whatever punishment is finally determined, will not hold anyone personally accountable, but rather will be a decision that will involve a corporate, but not a personal, penalty.

So too, when it comes to punishment and the severity of such, those that suffer the most from this severity are those that are the poorest and least able to vigorously and competently defend themselves in a court of law.  The fact that so many are incarcerated for so long in America, indicates that severity does not stop criminal activity, although it does do a very good job, of severely punishing those that have no influence, no status, and no hope.

If, American concentrated far less on punishment severity and far more on punishment certainty, in which, connections, money, influence, and the protection of corporate entities were not permitted to play a part in American jurisprudence then this could very well impact the amount of crimes so committed in this country, for when people that commit crimes, know for a certainty, that should they be caught, that justice for them would be sure, swift, equal, just and fair; of which no appeals would be permitted, then that certainty would make them far more guarded in what they do, or contemplate so doing, for when criminals know that there is no legitimate way out for what they have committed, the price that they pay has become appreciably higher.

The sin we create

The sin and wrong that we do in our lives, happen for a lot of various reasons, of which, some of those sins and wrongs are done by ignorance, though, in truth, not many; and most of those sins and wrongs are done through our own volition, though many often blame others or circumstances for such occurring, as if that blame, will somehow make each of us, less culpable, individually. 

The far better perspective to take about sin and wrong deeds, is to first recognize the truth that we are each responsible for what we do, say, and become.  To believe, that somehow that we are not, presupposes that we do not have free will, and while there very well may be circumstances in which our free will is circumscribed, there are always choices to be made, and by our subsequent actions, this is what we must answer for in life.

It must be fairly recognized, that how we are brought up, how we are taught, and the people that we congregate with, are all absolutely germane in our understanding of society and of life; of which, those that are deceived, such as being taught that wrong is right, are going to have to make up quite some distance in order to get back onto the right side of seeing and doing things, correctly.  That is why it is of critical importance to everyone, to understand that their thoughts and their mind are their own property, and none else; so that therefore they need to take responsibility and thereby own that awesome personal power, as soon as they are able, in recognition that they are sovereign agents, and hence responsible, for what they say and do.

So then, the sin and wrongs that we do, often comes down to not comprehending correctly who and what we really are; of which, those that are taught at a very young age, the truth of who and what they truly are, are quite fortunate for being gifted with this profound knowledge, for those that know the truth, are more inclined to be adherents to that truth, because they are cognizant that to not do so, is detrimental to them as well as to society, at large.

This signifies that fundamentally there must be an acknowledgment within each one of us, that we are gifted by our Creator with free will, and by that gift, this thereby signifies that we are individually responsible for all that we say and do; of which, unlike justice in this world, which can often be bought, or circumvented for some, or suffered unjustly by many; the only justice that truly matters is the one that each one of us will face, which is always fairly and equally applied. 

So then, sin is created, every time that we do something wrong; of which, in short, we knew better, but we did not do better.  This means, that within each one of us, is the power to sin, or to not sin, and that our choices do so matter.  So that, our society, and the world that we live in, represents the sin and wrongs that collectively we are; of which, the change that so many people talk about or desire to have, is now and always has been, collectively in our hands, indicative of those free will acts that we make each and every day; of which, those that know the truth of who and what they are, should not only lead by example, but need to do more to help and to show others the way.

The streaming of commercial TV should be free

Before there was cable, fiber optics, and the internet, in order for the general population to watch television, they utilized an outdoor antenna to thus bring into their living rooms, television programs.  This meant that back in the day, people watched television for free, and since it obviously cost money for the broadcasters of those television programs, to not only setup the infrastructure in order to provide those programs to the population, but also for the costs so associated with the content of those programs; they then, in order to make their profit, meant that those broadcasters needed the revenue that they could collect from commercial advertisers, which were delighted for the opportunity to advertise their wares to a captive audience as well as on a large scale.  Such a business model, worked out quite well for the likes of ABC, CBS, and NBC, of which, these three major networks still are quite strong and are still relevant in the 21st century.

