Sales tax for high-end collectibles such as art and cars

Each year, there are vintage automobiles that sell for hundreds of thousands of dollars; so too, there are art pieces that sell in the millions of dollars in which though there are seller as well as even buyer fees involved in these transactions, in regards to the payment of a percentage of the sales price to the institution conducting and hosting the selling of these products; it is somewhat surprising, though, that the vast amount of these sales conducted in the United States, do not have an associated sales tax attached to these sales.

When it comes to the rich and powerful, they are well gifted at their avoidance at paying their fair share of taxes, mainly because they make sure to see that appropriate legislation is passed for them thereby giving these select elite people, tax set asides, as well as tax preferences; which in the scheme of things does not really make much good sense, since the very people that can most readily pay their fair share of taxes are those people that have the most money. 

Unfairly, the very rich are treated differently from ordinary people, of which, they prove such to everyone else by their wealth of special privileges, available just for them, each and every day.  Consider that when the common man, purchases a piece of art, or an automobile, they are subject to the sales tax of the locality of where they purchase that item from, or occasionally in lieu of that, their own locality. On the other hand, when the price of a given automobile is incredibly high, or when a given piece of artwork is at some astronomical level, the purchaser of these items, when such is conducted through some sort of well respected high-end auction house, the collection of a sales tax in the locality of that sale, almost never happens, and if such sales tax is scheduled to be collected, there are workarounds such as the usage of a Freeport, which as the name implies, means that as long as the item does  not supposedly leave that Freeport, it is not subject to a sales tax.

The bottom line, is that the tax code has all sorts of exceptions and exemptions, of which, it isn't fair that an item such as a car or a painting, is subject to a sales tax for everyone, with the exception of when these are super-expensive items set at an auction, which means that they become in effect, exempt from such.  It would be far better for all those collecting, dealing, and involved in the buying and selling of high-end cars and art, that the appropriate sales tax of that locality be applied to such sales, so that these superrich and privileged people would do their part to pay their fair share to the budget of their counties, cities, and States, as is required for everyone else by tax law.

Ultimately, a sales tax as currently implemented is a regressive form of taxation, since it applies to everyone at the exact same rate, irrespective of income and wealth of that person. So then, the fact that the superrich are able to escape paying sales tax for specific expensive items implicitly signifies that they believe that the common man should duly subsidize them.

Return on Net Assets (RONA)

Businesses are evaluated through a lot of different methodologies, of which, those that are the executives of those businesses, as well as the stockholders and analysts of such, are forever looking at the efficiency, profit, and growth of a given company.  The simplest definition of RONA is the amount of profit that a given company generates in its fiscal year, divided by the fixed assets plus net working capital of that company, to thereby come up with the RONA ratio for that company.  The higher that ratio is, and the better that ratio is in comparison to like companies, the more efficient it is believed that subject company is in using its capital and assets to generate profits. On the surface, RONA seems like a good and fair test, of exactly what it is meant to represent, which is how much profit management can generate from the given capital and fixed assets that they so utilize.  However, in an era in which a significant amount of executive officers, are so often dependent upon the underlying stock performance of the company that they are a part of, to thereby earn lucrative bonuses, and/or to reap the benefits of their vested stock options, there is always going to be a strong tendency for a meaningful percentage of those executives to want to "game" the system, so as to benefit primarily themselves, at the expense of the long term interests of the company, or for society, at large.

That is to say, one way to increase a company's RONA is quite obviously, to generate more sales from the fixed assets and net working capital of that company, of which, by those additional sales, typically, the overall profit amount of that company will increase.  Not too surprisingly, to achieve the increase of sales along with the increase of corresponding profit is something that necessitates real effort, planning, and throughput, and may well require some time to successfully achieve.  On the other hand, since RONA represents a ratio of profit, divided by the fixed assets and net working capital of that company, the other straightforward way to increase a given company's RONA is, for example, to reduce the amount of fixed assets that a company is the owner of, by the selling of such, and subsequently the replacement of those fixed assets with the successful outsourcing of what those assets use to perform --thereby still capturing those profits through that successful outsourcing.  Not only does outsourcing reduce the fix assets of a company, it typically also reduces the amount of those so directly employed by that company; yet, via that successful outsourcing the profit of the company is not only maintained, but the RONA ratio subsequently rises, proving that the management of the company is astute because of its improved efficiency in the utilization of its company's assets and capital.

So then, in the hunt for efficiencies in which executives are judged on their competency by formulas such as RONA and the profit ratio so produced, management in recent years has outsourced more and more domestic jobs, and purchased directly for their company less capital equipment than they would normally have a need for, by virtue of that outsourcing; so that, while corresponding profits and ratios look quite good for those companies, the reverberations of this outcome is part and parcel of why the once vibrant middle class of America continues to get hollowed out.

Murder and suicide have commonality in their disrespect

As reported by worldhealthexpectancy.com, in 2017, there were 19,510 homicides in the United States; yet, incredibly that was far exceeded by the amount of suicides which was 47,173.  So then, whether murder is committed by an outside agent, or is turn inward as in self-murder, the bottom line is that a discouraging amount of Americans die via murder, or self-murder each year.  Why so many people are murdered or commit suicide each year, undoubtedly has a lot of underlying causes, of which certainly one of the them is that those countries that are prone to violence as witnessed by their governmental actions, are going to be countries in which, unsurprisingly, that violence is invariably also turned outward as well as inward against fellow denizens.  Further to the point, those countries that believe that an appropriate way to resolve conflict and disappointment, is to utilize violence, more often than not, are also going be those countries in which those people that are extremely angry at themselves or others will more readily look to commit violent acts against their own person or another person.

The bottom line is that no matter how it is committed, murder and suicide are violent acts, of which, because the United States is such a strong believer that its citizens have the right to arm themselves with weapons that are both effective and lethal in what they are designed to be, that some of those people are obviously going to desire to use such specifically for that purpose. In addition, the fact that no other country prescribes more pharmaceutical substances than the United States contributes to all sorts of tragic decisions; especially, because these drugs are prone to both being abused as well as being over utilized, thereby leading to a strong tendency from that abuse or over usage to unnecessarily addle a given person's brain, so that these vulnerable people are thereby less capable of making rational decisions, because their sensibility and their reading of situations is both off and distorted.

