Someone opined not long ago that they believed the United States government was responsible for around 95% of all America’s problems or that it made naturally evolving challenges worse. Given all our problems, the statement is credible.
A few examples:
While George W. Bush was sending our troops to the Middle East, beating up on goat herders and getting our butts handed to us by sling-shots, fifty-year-old AK-47s, and a superior public relations program, Vladimir Putin was making a world tour making friends with every one of our adversaries, including Iran, China, Iraq, Syria, Turkey, and Indonesia. Today, we’ll add two more “friends” to Vladimir Putin’s impressive list of allies: Vietnam and North Korea.
On Thursday (20 June), Russian President Putin signed a series of deals in Vietnam, the final stop on Putin’s two-nation tour. Vietnam is the third country Putin has visited since being sworn in for his fifth term of office. He also stopped off in North Korea and China. All seems well for the Putin Plan. By the way, all those people claiming that Putin was on his deathbed appear somewhat exaggerated.
In Vietnam, Putin made deals for further cooperation in education, science and technology, oil and gas, and human health services. As the United States leads the charge against Putin, favoring instead Volodymyr Zelenskyy of Ukraine, Putin has put together an amazing economic package deal that will reverse the effects of US/EU and NATO efforts to defeat Putin. Currently, China, North Korea (nuclear nations), Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Syria, Turkey, Iran, Iraq, and Yemen are firmly aligned with the Russian Federation.
Meanwhile, as Taiwan is sitting directly in the path of a massive (overwhelming) Chinese invasion, our president wanders around on the international stage, and petty tyrants in Africa publicly berate Anthony Blinken for being an idiot. And the entire world is laughing — but more to the point, everyone knows the United States has no business involving itself in the Russo-Ukrainian war. Even our “global partners” are happy to sit back and watch the United States bankrupt itself by giving money away to Ukraine and Hamas.
Who could have imagined this twenty years ago?
What else is Russia willing to do for Vietnam and North Korea? Mutual defense and security and providing energy resources. Watch how soon the Japanese adopt similar “relations” with Putin. Vladimir Putin has learned valuable lessons from history; the Americans have learned nothing. Remember the old Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere? Today Russia has in place a “Comprehensive Strategic Partnership” with the three major powerhouses in the Far East: China, North Korea, and Vietnam. Putin also gave a wink and a nod to ASEAN, so those member countries know they have a friend in Vladimir.
Elections have consequences, and Mr. Putin (assessing the likelihood that Joe Biden is on the way out) is making substantial inroads to closer relations with all of America’s global competitors.
Let me begin by encapsulating what the experts are drumming into our heads:
People have racist attitudes because they tend to take on the views of people around them.
We only hang out with people like us.
We’re too quick to judge others.
We tend to blame others for our problems.
There are no reasons or excuses for racism. It’s just wrong.
Historically, our understanding of racism has focused on individual psychology and how an individuals’ beliefs and behaviors drive it. Then we were told that the problem was that some people were quite intelligent, while others were dumb as rocks — the smart ones being white. Looking around, I have to say that white people have no claim on innate intelligence.
Modern researchers say this is all wrong. Instead, we must seek to understand racism through cultural psychology — that is, through practices and behavioral patterns embedded in culture. This is significant because the “researchers” now intend to focus on changing the behaviors of entire cultures. Good luck with that.
God forbid, I’m not saying the experts are wrong. I am saying, “Give me a break.”
The thing to know about these experts is that they develop their careers (and a gratifying income) by teaching, leading research teams, applying for and receiving research grants, publishing findings, paid lectures, etc., from racism. The longer this topic remains a hot-button issue, the more money they stand to make.
So, to ensure that their careers become and remain robust, the experts coordinate their efforts with people who can help them propagate their claims: journalists, activists, community organizers, and justice warriors. The buzzwords supporting their popular propositions include racism, racialism, white privilege, and so forth. One may recall something Vladimir Lenin told us back in 1923: the more you tell a lie, the more people believe it’s the unvarnished truth. Quite soon, before anyone realizes it, every white person is a racist, every successful white person, and every wealthy white person has gained an unfair advantage over his black brother or sister — all because of skin color.