To be clear, even today, those that have modern day antennas or their equivalency can still access the commercial broadcast content for free, as opposed to having to get such from the cable providers or via streaming.  However, there are a multitude of people that prefer the convenience of accessing television programs via streaming such onto their smart phones or tablets.  Some of the content so streamed, costs the consumer of such, money; and some of what is streamed, is free.  It would seem, especially in consideration that commercial broadcasters have the economies of scale in their favor, that as long as they are receiving the bulk of their revenue through commercial advertising, that it would be in their best interests, to the degree possible, to concentrate more on increasing their viewership, in lieu of charging for such content accessed through streaming devices, which very well might decrease viewership, especially of those of the younger generation.

When it comes to commercial advertisers, the more actionable information that a given market can provide to them and the more specificity about that information so obtained, the more that this is of interest to them, for advertisers are in the business of soliciting in particular those that match the demographics that they find to be most desirable.  So that, when those that stream commercial television onto their smart device, are required to register with that commercial television broadcaster, in which, that broadcaster, knows the gender of, the age of, the location of, along with all sorts of other data points, and in particular, what content this person is watching, then this would seem to be of immense value for those that are advertisers. 

Commercial television has been around since 1941, and those that first staring watching television, do not watch commercial television in the same way as our present day youth.  This signifies that in an age in which it never has been cheaper or easier to accumulate very specific information about individuals and their viewing habits, that those that are commercial broadcasters, should want to, as much as they have in their control, to increase their viewership in every way possible, and therefore, should be far less inclined to desire to actual charge for their content.

To truly honor truth, you must thereby live up to truth in all that you do

The highest aspiration of a good life, is to seek truth, above all else; for if that is not a person's given goal, then they for a certainty are living a life of deceit, of which, the only concern would then be whether that life of deceit is solely their own personal cross to bear, or rather whether it is something, that they, more than likely, have also passed onto others of its baleful influence, directly or indirectly.  This thus signifies that anyone that deliberately and knowingly espouses information that purports to be true, but that is actually false, has done a great disservice to themselves as well as to others.

So too, there are many a person that desires to know the truth, or aspires to live their lives in a truthful manner, until such a time, as they are tested by trying circumstances in which, if they continue to faithfully stand by the truth, they believe that this will surely cost them something of real value; which may be their status, or their livelihood, or something else of immense significance. If then, when put to the test, and thereby given the opportunity to testify and to uphold the truth, a given person, fails in that task, then surely it must be stated, that they have dishonored truth, by that failure.

Those that know the truth, but in their actions and by their words, deny that same truth, are obviously divided in their being, and that which is at war within itself, cannot ever find lasting peace.  So that, the more that any person or any community or any country, for that matter, fails to live up to honoring truth in all that they do and say, the more division and disharmony there will be.  Those that believe, that somehow it's okay to not be truthful, or to not acknowledge truth, from time-to-time, because of a particular circumstance or a special condition, believe therefore that fixed ethical and moral rules, aren't actually fixed, but are actually flexible and thereby changeable in regards to those particular circumstances and special conditions.  To really believe such, is to believe that there are times when truth must thereby take a back seat to expediency and to actually believe such, is an exceedingly dangerous slippery slope.

Know this; you cannot properly honor that which you dishonor, by not living up to the standards that are required to demonstrate that honor.  This means that to honor truth, you must live up to the truth, in all circumstances and in all conditions, for those that do not, desire only a cheap truth, that bends and conforms to whatever one's ego so demands.  Rather, to demonstrate real honor, you must be willing to do whatever that it takes to maintain that honor, no matter how arduous and how difficult that road may be, for anything that is of immense value, demands that sacrifices be made, and those that will not pay homage to the price that truth demands, are dishonoring truth, by their self-serving deceit.

Unprincipled politicians

The politicians that represent us and thereupon have influence upon public policy and the like are democratically elected by the people and subsequently take their place in the public square as representatives of the people, with the commitment to faithfully do right by those people.  To the degree that these elected representatives are transparent, open, in conformance to, and honest with the people in all that they do and say in regards to politics so made and the corresponding decisions so reached, they thereby represent the interests of the people quite well, and consequently these politicians are almost surely being of benefit to the people.  On the other hand, to the degree that these politicians are evasive, opaque, in non-conformance to, and  dishonest with the people, in which what they are really doing, thinking, saying, and accomplishing is often or primarily done behind closed doors and such is done in a manner in which if the people were aware of what was really going on, this would change their perceptions thereof; than these politicians are almost surely selling short the people that they represent, and often are doing so, in order for them or certain well positioned people or institutions, to benefit, at the expense of those people.