There is something sad in the noting, that far too many people devalue their own life, as well as others, and from that devaluation, it thereupon makes it easier for them to make decisions that result in the taking of another person's life or their own.  After all, that which you value highly, will be accorded the respect due to that valuation; whereas that which is considered to be something that is lightly valued, or devalued from what it once was, or even worse, reclassified in a manner in which that which is human and thereby the inviolable holder of unalienable rights, has been erroneously replaced with a redefinition that somehow supplants that real person to now being perceived as just an object, or perhaps as an animal of no real worth, thereby leads to a very real human tragedy.

While there are lot of ways to deal with the current rather sad state of affairs in regards to murder and suicide, such as more stringent gun control laws, and far more effective drug prescription overview and enforcement rules; these reforms in and of themselves are not nearly enough to stem the tide.  Rather, what is needed is the conscious recognition that all of human life has unalienable rights, and that it is our highest duty to see that these rights are first and foremost, respected and upheld by all, so that each human life is rightly valued for the priceless worth that makes the liberty of life worth living.

Safety and the fear of losing

In this life, there are those seemingly few that are willing to dare greatly and take upon themselves real risks with real consequences, pro or con; and then there rests the majority of us, that either carefully weigh their risk -to-reward ratio before acting, or if especially conservative or especially risk averse, concern themselves mainly about what they might well lose, if they risk even just a little bit.  For all those people that are especially risk averse, they don't seem to apparently recognize that in avoiding risks at all costs, this thereby often compromises them in their good ability to subsequently achieve something of real merit, personally or on a professional level, just so they can remain safe.  In other words, for them, it's never about winning, but rather it is a lot more about not losing what they already have, so that, for better or worse, for them, they settle with what they have.

Of course, not everything that we have a fear about is a reasonable fear to begin with; so that, for instance, those that won't step into the ocean, for fear that some creature might hurt them or that they could drown are in most instances, being far more dramatic than an honest appraisal of the situation so warrants.  So too, those that consistently see the bogeyman time and time again, in which a reasonable person does not, are going to live lives in which they are not going to achieve what they could possibly achieve because of those unreasonable fears.  Further to the point, those that are too risk adverse, while living in a country that prides itself on being egalitarian, fair, and civil, are thereby placing more weight upon the shoulders of all those other people that will have to step up in their absence to test the system to see whether, in actuality, that construct is true; and thereby it is those other people that take those risks, which are the ones that help to make or maintain progress, for all.

While it is true that nobody wants to be a loser, and that few people wish to lose anything of value; the fact of the matter is that in order to get ahead in life, people typically have to risk something of themselves in order to get something of value, in return; and perhaps just as important, it should be recognized that typically risks must also be taken just to hold on to what we already have.  In other words, life is not static, so that, each day we are either progressing or we are regressing in what we have, so that those that are intent that they will not ever lose something of value, are in actuality going to have to be proactive in order to hold on to even just that.

All of this basically means that for all those that have a great fear of losing something of real value, that they should probably not follow the strategy of trying to build some unbreakable fortress and thereby actually expect that such will never be breached.  Rather, they should concentrate more upon the knowledge that there is strength in numbers, so that the more people that are joined together, believing in the same values and the same ideas that they hold dear and do not desire to relinquish, often leads to the discovery that by being more proactive in defending as well as propagating that which they as a group value so highly, that they will not lose such.

The superrich don't work harder

Life is really, really good for the superrich.  For instance, as reported by cnbc.com, "Since 1978, and adjusted for inflation, American workers have seen an 11.2 percent increase in compensation. During that same period, CEO’s have seen a 937 percent increase in earnings."  Whether a superrich person is a CEO, or the inheritor of boatloads of money, or an entrepreneur, or whatever it may be, the superrich have seen their income and wealth swell immensely in recent decades, in which during that same time period, the common man has unfortunately been left further and further behind.

When we look at how much the superrich have in comparison to those of the middle class, as well as those that are impoverished, no rational person can reasonably state that the superrich work 50 times harder, or as much as 200 times harder than the common man; and no rational personal can reasonably state that the superrich are 50 times more educated, or as much as 200 times more educated than the impoverished man; yet, the amount of wealth that the superrich control in what is supposed to be an egalitarian society, seems to indicate that the superrich are apparently super people, of uncommon brilliance and envious connections, that ostensibly are almost like gods upon this earth.

The true bottom line is that the superrich are not more talented than everyone else, though, undoubtedly they do have talent; nor are they smarter or better than everyone else, though, undoubtedly they do have their smarts; but rather primarily the greatest skill set of the superrich is how clever that they are in gaming and mastering the system, in a manner that super-favors them at the expense of virtually everyone else.   That is to say, the superrich never play fair, of which their real talent lies in exploiting others and exploiting the system in a manner in which they and those that they need to implement such stratagems, are the masters at richly getting what they so desire.

Those that are executives of publically owned companies, are clearly grossly overcompensated, of which, there should be meaningful legislation passed that addresses the obscene amount of money earned by many of these executives in comparison to the median compensation paid to the balance of their employees, of which that legislation would thereby reduce such supersized compensation of those executives to no more than a fairer ratio, perhaps of 20-to-1 of what the median non-executive  worker earns in their employment.  For those, that believe that this would be meddling in the private affairs and decisions of a public company, recognize that such public companies are subject to the regulation of governmental authorities for the privilege of being able to secure massive capital funding from private investors.  Further to the point, companies that are able to consistently earn money with very high gross margins, should be investigated thoroughly as to whether or not they have monopoly or duopoly positions in the products and services that they are selling, of which, those companies that are found to be in such a position, need to be dissolved or divided so as to create true competing companies.   After all, companies that consistently have high gross margins in a capitalistic society, at a minimum implies, and in all probability signifies, that the business enterprise that they are part of, has no effective competition, or involves collusion.

The superrich have a lion's grip of the wealth in this nation, of which, by virtue of that wealth, they have immense power that is far in excess of the minute amount of people that are actually superrich.  That power, should not rightly be in the hands of the superrich, for they are certainly not gods, and whether they are extraordinarily smart, or work extraordinarily hard, too much concentrated wealth in too few hands, eviscerates democracies, and serves no good purpose for the people and never will.