First and foremost, politicians are the representatives of the people, and thereby their highest duty is to serve those people, as if they, our representatives, were the very embodiment of the people, to the extent that such is possible.  No doubt, in the world of politics, compromises will have to be made, and deals will have be struck, but none of this should ever be done in a manner in which the people are somehow left always with the short end of the stick.

Those that run for office and thereupon win that office, have a moral and ethical duty to serve those that have elected them in a responsible and competent manner, by utilizing their political power and influence in a way that benefits the people; in contrast to doing such, in a manner in which a few are benefited, or even just that one being benefited.  It is one thing to make an honest mistake, or to be outmaneuvered or even outplayed, for this happens to even the best of us; but, it is an entirely different thing for politicians to deliberately and with aforethought strike deals that are inimical to the public at large, and especially loathsome, when done to benefit that politician, personally.

When our politicians are dishonest, greedy, two-faced, and the like; it is then no wonder why the public follows thereby in suit, by cheating on their taxes, by failing to volunteer for civic duties, and by turning their back upon the legitimate needs of their own community.  A politician that is principled and dedicated to the proposition that all of mankind is equal, and thereby deserving of fair opportunity, fair justice, and fair dealings, embodies in spirit, the greatness of what these United States was created to be.  Whereas, a politician that is unprincipled, represents an instigator and perpetrator of the force that would divide this very house, to such an extent, that it will not stand, and mighty will be its fall.

Economic warfare v. conventional warfare

The United States is an empire, and for whatever reasons, good or bad, insists upon having its imprint upon just about every facet of significance where it can do so, throughout the world.  Not too surprisingly, and very disappointedly, America far too often reaches for the military option, and therefore has military engagements in far too many conflicts throughout the world, of which, whatever its objectives may be, or reasons thereof, seems in recent times to hardly ever get it right. 

When it comes to disagreements, there isn't any doubt, that considering that America is the preeminent military power in the world, of which there is no single country, or even consortium of countries that could ever hope to stand up against that American power; still leaves us with the rather puzzling result that the majority of those military entanglements clearly indicates that such adventures or misadventures haven't been satisfactory in the outcome so obtained.  This would strongly imply that rather than continuing to demonstrate its misguided quick trigger response to different hot spots throughout the world, that America would be far better served, if it would more often consider that there is more than one way to deal with conflict, other than that straight military muscle.

For instance, the world has become considerably smaller over the last few decades, in which, one would be hard pressed to list any major country that doesn't have some sort of major involvement in regards to the economic necessity of the importing and exporting of certain goods, of which, those goods have not only a material effect upon that country, but are often of utmost importance to that country.  Further to the point, the transfer of monies from buyer to seller, or vice versa, is typically done via electronic means, so that, funds of nation-states aren't typically held interior to that country in some sort of lock safe which contains gold bullion or similar, but rather assets of countries are held electronically within banks or banking like instruments, that are often international in scale.

So then, for recalcitrant countries, a means to bring them to heel, so to speak, is to impact both their importing and exporting, as well as to freeze or to divert funds that are earmarked for those nations.  None of this should be done without first giving fair warning to those countries, of which, the conditions to be met, should have previously been discussed on an international scale, and the decisions so reached should be an agreement between a confederacy of countries, as opposed to it simply being the unilateral action of one country, for if a country such as America, cannot convince its allies and other respected countries, that its proposed actions are both right and proper, then America needs to rethink or reargue as to whether its proposed actions are actually justified.

While it must be said that economic sanctions take more time to have impact than direct military action, they will, given enough time, be effective.  For, when a country does not have the ready means to buy or no longer has the credit to import the items so needed; as well as having their export markets suddenly dry up, they will feel that economic envelopment in the most uncomfortable way, and thereby as their lifeblood slowly drains out of their body, often find a way to come to a reasonable agreement, sooner or later.

Population matters: Europe v. China

The amount of square miles of land occupied by all of Europe in comparison to China is about the same, with Europe having about 6% more land than China in square miles.  In regards to the population between China and Europe, in 1950, the population of both areas was also about the same with China having a small edge in population of 554,419,268 peoples in comparison to Europe's 549,328,858.  It is estimated that in 2020, China's population as reported by worldometers.info is 1,439,323,776; whereas Europe's population is 747,636,026, or a near doubling of peoples in China as in comparison to Europe. 