Did I do enough?

Each one of us should want to thoroughly examine our own lives, especially in regard to our purposes, our goals, our achievements, and the foundation that we are building upon in order to successfully get to where we desire to be.  Further to the point, none of us is an island, for we are not meant to be alone; but rather mankind is of necessity, a social creature, thereby created to socialize, to interact, and to be of service to others.  So too, in recognition that on any given day, there are plenty of decisions to make, as well as there being plenty of things which are thought to be necessary to do or to attend to, each one of us needs to reflect upon whether or not on that day, or series of days, they have or have not done enough of what they really ought to do.

The question "Did I do enough?"  is not only not an easy question to fairly answer, but it could also be seen as a question that cannot be readily answered by the person thinking that thought; but yet that question should be answered by each one of us or at least pondered upon, for a lot of what we would consider to be satisfying in this world, is going to ultimately come down to whether or not we believe that we have done enough. After all, the desire for a good family, good friends, and a good society that we wish to be a part of, necessitates us doing our part to make that come to fruition; for free rides are only really free to the extent that someone else carries that load on behalf of us, which typically should really be ours to fairly bear our share, and perhaps indeed a bit more.

We should be cognizant that nearly every day we are going to come across situations in which we can play a positive part to do something of substance for someone other than our self -- for there are always an abundance of people that are hurting, or suffering, or are in some difficulty, in which we can have a contributing role to play, if we choose to be that helping hand for someone else.  That someone else does not need to be a stranger, for friends, family, and community members are all part of the greater whole, that we should typically wish to contribute to; yet, there is something of real value for all those that do good deeds for others, in which there is no reciprocation asked, nor is any expected, for that thereby represents the epitome of someone who is a true doer.

None of us wants to come to that place, where we second guess ourselves in regards to what we could have done, should have done, or might have done, for it would seem that all those that are really doing their part to make their communities a better place are positive contributors, who intuitively recognize that the change that we want to see in this world, always begins with our selves doing what we can to actuate this. 

It is well to remember that there are going to be those certain questions in life that will haunt us for we will feel our own disappointment and guilt; so too, there are going to be those questions that we will face that we will feel good about and subsequently are quite comfortable in so answering. And then there will be that question, perhaps haunting, perhaps not, of which it will be asked, did you do enough? 

Stealing from the future to prosper in the present

The given intent for any individual, company, or government, when they borrow money in the present, is through their future earnings to pay that borrowed money back.  While there are myriad reasons why any entity borrows money, the most proximate cause is that they believe that the importance of getting the money now and thereby having the ability to use such in a way that makes sense to them, is going to exceed the pain, if any, of paying it back with appropriate interest and/or penalties when due.  So, in short, those that borrow money are leveraging their future for the present, because if they are unable to pay back those funds so borrowed, they will individually suffer for that, or as in the case of present day governments, there is a very good chance it will be those of a future generation that will be stuck with the paying of the bill.

In other words, while it can be said that individuals that borrow money and fail to timely pay such back will have to individually deal with the consequences of this, the nuances of what happens to a particular company or government is typically different when they so default on their debts.  For instance, many a publically owned company has borrowed boatloads of money, only to become at some point, insolvent; in which the upshot of this is that the assets of that company do not match up with the debts so produced, signifying that the money so borrowed has already been spent or utilized, and thereby cannot be successfully recovered except at a discounted rate to the debt so created.  This can mean that certain company individuals, in particular, senior executives, may easily have been the beneficiaries of very lucrative compensation packages, and will not have to pay a dime of it back to those creditors, making those that are creditors to that corporation, and the investors of that debt, the biggest losers.  So too, governments can borrow billions upon billions of dollars, and do such for an exceedingly long time, as long as those that are issuing the credit, believe that government is ultimately good for paying back that debt; but thereupon there comes a time, when those issuing such credit, either lose their faith in such or demand more stringent terms for the risk involved, in which, if that government, subsequently fails to uphold their part of the bargain, the edifice collapses, hurting most everyone of that nation, and in particular, hurting those that are just commencing their lives and livelihood, for they are the ones that will suffer most dearly from the reparations and credit restrictions for the failure of their government to be solvent as well as to be prudent.

Those that do the borrowing are in effect, taking or utilizing what they have not fairly earned, yet; as if they have already earned it, though they have not, but instead have merely made a promise or a commitment to make good on such.  In life, not every good intention comes to fruition, and for a certainty, those with a devious intention often fare far worse; but good or bad, there always is an eventual reckoning, and for those governments that have been fiscally irresponsible, as well as those representatives of the people that have been using their power to buy prosperity for the present generation, by charging that bill to the future generation, leaves those of that future generation stuck with that bill, and thereby being unfairly burdened with a debt that they did not so create.

Processed food and chemicals

We live in a time in which food is not only inexpensive to purchase but also readily available, which in consideration that each of our bodies needs food and water to sustain itself as well as to maintain good health, having the ready availability of food at our beck and call is incredibly important and of immense value.  Further to the point, there use to be a time in which the majority of a given community's exertions was spent in either the harvesting of or of the hunting of food; whereas nowadays, the vast majority of Americans, simply go to their local grocery store to get whatever food that they have need of, or to any of the vast variety of restaurants thereby serving food.  Of course, different families have different budgets for food which is often dependent upon their income and wealth, of which, those that are on reduced budgets are subject to reduced choices; in which, they are far more frequently, going to have to avail themselves in the selection of some percentage of processed foods to eat, which typically means foods that have been changed, combined, or "enhanced" via chemical processes that thereby transforms that food into something different or new.

While there are all sorts of combinations of substances that can thereby add to the shelf life of food, without substantially changing the foundation of that food, such as in salt or brine; in modern times, the food industry has recognized the value brought to them via chemical engineering and thereby have deliberately made chemical add-ons to foods in order to better control the process of the creation of that food item, such as in common food items as in cereals, chips, and cookies.  Not too surprisingly, since packaging makes up a significant expense of processed products so being sold, those selling such products, are always going to be interested in those chemical compositions that will allow their products to have a greater shelf life of which ii is mainly through those chemicals that thereby keeps processed foods, stable for longer periods of time, while still maintaining their look and taste.  Additionally, the food business, is most definitely a competitive business, so that those that are the manufacturers and developers of processed food are always looking at ways to save money, via such things as a longer shelf life, or via cheaper product constitutions in which products thereby have both chemicals and minerals added or subtracted, depending upon numerous factors, or the substitution of one food item with another food item or a chemical composition that serves the same sort of purpose, as well as through the adulteration, deliberate or not, or through the dilution of a food in order to lower the unit cost of such, and so on and so forth.

So then, the upshot of the substitution of food items, or chemical additions made to processed foods, is that typically a lot of this is done for the salient reason of reducing the costs of providing that product to the consumer, so as to remain competitive, or simply to make more profit, typically at some expense to the safety, quality, and healthiness of the product.   That is to say, the processed food business is often really about trying to maximize profit, in a way in which such is done so that product through its chemical processing will still look good, and will still taste good, but because of those added chemicals and often the lesser food items added to that processed food, is probably not good for the overall health of the consumer.

Correcting the Constitution

The founding document of this great nation is its Declaration of Independence, of which the signers of that Declaration, representing each of the thirteen colonies, through the testimony of those signatures, formerly recognized that all men are created equal, and further held that we all have unalienable rights.  It was this Declaration, that dissolve the bands formerly held with Great Britain and was the rallying point for that successful revolution.  Upon the success of that seminal fight, and in recognition that the Articles of Confederation were inadequate in order to sustain a new nation, another convention was called, in which a Constitution was thereby created and subsequently ratified by each of the thirteen States.  As in most things, of which various people with various agendas get together, there were compromises made in order to form that union of those States.  One of those compromises had to do with the continuing enslavement of those other persons, left to the domain of each individual State, of which those other persons, though considered by that Declaration to be created equally and to have unalienable rights, were wrongly denied those very attributes by that Constitution.  However, there was a belief that in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1 of that Constitution that the banning of the importation of slaves in the year 1808 and thereafter, would thereby by its passage, slowly eradicate slavery as an institution. History, tells us, that this slow eradication did not subsequently occur.  

So then, this country continued to be a republic of both free people as well as enslaved people, in which, in absence of a Constitutional Amendment specifically banning slavery throughout this land, the decision as to whether or not to permit slavery within a given State, was left to each individual State to decide, and the federal government thereby had no Constitutional power to interfere in such.  In addition, in consideration that it was the Constitution that was the highest law of the land, this, in effect, made the Declaration of Independence, a Declaration, that was merely historical and therefore of no import to legislative, judicial, and executive decisions so made by those representatives.

Many a revolution has had the noblest goals for their constituents, only to find themselves after successfully overcoming their adversary, betraying those very same noble goals for their constituents, by their ignoring or vacating of such; for power, for greed, for control, and so on.  The United States, in its construction of that Constitution, is no different; for in reality, those owning slaves, and signing that Declaration of Independence, most definitely had their time and place to defend that despicable institution and therefore to amend that Declaration to conform to their belief that those so enslaved, were really the property of those slave owners, and thereby not people.  Instead, that Constitution, so created after that Declaration of Independence, never directly addresses slavery, though it also never concedes that other persons are property; yet, somehow finds a way to discount other persons to be three-fifths of a regular person, and with no rights that a white man was bound to respect.

It would take a great civil war and then the passage of the 13th-15th Amendments, for this country to recognize in its Constitution, what it had already recognized in its Declaration of Independence, that each of us is created equally, and equally of unalienable rights.  So now, we do find that the highest law of this land is in conformance with its Declaration of Independence; yet, still the abolition of slavery does not mean the same thing as equality under the law or of opportunity, for even a cursory look around the institutions and the justice so rendered in the present day United States indicates that this is still not so.

Kryptonite, war crimes, and the USA

In today's world, the United States is the preeminent superpower and has no rival, or series of rivals, whatsoever.  Further to the point, the United States, alone amongst all the civilized nations of this world, places itself consistently above international law and thereby above international treaties and agreements that apparently do not ever apply adversely against the United States, but are so applied to other nations.  Imagine though, an alternate universe or perhaps a parallel world, in which some sort of substance such as kryptonite is utilized against the United States, in which thereby none of its mighty weapons of war are capable of being fired or utilized, whatsoever; and subsequently the United States as a sovereign nation, must surrender to those forces that have the use of that kryptonite.

So then, inside this power vacuum, a consortium of countries get together to decide what to do about this situation in regards to the United States.  These countries, consisting of China, Iran, North Korea, Libya, Venezuela, and Cuba recognize that there is very little value in destroying the United States, but rather are cognizant of its great worth, and thereby decide that the best and fairest policy is to have a trial, specifically, dealing with the war crimes of the United States since World War II, addressing in particular, those individuals that are the alleged war criminal perpetrators.

The trial is thereupon known as the Washington DC War Crimes Trial and it is held within the Supreme Court building of that city.  Warrants for the arrest of specific military personnel of the highest level, are issued, as well as being issued for the heads of various governmental departments, such as the CIA, Homeland Security, National Security Agency and the like; in addition, warrants for the Secretary of the Defense, and the Secretary of the State, former and active are issued, and finally warrants are issued for the President, former and active.  The sheer amount of names so charged, is enormous, and the consortium of countries, prosecuting such, are diligent in the adding or subtracting of such names as actionable or mitigating information comes to their attention.  Additionally, in the knowledge that justice delayed is justice denied, this consortium of countries eventually reaches the point, in which the trial must begin.  And in fairness to those so accused, each is entitled to legal counsel in order to fairly answer the charges each is accused of.