When it comes to the per capita gross domestic product (GDP) of China in 1950, this was just a paltry $614; whereas France's GDP in 1950 was $5,221 or more than eight times the amount of China.  However, in 2018, China's per capita GDP had increased to $9,580, in comparison to France, which though much higher at $42,953 was now just four and a half times the amount of China.  In aggregate, however, all of Europe has a GDP as of 2018 of $18.7 billion, in comparison to China, which is at$13.4 billion, in which the GDP of Europe is approximately 40% bigger than China, though the gap is projected to continue to decrease over the ensuing years.

All of this surely indicates that China is on course to soon match and to thereby surpass all of Europe in its GDP, which indicates that China in many important respects will thereby carry far more weight and influence upon world affairs then it did back in 1950, when the populations of Europe and China were about the same.  This clearly is indicative that the world is changing and that western civilization and especially Europe must now recognize, if it has not already done so, that the powers to be, cannot be solely western but must be shared with other nations, such as China, Japan, India, Russia, and others.

So too, the productivity of any nation rests upon many factors and facets, of which one of the most salient has to be, the sheer number of peoples contained with a given nation.  So that, population matters and if Europe which is slightly bigger in land mass than China in aggregate, had been able to keep their population growth on or around the same trajectory as China achieved over the last seventy odd years, then undoubtedly, the world stage, would be leaning far more to Europe then it does at the present time, of which this path will not easily change in the years to come.

So then, countries that do a poor job in growing their population must surely recognize that nations that do not replace their productive members with additional productive members, no matter their country of origin -- are societies which will inevitably decline.  This signifies that those that insist upon closed borders and thereby the exclusion of motivated peoples that wish to immigrate into their countries are in imminent danger of increasing their decline at a more precipitous rate, because the numbers of people contained with a given country, are part and parcel of whether such a nation or confederation of nations, will continue to be relevant or will instead cede their historic place and value to those that are the up and comers.

The right credit and the wrong credit

The United States economy, and so much of the world today runs on credit, rather than just the cash or assets that a given company, banking institution, or country has at their ready disposal, in which some of that credit provided is secured against assets, and some of that credit provided, is simply provided based on the perceived credit worthiness and stability of that institution, so that having the ready access to monetary credit, allows such the opportunity to maintain, sustain, and to expand their economic growth.  To the degree that credit is provided to institutions, in which that credit is thereby utilized to employ people as well as to expand businesses and the products so produced, such is more than likely to be good, and a contributing factor to the expansion and growth of a given country's gross national product. 

So too, through student loans, credit card loans, mortgages, car loans, and the like, credit is extended to individuals, based on their credit worthiness as well as their income.  Those loans so provided to consumers, allows those consumers to purchase in the here and now, items that they have a need of, or a desire for, as opposed to having to wait until their monetary assets equals exactly those things that they desire to purchase.  When that credit is provided to consumers in which they have the prudent means or the projected prudent means to pay such back in a timely and reliable manner, such is beneficial for the consumption of items so produced in a given country; whereas, on the other hand, when that credit is provided to those that are suspect in their capacity to maintain their credit standing, or the price of that credit is too high or too onerous, that credit so extended, perpetuates a greater and greater divide between those that have and those that have not.

Specifically, in regards to credit being extended to corporations, it must be noted, that corporations that thereupon utilize credit obtained merely to take such monies and thereby purchase their own stock, in stock buybacks, or thereby to park their money into treasury bonds, or the stock market, or things that do not directly grow the business, nor add to the employment of people, nor increase the growth of that company or the gross national product, is credit that has been provided, which does not serve the people, in whole, well.

So too, credit provided to institutions as well as to individuals, which rather than being spent or utilized in the creation of things and objects that are of material worth to the general public or to the infrastructure, when utilized instead for endless speculation of financial instruments, or for chicanery to make or to extract money from others, is surely a zero-sum game, which does not benefit the country or its people, in whole.  So that, the right credit so issued should be defined as credit that is utilized in a manner in which economies expand through the production of goods of value, and that consumers of such, willingly purchase or utilize, for it brings value to them or to the infrastructure that they are an integral part of.  This stands in contrast to the wrong credit so issued in which those institutions and individuals utilized such, mainly for the purpose of selfishly making money from money, primarily for their own aggrandizement, however that they can do so, without creating anything of value, and caring not for their fellow citizens, which typically have been the ones so exploited, or taken advantage of.