The theme of the Washington DC War Crimes Trial becomes obvious from the very start, which is that certain specific people within the United States must be held accountable for their war crimes as well as crimes against humanity.  Those crimes cover such areas as the deliberate and premeditated bombing of civilian populations, the extraordinary rendition of persons from their native country, the torture of prisoners, the rape of civilians, the murder of civilians under the guise of combat, and so and so forth. In fact, the opening statement by the lead prosecution attorney, hauntingly echoes the exact same words used by the lead prosecutor Robert H. Jackson at the Nuremberg trial,  of which Jackson said "The wrongs which we seek to condemn and punish, have been so calculated, so malignant, and so devastating that civilization cannot tolerate their being ignored because it cannot survive their being repeated;" in which the lead prosecutor at the Washington DC War Crimes Trial adds to those words, "Yet, they have been repeated, and repeated by a great nation, that knew what was right but deliberately did that which was wrong, because it believed it would never be held accountable; of which it is our sacred duty to thereby hold those bad actors accountable, so that all of humanity can progress to becoming fully civilized, fair, and with  the sure knowledge that mankind's good laws apply equally to all."

At the conclusion of that trial, most were convicted, though some were acquitted; and of those that were found guilty, most were hung, though some were not.

When the community becomes a company town

The United States has many small communities in which the good functioning of some of those small communities is very dependent on just one primary employer, or just one primary business type.  In other words in some communities, there is one primary business type or main employer that provides the bulk of the good paying and stable jobs to that community, and on the basis of that primary business type or main employer, everything else that makes up that community basically falls into place.  That is, the income that is generated through those paychecks of those directly employed by that primary business type or main employer, has ripple effects, felt throughout the community in the sense of the infrastructure thereby created in order to support those that are making that income and spending such on housing, vehicles, food, education, roads, parks, and so on and so forth.  This thus signifies that as long as that primary business type or main employer is doing well, then the community as a whole is also doing well, and while no community should turn down a good business enterprise desiring to locate within that community, it is vital to recognize that when the foundation of a given community is based solely upon that primary business type or main employer, that if that particular dynamic does change for the worse, it will often be devastating for that community.  Further to the point, those that are in the catbird's seat will have, undoubtedly a lot of power in regards to the seminal decisions made in that community of which those decisions are going to be far more often than not, supportive of that which holds the power, and thereby have very little to do with any sort of true democratic process.

The very first thing that any small community should do when they are successful in having a major employer locate in their community, is to try to leverage up that success, by soliciting other companies to come into their town, so that the community thereby is not wholly dependent upon or mainly dependent upon just that one employer type or business.   Additionally, the more viable companies that are located within a smaller community, not only presents more opportunities for those that are denizens of such, but helps to disperse the power that these companies have, by virtue of the fact, that there is more than one company in town.

The demise of many a small community, has come about when a given industry has, for instance, maxed out the natural resources within that town, or has made the decision to outsource jobs that use to be domestic to overseas facilities, or has simply made bad business decisions that did not keep that company competitive -- as well as all those things that are similar to these.  Once that primary employer is gone from a community, the entire infrastructure within that community is in play, as to whether or not it is sustainable -- for without that steady stream of good income, the game has surely changed, and virtually always for the worse.

To be overly dependent upon any one person, or any one company, or any one business enterprise, is never going to be prudent; and those in small communities, need to better understand, that the diversification of their employment base is necessary in order to better position their community to be both vibrant as well as to be sustainable.

Saying and doing should be in harmony

As it has been said, "Actions speak louder than words," and further to the point, it is those actions, that determine the integrity of those words so spoken.  This signifies that when corporations, governments, and people speak about matters of importance, we should hold those very entities accountable for those words so spoken in regards to whether or not their subsequent actions are found to have been in conformance to those words and those sentiments.

Unfortunately, there are far too many occurrences in which the subsequent actions to commitments previously made are wholly inadequate, in which the probable two main reasons why this is so, is firstly because some of those making those promises while having good intentions to do so, end up not staying the course for whatever reason, as well as possibly having an anemic follow through; and the second most common reason is that those making that commitment to begin with, had absolutely no intent of following through on it, so that their statement of what they were going to accomplish, was deceptively made in the prior knowledge that they weren't going to do such a thing, and in far too many cases, nobody holds them accountable to it.

Whether it is lack of follow through, or whether it is those that are disingenuous in their words, it is important for the general public and individuals to do their part to hold those that promise one thing but don't deliver, accountable.  After all, misdirection and deception is part and parcel of wars and governments, as well as quite frankly, far too many human relationships.  We would see far less of this, if each of us was more attentive to what is really being said by others in the first place, and secondly if we then took the time to determine whether or not those words were coming into fruition or not, and if not, call those pertinent institutions to account.

It would be nice if people and institutions were more often true to their word, and, in particular, those words of positive intent and good, for that would be beneficial for society.  On the other hand, when those people and institutions are not true to their word, then they should be seen for what they really are, and thereby exposed as to what their character really is; for those that say one thing, but end up doing another thing of which that other thing is of lesser value, or of no value, or is detrimental in its design, are hypocrites; made worse by the fact that their intent in their original declaration was probably deliberately false so as to disguise what they really are and what they truly represent.

The truth of the matter is that our character is primarily based upon our actual actions and deeds, of which, those actions and deeds should be consistent to those declarations previously made.  To the degree that this is true, we are in harmony between what we say and what we do; and to the degree that this is not true, this is at best, a display of our lack of comprehension of the degree of difficulty to accomplish such, as well as our apparent lack of successful drive and determination to overcome such; or it is a deliberate deception made for our personal benefit to take advantage of those that we can fool, or hope by our words to fool.

The white and black doll test

Back in 1947, two psychologists ran a test on black children ages thee to seven, utilizing four dolls, of various degrees of gradations of color, in which, as reported by naacpldf.org, "A majority of the children preferred the white doll and assigned positive characteristics to it."  This amazing result from this study was utilized in the epic argument in the Supreme Court case of Brown v. Board of Education, which undoubtedly contributed to that Supreme Court seminal decision that racial segregation was in and of itself, prejudicial and damaging to those subject to that segregation.

One might think that in this more enlightened time that a white and black doll test would clearly not still show prejudice and favoritism from white and black children, taking such a test.  In fact, in 2010, CNN ran such a test, with conditions in harmony with that original white and black doll test, in which, as reported by cnn.com, "white children have an overwhelming white bias, and black children also have a bias toward white."

The fact, that after the ratification of the 14th Amendment, in 1868, with additionally the landmark federally sponsored Civil Rights laws subsequently passed, which specifically were enacted to forbid racial discrimination, along with all persons that have any real sensibility already being cognizant that skin color has not ever, and cannot ever be what determines the character of a person, but rather is irrelevant to such; that children, who are far less inclined to hide their true feelings behind false fronts, are shown to have in the 21st century more positive feelings towards those that are white, in comparison to those that are not, regardless of their own race, must be seen to be: wholly disappointing.

The above is proof positive that America is still the white man's land, of which just being born white is an inborn advantage over those that are not white, irrespective of any other conditions.   This thus signifies that in every enterprise of merit, be it housing, education, justice, or opportunity, that the white man is in the superior position, simply based on the salient fact that they are white.  So that, the egalitarian promise that America is supposed to represent, does not exist; nor does any of its other promises of being integrated, fair and equal, or of meritorious opportunity, and so on, exist.  

The bottom line is that until America is able to demonstrate through its non-biased tests, that every vestige of the superiority of the white man has been erased from the minds and thoughts of its people, of all colors, and of all backgrounds, then the white man will continue to reap the awards and the benefits that the white man has not fairly sowed.  This would surely indicate that all programs, such as the Affirmative Action program, and the like, that are constructed so as to make good on promissory notes yet unfilled, must be part and parcel of the American way of being, in order to appropriately rectify not only previous wrongs, but wrongs that are integral to American life as it is still being experienced, today.  

It is not ever good enough, to espouse noble thoughts and to have noble goals, if the structure within that nation, is corrupt to begin with; especially when such is further compounded when that nation never establishes thoroughly the comprehensive effort needed to properly correct those foundational faults.  While one may give America credit for becoming a melting pot of so many different peoples, it still sees life far too frequently through the distorted prism of the white man, which is the very reason why the United States of America, is in reality, a country divided, and not united.

Doctrine of Discovery

As in most everything, it is the victors that write the history.  So then, when the western hemisphere of the Americas, was discovered and thereupon developed by those Europeans that crossed the vast Atlantic ocean, beginning in the late 15th century, they so discovered that this was a vast continent, consisting of North, Central, and South America, previously unknown by that European people.  This American continent was populated by the indigenous people that made up that continent, but since it was not those indigenous people that sailed that Atlantic Ocean to Europe, and thereupon "discovered" Europe, but rather it was the other way around, this thus made those Europeans the "discoverers" of that continent.  Further to the point, while the Europeans that sailed across that ocean were vastly outnumbered by those indigenous people, they brought with them powerful instruments of war, in addition to their superior overall knowledge and learning in regards to mathematics, language, reading, writing, science, and jurisprudence.  This thus meant that the indigenous people, rightly or wrongly, for the most part, recognize these Europeans as being in significant ways, more advanced than them.

Additionally, the mindset of the Europeans was that the people that made up the lands of the Americas, were considered to be heathen, pagans, and the like, of which therefore it was the European right as well as its duty to civilized that which was considered to be uncivilized, through whatever means those Europeans best saw fit.  The intent, was never to work in conjunction with the native peoples, but was always about either assimilation, at best, or the conquering of those native peoples.  Further to the point, there was a Papal Decree thereupon issued in 1493, which basically built the template of what became known as the Doctrine of Discovery.  That doctrine, enforced by the European monarchies, signified under the aegis of Christianity, but really under the guise of such, that Europe would be the masters of these newfound lands, of which, the legacy of the American continent, is proof positive that this is indeed what happened.

So then, to the dismay of indigenous peoples throughout the western hemisphere, their land, no longer was their land, and their self-determination was no longer their determination, but they became in most aspects, a conquered peoples, with their lands and livelihood torn asunder from their hands.  This meant that indigenous peoples did not have a meaningful voice in the government foisted upon them, and they were subsequently shunted aside, killed, divided, suffered unduly from European illnesses, or were forcefully removed onto barren reservations, and thereby left with little resources to sustain themselves.

As they say, to the victors go the spoils, of which, many a people have lost their lands and their identity not fully comprehending that a battle once commenced , warranted or not, understood or not, formal or not, will result in there being only one victor.  So too, as the Doctrine of Discovery, led the Europeans to claim the western hemisphere as their own; recognize that the same general principle is applicable to any one nation that conquers another, of which the most basic point of going to war, is to take, usually unjustly, from one people what is theirs, to thereby reap their wealth and riches as your own without having properly paid, earned or labored for such.  All of the above basically signifying, that he who wields the biggest sword in the most effective manner, fair or foul, is he who wins.

Help is always needed, so help

Far too many people find themselves getting overwhelmed from time-to-time in regards to the complexities, disappointments, and tragedies that this world presents, on a seemingly daily basis.  While all of this may seem to be way too much; the secret to addressing these tribulations really comes down to not being overly grandiose but rather dealing with such on a much smaller and personal basis, in which the objective is for each person to do their part to provide needful help, where they can, and as often as they can for others, that are suffering or hurting, unduly.

Too  many people tend to be mistaken in their belief that their seemingly insignificant positive actions don't amount to all that much; but it is in those little positive actions, committed time and time again, that lend itself to making communities and civilizations better, for all.  This signifies that anytime that we can provide a helping hand to someone in need; we should do our part to do exactly that.  After all, anytime that we do our part, we are helping to make things better, and anytime that we fail to do our part; we are not contributing in areas in which our contribution is needed.

Life is almost never about the need for us to do magnificent and generous things on some sort of epic scale, but rather has a lot more to do with doing the little small things that will help ourselves as well as others in the making of our communities, better places to live and to grow in.  Further, more people need to take to heart, their definition of what being a good neighbor really is all about.  For some, they take this in its most literal meaning, which signifies, that they have an obligation to be a good neighbor to their actual physical neighbor, of which, if they do this, at least it can be said they are doing something of merit for someone else.  That said, the real principle of being a good neighbor, is the same principle about being a good Samaritan, which is that when we see someone that is in need, we are provided with the opportunity to be of service to that other; in particular, a person that we don't even individually know, of which those that do so, are true to that which really matters.

But no matter as to whether we do all we can do for others in need or not, it is in the actual doing, that we are able to provide help to others, and every deed done for others, is providing the help that will in its own way, make for better communities and for a better world, and every little bit does help.  While each of us can moan about the upsetting dramas in life that we come across far too often, recognize that those that help in their own way, are being heroic, and those that are heroic are the very people that help to make this world more bearable, more tolerable, more livable, and more loving.