Ethics and science

As mankind becomes more advanced, in many ways, it is recognized that science, has the capacity to change not just those things that we deal with on an everyday basis, so that these things will be beneficial for our desires and needs, but that science at this stage, has the very ability to change some fundamental aspects of life, itself.  For instance, without modern science, procedures such as in vitro fertilization would not exist, and those human babies coming forth thereby from in vitro fertilization would not be in existence.

This awesome power signifies, that scientific mankind, has an absolute obligation, to never in the scientific world, to simply have the attitude of "full speed ahead", but must on the contrary, understand that science has an absolute ethical obligation to be subservient to that which defines us as humanity, or else science has devolved into the error of the belief that science has the absolute right to create, without restraint, things such as Dr. Frankenstein's monster.

At this point, science is truly on the razor's edge, for in many aspects of life and the pursuit of what life is, science has the power to make quite meaningful change; but just because that power and that choice exists, does not mean that science should pursue such, without being bounded by a higher duty to do right by mankind, itself.  So then, the highest duty that all aspects of science has in their scientific pursuits is the recognition that the field of science was created, for the sole benefit of mankind, and not therefore to make mankind subservient to science, but for science to be of noble service to mankind, always.

This means that those that believe that man's natural curiosity and pursuit of all things, scientific, need not and should not be constrained by its higher duty to mankind and to ethics in general, is wrong-headed, and such a belief in and of itself, can be a clear and present danger to society and its good future. Again and again, far too many people of uncommon brilliance aggrandize onto themselves, that such supreme intelligence that they thereby have developed and utilized, in conjunction with the fact that they are accorded free will and freedom, indicates that they, alone, or with like-minded constituents, should not be stopped by anyone or anything in regards to the apparent progression or path that they are on.

As it has been said, those that make haste, in which a sound and prudent mind, considers instead the ramifications of their discoveries and their implications, are the very people that can upset the balance of what makes life and humanity, sustainable and ethical.  It must be wholly and fully acknowledged that while any subject matter can be abused or wrongly used, that it is science, above all, that pushes the envelope of the progress of mankind in a manner in which something that may appear to be on the surface of benefit and of aid to mankind, has behind its façade, quite horrifying implications, that have not been properly vetted.  So then, science, in order for it to be of good service to mankind, must always recognized that it must ever be the servant to, but never the master of, mankind.

The power of life and death upon patients

Modern medicine and modern facilities, has permitted those that are in seriously ill health often to continue to live; in which these very ill patients because they are receiving good quality medical care, along with the medical equipment that helps to deliver such, as well as certain necessary pharmaceuticals, are able to nowadays stay alive, whereas in absence of any or most of these very things, their ability to live, previously to such, would have been very problematic.  This thus signifies that modern medicine, is able to extend the lives of many individuals, though the quality of that life, for these extended lives, will vary from those that seemingly will never be able to sustain their own lives without the active assistance of medical equipment and thereby the necessary corresponding medical attention, to those that will, given enough time, with recovery and rehabilitation, in all probability, be able to be eventually self-sufficient, at some future point.

Further to the point, the medical profession, unlike those that just have a personal interest in the person so suffering from that ill health, are often able to determine to a reasonable degree, because of their expertise as well as their experience, those that are never going to be able to be self-sustainable, those that they are somewhat unsure of, and those that they are convinced have a very good chance of recovery. This signifies that the medical profession clearly is more knowledgeable about the reality of each specific situation in regards to ill patients, as opposed to those that are simply concerned family members and the like.  So then, it clearly is the medical profession that truly has the knowledge as well as the means to the prudent utilization of the power of life and death in regards to very ill patients, in which that power consists of such things as the treatments and medicines provided to patients, as well as the mixture of ministrations so provided or not, and additionally the drugs so provided and the dosages thereof.

Whether the administration of treatment or lack thereof, and whether the administration of drugs, especially in regards to the dosages of those drugs and the purpose of those drugs, is classified as appropriate or not, really comes down to the salient intent of those that are making those medical decisions in regards to those treatments and drug dosages.  This means, that it is critical that the medical profession does not have conflicting interests in regards to the patients that they treat, because interests that are conflicted or not clearly delineated, make for decisions that may not be, and probably will not be, in the best interests to those patients and those that are there with them.

All of this really signifies that when it comes to very ill patients, that each of those patients, must be the captain of their own fate, to the degree that this is possible.  That is to say, the primary purpose of the medical profession, is to, to the extent that it is reasonably possible, facilitate the return to good health to their patients, and when that is not possible, to provide then the care and treatment that minimizes unnecessary pain and suffering, thereby maintaining for each patient, their inherent dignity.  So then, it is thereby hoped that the decisions so made, for these ill patients, are always done with the intent to do right by those patients, by those that are experts within the medical profession. 

All who suffer from Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)

A significant portion of our soldiers will suffer from PTSD at some point, and the fact that this posttraumatic stress is being both taken seriously and thereby being medically treated is a testimony to its real existence and its debilitating affect upon those suffering from it.  It must be said, though, that PTSD, is not just something that only those that are veterans of western nations suffer from, but quite obviously the other side's combatants and enemy soldiers also are susceptible to.  Further to the point, and somehow seemingly ignored, is the quite obvious fact, that civilians caught in the middle of battles, engagements, civil wars, strife, violence, bombing, and the like are quite clearly going to also suffer from PTSD, and by virtue of the fact that these civilians consist of all people and of all ages, including in particular, women and children, in which all of these people are non-combatants and are not soldiers, than it is more than likely that their personal traumatic stress is unmistakenly going to be something that would be especially pernicious to them.

The above would signify that to the degree that it can be controlled, that nations and soldiers engaging in warfare have an absolute obligation to engage in such away from civilian populations, as much as possible; and that any battles being considered that will consist of soldiers engaging with or surrounded by civilians as well as the infrastructure of that civilian population, should be avoided, to the degree that it can be avoided.  This signifies that in fairness to all non-combatants and civilians, alike, that those that are considering engaging or pursuing the enemy, have an absolute obligation to take into real consideration, that the pursuit of the enemy, wherever it may be, must be seriously weighed against the harm or potential damage needlessly done to civilian infrastructure and the population of it.

Again, in recognition that PTSD is real and debilitating, nations need to take into more consideration, that the engagement of the enemy, in areas in which there is a high likelihood that the civilian population will suffer death, injury, and the accompanying trauma that comes with it, must be a salient factor so weighed by those decision makers.  So too, part of the suffering of PTSD, has also to do with the guilt that certain soldiers will feel when those of the opposing side that have been harmed or killed, are in fact, women and children, as well as those others that are truly non-combatants.

So then, the pursuit of the enemy to the ends of the earth must be mitigated by the conscious consideration, that all those that are not directly part of the battle, and are in fact, civilians --should be, to the reasonable extent possible, protected from harm to their physical bodies as well as to their psyche, by the avoidance of having to see or to be part of the injuries, death, destruction, and trauma of battlefield engagements.  This signifies, that any nation with a real conscience, will recognize that those that are born on the other side of conflicts, but are not enemy combatants, do not deserve to suffer from that which they are not an active participant of. 

Controlling the Word of God



Most people, at some point, feel something on the inside, that gives them a desire to believe that who and what they really are, is something beyond just their physical form.  Societies understand this need, and creeds, religions, and faith-based services in communities and countries have been built specifically to fulfill those desires of the people and often embrace such, for the proposed betterment of the people.  Even, in those communities and countries, in which God has been eradicated, via law, or through ignorance, people, still have that inkling.

The thing about communities and countries, is that those that are in power, often desire to control and manipulate their population, in order to maintain their position, authority, and status;  because those that are in power, are the beneficiaries of all sorts of wonderful material things, properties, privileges, and are the recipients of overall favoritism, in which, anything that purports to show that mankind is inherently equal, and that all are equal in the eyes of God, are not necessarily the type of things that these privileged elites desire to have preached or proselytized.  