Fiscal stupidity leads to insolvency

The United States government has not had a budget surplus since 2001, and does not project to have a budget surplus, let alone a balanced budget, anytime in the short foreseeable future.  In fact, based upon how massive the deficits are continuing to be, for whatever given reasons, spurious or not, the present government does not appear to have any intention to balance its book, ever.  While having a budget deficit, sometimes is necessary in order to preclude or ameliorate a recession, or in times of war, or other valid reasons; for the most part, most of the deficits so run, come down to feckless and lying politicians that refuse to tax the very entities that can easily afford to pay far more in taxes, as well as this government not being prudent in the allocation of how the people's money is spent.

To the degree that the government, sees their expenditures of money as something that they need not necessarily concern themselves about, is the degree that the way that things are being conducted presently, will not soon change.  The great hypocrisy that this government has foisted upon the public, is the belief that this government, can continue to run deficits, indefinitely; when for a certainty, there will come a time, when that money so being borrowed will have to be borrowed at an appreciably higher interest rate, or that those that are the creditors to such massive deficits, will impress upon these United States, conditions that will force the United States to get its fiscal house in order, in which those that will suffer under those conditions, are the very people that make up this country.   However, what is so unfair about this picture, is that those that will carry most of that fiscal load upon their shoulders are, to a very large extent, not going to be those that are retired, but rather those that are in the prime of their lives, and will have to do all of the heavy lifting, in order to conceivably right this ship.

The great shame of this government is that it lacks the courage to tax those that it should tax at a much higher rate, which are the richest and most powerful people and corporations, within this nation.  Further, it refuses to have the present generation, tighten its belt, so as to live within its means, thereby putting off until tomorrow, what should forthrightly be dealt with today.   After all, spending other people's money is always a pretty darn easy thing to do; whereas, getting people to pay their fair share for that spending, requires consistency, fairness, transparency, and determination. 

It would be one thing if all these deficits so being run at the present time, all had a grand purpose behind such: for instance, in the creation of a nation with good healthcare, good education, good housing, good job opportunity, and good infrastructure for all segments of that population.  That, in and of itself, would be sensible, and would be a prudent decision to make on behalf of the people.  Instead, America, has done virtually none of these things, and appears to have the mindset, that the only real business in America is for the most powerful and richest people and corporations in America, to cheat the tax system, to thereby cheat their government, and for that government to subsequently sell the illusion to the people that all is well, when such systemic fiscal deficits are indicative that all is surely not.

Future expected returns for domestic stocks are minimal

Public companies that are listed on the stock market are traded Monday through Friday.  Over the very long term, publically traded stocks have a distinct tendency to go up, of which, some of that has to do with inflation, some of that has to do with the underlying growth, value, and earnings of a given stock, some of that has to do with interest rates as well as other monetary policies, and some of that just comes down to speculation.  Although, there are pundits that claim that the market is "efficient," in the sense that since there are buyers as well as sellers for every given stock, and the pertinent information in regards to the economy and a given company, is public knowledge, than their belief is that the subsequent price of the stock, clearly reflects such.  Yet, if this was really true, stocks wouldn't rise and fall as much as they do, especially when on most days, there really isn't much actionable information going on in regards to a specific stock.  Further to the point, anyone or any institution that opens up a brokerage account, are not controlled in regards to their decision making process as to whether a stock is "fairly priced" or not, and hence many stocks can be priced at a price range that doesn't match all that well with the fundamentals of that stock.

A case in point, is that the USA stock market as of 2020, is in most of its indexes at an all-time high, or has hit that high this year, which given the fact that the GDP of the United States has been in a low-growth phase for over a decade, doesn't make a lot of sense, to begin with.  Further to the point, the United States, will have a significant negative growth rate for 2020, so that, when the economy is shrinking, and because the unemployment has risen tremendously, it would seem, even with very low interest rates, and other mitigating factors, that the stock market should reflect that profit margins along with growth rates are being impacted in aggregate, in a negative manner.  

The error that many investors make in regards to the purchase of common stock is to not readily understand very well what they have purchased.  While it is true that as a common shareholder, they have a minute ownership percentage in a given company, the value of those shares, might not have a lot to do with the true intrinsic worth of a given company, and instead have a lot more to do, with projections of growth and value that are often very problematic.  Again, when a given country's yearly GDP is 2.5% or thereabouts, but the stock market is consistently returning around 8-10%, yearly, then that would seem to indicate that the pricing of those stocks being traded in aggregate, is not consistent to what is really happening in the economy in reality.

So then, as might be expected, when stocks appear to be overvalued per most metrics, then the expected future return of those stocks, are going to be minimal, because those stock prices have gotten ahead of their reasonable underlying worth, via speculation, that has been too overly optimistic or too greedy.  History, is replete with speculation upon speculation, that have done exceedingly well, only to at some later point, collapse.   After all, when there are too many sellers, and there aren't any willing buyers, prices go down until some sort of equilibrium is reached.

All should pay their fair share in property taxes

County governments are absolutely dependent upon the collection of taxes from their constituents in order to properly take care of its responsibilities in regards to police services, fire services, street lights, hospitals, schools, sanitation, storm water and the like.  One of the most important taxes, if not the most important, because of its usual consistency is the collection of real estate property taxes, from residential homes, apartments, farms, land, manufacturing plants, corporate retail offices, corporate retail stores, and the like.  Basically, everything within the county that is located on land, can be subjected to county property taxes, but there are, as in most everything, exceptions to that rule. For instance, most non-profits such as universities and churches are not subject to a real estate property tax, so that these institutions are basically being subsidized by the people and by those corporations that do pay their fair share of those taxes.

When it comes to the paying of real estate property taxes, the general rule of thumb of how much a given entity will pay is the fair market value of that property in that given fiscal year, subject to pertinent exemptions, set aside for senior citizens, or military veterans, or as in a homestead exemption.  Also, in fairness to real estate property owners they are permitted to dispute and to appeal against the county Assessment authorities, when their reasoned opinion of the fair value of their property indicates such; and in particular when they have compelling evidence that would indicate that value should be materially lower. 

All of the above seems to be rather straightforward, but anytime that county governments are dealing with corporations, and especially corporations of meaningful size; that is, of worth in the multimillions, and even multibillions, those corporations are going to have a strong tendency to want to see that they don't pay more than what they feel that they should pay for property taxes and the like; which is why they thereby petition county governments as well as any other pertinent governmental officials and departments to purposely get themselves special consideration so that they do not have to pay what might be considered to be a fair property tax rate, but rather are provided with a reduced rate instead, perhaps because of their undue influence upon governmental officials, or their uncanny ability to get tax set asides and thereby preferential tax treatment.

As a matter of course, how much a given homeowner pays in property taxes, is a public record.  So then, in consideration of the importance as well as the personal expense in the paying of those taxes it would seem that all historical records in regards to the payment of those same taxes for corporations should be readily available for not only governmental officials to see and to, as necessary, justify; but of equal importance, for the general public to see, so that they can better understand as to whether or not they are actually paying more than their fair share in property taxes, and therefore carrying much more weight upon their already burdened shoulders, especially as compared to those multimillion and multibillion dollar corporations.  For we should not forget, when certain entities are accorded special discounts to what should be fairly applied in a fair manner to all, then those that are not accorded those same sorts of similar discounts, will end up paying more than their fair share, perhaps a lot more.

The Free Speech Movement and true freedom of speech

Back in the 1960s, the top administrators at the University of California campus at Berkeley, decided that they no longer would benignly tolerate their students in their soliciting for funds as well as in the recruiting of members to what were perceived to be radical organizations, on campus.  They therefore took the step to call in the campus police to place a graduate student under arrest for violating these conditions, of which, the upshot was that in the heyday of what would become civil unrest, protests against the Vietnam war and the like, is that the students rose up to protect not only that particular student's arrest, through the staging of a spontaneous sit down, but also made it their point to begin staging student protests, and eventually to initiate a student strike against the administration of Berkeley.  The result of this student uprising was soon enough the victory of those students in achieving the relief on the restrictions of free speech on campus, as well as being left alone in regards to political activity on campus, by consent of those administrators. 

While this was an important victory for free speech, and for therefore the freedom to express ideas outside the mainstream of America, it was to a very large extent, never really about true freedom of speech, but rather had a lot more to do, with those students being able to express their viewpoint, to the exclusion of other orthodox or conservative viewpoints.  In other words, the campus revolt was never really about free speech, but really was about the students perception that they did not have a fair format to express what they believed to be of importance to them, of which such was considered by many outsiders to be radical viewpoints as well as unorthodox political views, and of which mainstream media had chosen for the most part to effectively ignore this dissenting voice.  To the degree, that when it comes to free speech, that one side has clearly not had a fair opportunity to express their viewpoint and to propagate their beliefs to the public that they are trying to reach, it makes sense to thereby provide them with a wide avenue to do exactly that, especially as a means to make rectification for such being unfairly suppressed by the orthodoxy and media mouthpieces of the day.

However, as much as liberals may denigrate conservatives and their viewpoint, and vice versa, each side has an absolute legitimate right, in this land of freedom and liberty, to express what they desire to express, via their Constitutional  right to free speech.  This so indicates that so many of today's left leaning campuses, have chosen to deliberately silence all those that oppose their  particular ideology, seemingly not recognizing that by silencing those others that have a fundamental right to express their opinions and viewpoints; that they are, in fact, propagating the belief that the only appropriate speech that matters, is that which is in harmony with their own ideals and beliefs, which does not make for a free and open society, but rather does that very opposite of such.

True freedom of speech, is never about each member of society having to march to the very same beat of the prevailing drum of the times, but rather consists of the open and healthy debate between people, which allows for the give and take of open conversation and communication, so that we as a people, can learn and grow from one another, and thereby produce a better whole from the diversity of the many.

Warrantless searches

In order for any people to be considered to be free, they must at a minimum, be secure within their own person, and their own property, from unreasonable searches and seizures from the state.  In those cases in which a home search is conducted, the policing arm of the state is required to have obtained a judicial warrant specifying the location to be searched and the specific things to be seized.  The above is part and parcel of the 4th Amendment to our Constitution, but even if this was not specifically spelled out by that Amendment to that Constitution, recognize that a person can never consider themselves to be free and at liberty, if the state apparatus through its policing arm, is able to at their discretion, search and seize, whatsoever that they so desire, with or without notice, at anytime and at any place that they so please.

While, police will decry the unfairness of them always having to get a warrant, specific to the place, people, and items to be seized, under all circumstances, and thereby put forth examples of why they should be able to circumvent such by indicating the exigency of certain dynamic situations; the truth of the matter is, if the Justice department will not do their fair part in staying the overreaching hand of the police, or if both of these institutions, simply agree that in certain specific situations, the police are permitted to do whatsoever that they so desire to do, per their discretion, alone; then the people within that country cannot be considered to be free.  Further to the point, such warrantless searches are seldom arbitrary, but rather are often instigated by those that work hand in glove with the well placed and powerful, so that some are accorded special privileges which none shall ever dare tread upon; whereas the general public is forever in danger of having their most basic rights subject to abuse at anytime, in which they have no recourse to such an abuse.

This signifies, that there is absolutely no point in believing or saying false words, claiming that this country is the land of liberty and freedom, when the very police who are sworn to serve and to protect the general public, are performing their duties in a manner which is inimical to specifically that; for these police rather are primarily serving and protecting those that actuate them in particular actions that they thereby take that will or will not be tolerated and supported by those that they answer to.  When any police department is effectively utilized as an oppressive cudgel to keep certain people in line, at the behest of those that want to keep the masses, in their place; as well as to demonstrate as necessary, that nobody is safe, then that country is certainly not free, nor are the people at liberty, but rather this distinctly represents what is the epitome of a police state.

To the degree that the justice department turns a blind eye, or implicitly encourages, police departments throughout this land to exercise warrantless searches, and no-knock searches, per their discretion, then the people are never going to be safe, and should rightly fear that they have nowhere to turn for justice; signifying that the highest law of this land is effectively a dead letter.