This therefore is one of the most significant reasons why the Bible was in previous ages, not translated into the vernacular of the people, but remained instead in  Latin, Greek, Aramaic, or Hebrew, of which, most people were not familiar with those languages, and therefore would not be able to read or to comprehend the Bible, if they even saw such in print, and further, were placed into the position of thereby learning what wisdom that the Bible presented via those that disseminated such, which in most cases, were orthodox representatives of the governmental power.

So then, when William Tyndale, for instance, translated the Latin version of the Bible into English, for the English speaking people of England, such was seen as something akin to heresy or treason to the state. This meant that for Tyndale, his dedicated work in creating this seminal translation, would not mean that he would be knighted, but rather instead, he would be eventually tortured and executed by the state, for his unauthorized translation of the Bible; for the King of England, and the Roman Catholic clergy, would not countenance any potential breach in their control of the Word of God.

Yet, it was Tyndale's translation of the Bible into English that ultimately prevailed, for the very act of suppression of that which the people desired to know of, could not now be stopped and thereby would subsequently overturn the religious authority of that day, for the contradictions between Catholic clergy of that time, and the Word of God, demonstrated in principle that the Word of God, as taught and exercised by those authorities, was not consistent with the actual Word of God.

This thus signifies, that any governing authority that is master both of the secular as well as the spiritual, is the type of authority, that desires to control the whole person, and in all probability, not for their betterment, but rather in order to exploit and to manipulate them.  So that, an educated public, a public that questions authority, a public that recognizes a Higher Law that all most equally answer to, and a public that thinks independently, are the very basis for a good life, fair liberty, and the lively pursuit of happiness.

Stock market capitalization to GDP ratio

It has been said, that the ultra-billionaire and esteemed investor/businessman Warren Buffet, considers the stock market capitalization to GDP ratio to be a favorite indicator as to whether or not the stock market is overvalued, fairly valued or undervalued.  That said it is therefore necessary to understand that stock market capitalization is defined as the total dollar market value of the outstanding shares of stocks publically traded on the United States stock exchanges.  In regards to GDP, this is the acronym for Gross Domestic Product, and reflects the estimated total market value of all goods manufactured as well as services produced in the United States.   As it stands in February, 2020, that ratio of stock market capitalization to GDP is at 158.4% which is considered to be extremely overvalued.  After all, when the stock market goes up on an annual basis, of 8% or even more, whereas the GDP of the American economy does not even exceed 3% on an annual basis, than the ratio of that stock market capitalization to the GDP is going to, over time, increase dramatically in ratio, which it has.  Further to the point, it doesn't appear logical that the stock market capitalization can or should be decoupled from the GDP of the country that stock market represents, in which, a fair conclusion can be reached that when such a ratio is overvalued, this demonstrates in principle, over speculation in securities; no doubt, aided by "cheap" money and overleveraging of those investments in order to gain outsized returns in an economy that has been hovering at lukewarm for years.

All of the above should serve as a warning to those that believe that market capitalizations only always go up, and that they need not have to have any relationship with important indicators such as GDP, because apparently stock market capitalizations are entitled to have a mind of its own.  The problem with this type of thinking is to a very large degree, we now find that the price of a given stock on a given day, has less to do with the fundamentals of that stock, or even the future expectations of that stock, and far more to do with people and institutions "investing" in stocks under the premise that they need not worry about much of anything, because if the stocks so bought, goes up, they make money, or at least they seem to make money, that is, on paper.

What has been forgotten is that when any underlying asset is overvalued, and the stock market capitalization to GDP ratio clearly indicates that this is true, that the way down, is far quicker and far more precarious then most pundits imagine or admit to; for when the buyers of a stock, are far outweighed by those that desire to get out of that stock, at any cost, then stock market crashes, are especially dramatic, and the adage that stocks go down a heck of a lot faster than they go up, becomes chillingly true.

Clearly, investing in stocks has fundamentally changed over recent years, so that those that buy and hold a given equity for a long period of time, are seriously outnumbered by those that maneuver in and out of the market, and therefore care a lot less about the fundamentals of a given stock, or even care to know such; and a lot more follow their own belief that they know how to speculate wisely, but they may just find, sooner or later, that speculation with equities that are overvalued, will come back to haunt them.

Smart devils and knowledge without good character

Most definitely, knowledge is a form of power, so that those that are born into little or nothing from a material or status standpoint but have a mind that is capable of learning, have within their domain the ability to utilize that mind to become knowledgeable.  That knowledge however, can thereby be utilized for the selfish advancement of a given individual or can be utilized for the greater benefit of mankind, of which, society as a whole, should be very interested in seeing that those that are knowledgeable use such knowledge for the advancement of mankind, as opposed to using such knowledge for its harm or strictly for individual gratification.  This, thus means that as good as some schools and educational systems can be, it isn't good enough to simply provide the means for students to know and thereby to apply such knowledge in the real world, without taking into consideration and correspondingly spending a good amount of time, in recognition, that learning and the application of that learning must ultimately be held accountable to a higher standard.

In point of fact, those that are savvy, smart, and ambitious, do not always use their knowledge in a manner in which their objective is to be of material aid to their fellow societal members, but often find that their personality desires through misguided enticements or thought processes -- makes them far more inclined to utilize their smarts for the express benefit of their own self and those that they relate to, and typically when this is accomplished in a zero-sum construct, signifies that other people suffer for that decision.  Further to the point, those that are well informed as well as being influential can cause considerably more damage than those that have ill intentions but aren't all that smart or ambitious, or well placed to do all of the harm that they intend or may desire to do. 

While it is true that all people, should be taught the importance of having and maintaining good character, it is especially true that those that are quite bright, need to really take such to heart, for those that are in the position of which their acuity of mind allows them to read situations in a manner in which they thereby have an advantage upon most everyone, have within their power, the opportunity to be quite impactful for good or for bad.  So that those without good character may find it relatively easy to thereby take the low road, because they see the personal rewards from doing so as being of far greater worth to their mindset, then doing the right thing, and especially are prone to making that decision, when they are able to convince themselves that they have the personal right to do so.

As in many things, knowledge as applied can be applied for either good or for bad, so that those that teach subjects but never find the time to address directly to their audience the dangers of the misuse of their subject matter, are making the cardinal error of teaching within a vacuum, without taking into full account that knowledge so learned, being eventually applied, must be entwined with good character, or the end result could not only be quite undesirable, but tragic in its subsequent consequences.

Inconsistent work hours are inherently unfair

Far too many employees, especially those that are making wages that are on or below a living wage, suffer through the indignity of having very little control, if any, of the work hour time slots that they will work, as well as the amount of hours that they will work in a given week.  That is to say, as companies have benefited in technology and knowhow, so as to reduce their inventory levels to being able to take advantage of "just in time inventory," they then have segued such into the labor part of their operations, in which their objective is for their employees to essentially be "just in time employees."  This, thus means that those companies, want to and thereby demand that they be able to call in employees at a moment's notice to work, whenever and however long such should be needed, while on the other hand, they also maintain the power to forego employees and those hours that these employees were expecting to work, when they aren't as busy as anticipated.  So then, the employers of such, are able to reduce their labor consumption by treating their employees as moveable objects, to utilize as those companies, best see fit.

All of the above is unfair to the employees, that do not receive consistent hours of weekly work, and further are placed into the unenviable position of knowing that their refusal or inability to work hours as dictated by their management, will lead them to being vulnerable to having either their hours of work being reduced, or less desirable hours to be worked, or both.  As bad as all this may be, it is further unfair to those that are employees by virtue of the salient fact, that those that do not have a consistent and reliable work schedule, as well as a mandatory requirement that their employer pay them for a certain specific amount of hours each week, is that they are thereby stuck in a position of finding it difficult to properly attend to both family and personal affairs, as well as being able to successfully budget the monies that they did receive in compensation in a sustainable manner.

Additionally, those that are struggling with inconvenient work schedules that are inconsistent in both hours to be worked as well as hours scheduled at their company, are placed into a undeserved "catch-22" in which they are handicapped in finding a second job, by virtue of the fact that they don't currently have consistent and knowable hours, to thereupon be able to reliably schedule the hours that they would be available for that second job, which becomes even more problematic when the second job is also a job with inconsistent hours that vary from day to day and week to week. 

This signifies that a construct in which employees suffer from inconsistent work hours in the sense of both hours worked as well as hours scheduled, means that they are being dealt with in an unfair manner that exploits them in a way in which they are essentially treated more as if they are beasts of burden, as compared to being treated as human beings, of merit, value, and real worth.