All of the preceding propositions are generalizations — and, as with all such claims, they are oversimplifications. Of course, there is some truth to what they say, but no cigar. Why? Because most people (regardless of skin color) are not racists. There are plenty of reasons for blacks to resent whites that have nothing to do with skin color — and the same is true about whites not having much interest in black culture.
Look — people are not racist simply because they don’t have any “different-skinned” neighbors or because they don’t bowl on Tuesday night with minority members of society. Racism is a peculiar psychological dysfunction, and it is patently stupid to accuse everyone of being a racist. The problem is that all these experts and their journalist/activist co-conspirators are making matters worse — and profiting from it.
Here’s my contention: People who make outlandish claims about white privilege are exhibiting racist behaviors. Blaming white people for their whiteness, their social position, their educational attainments, and the size of their bank accounts — is not only racist but also unfounded. So what we have here is a condition where the experts have become racists to help society deal with racism.
How bizarre is this — ?
A journalist was speaking about the concept of white privilege, the belief that being white comes with unearned advantages. He asked a white retiree if he believed in white privilege, and the man said no, but he did believe in black privilege. Aghast, the black journalist demanded to know one perk that a black man enjoyed that the retiree didn’t. The man answered, “Black History Month.” The journalist observed that this proves whites are becoming the new blacks in America.
Need more proof? Black people can belong to clubs and organizations that cater specifically to blacks; white people can’t do that. Moreover, there is no such thing as a National Association for the Advancement of White People. That would be racist. Any white person suggesting the observance of white history month would be skewered by every federal bureaucrat and community organizer north of the Mason-Dixon line. Black people can refer to whites as Honky and an expletive with the abbreviation M. F., but if a white person uses the word nigger, Katie Bar the Door.
What this is — is stupid. In such cases as I’ve described, there is no sign of mutual respect, and yet the experts on racism claim that this is all the fault of white society. The word for such conclusions is dumb.
Yes, there are racial and ethnic disparities in our society. It may even be true that the wealth of white households is thirteen times the median wealth of black households — but whose fault is that?
Fact: Leaving school before graduation dramatically affects future employment, earnings, health, and overall well-being. According to the U.S. Department of Labor (2018), high school dropouts are over three times more likely unemployed than college graduates.
Fact: Even when employed, high school dropouts earn about $10,500 a year less than high school graduates and approximately $35,000 less than college graduates (U.S. Department of Labor, 2017).
Fact: In some locations, the dropout rate among black students remains steady at just under 10%. Nationally, black children represent around 18% of preschool enrollments and around 50% of children with multiple suspensions from school. Why is that? How is this a white-people problem? How is it a white-people problem when dozens of blacks descend on a department store and mob rob it?
And maybe the statistics, as horrible as they are, do not reflect any inherent racism at all. Do members of the black community strive to assimilate mainstream culture, or are they happy to remain within the margins of society? If education is the pathway to success in life, why aren’t black communities embracing it? Why aren’t black fathers staying home with their children and modeling for them what it is to be a good man?
I agree that we have a lot of work to do to improve our society. We were better off in that regard before Bobo Obama came along with his racist rhetoric and programs, but that’s water over the dam. But if we need to restart race relations, let’s stop calling each other silly names.
According to Stephen Hobbs, a writer at the Sacramento Bee, California Democrats are set to spend millions of dollars on black reparations programs. This is the ultimate result of California Governor Gavin Newsom’s efforts to express his sorrow for slavery. Of course, California was never a slave state, but facts do not seem to matter in California. Democrats spend other people’s money — it’s what they do.
My opinion about this is that working hard to give blacks someone else’s money, people who never had anything to do with slavery, is how Mr. Newsom ended his aspirations to one day become President of the United States. No one in normal America thinks that modern-day blacks, given their access to massive welfare spending programs, deserve another cent of other people’s money.
The spending bill might also trigger the largest black diaspora in American history as millions of po’ black folk surge toward the Golden State for their piece of the white boy’s pie.
Hobbs tells us in his article that Democrats celebrated the win, especially within California’s Black Caucus. Caucus chair Lori Wilson explained that it was precisely what Black lawmakers asked for — in a year when California faces a $47 million expenditure shortfall.
Finally, Newsom’s actions, shepherding the bill through the legislature, seem to prove Bernoulli’s Law: “Vacuums are places where no matter exists, or places of shallow pressure, where existing particles don’t affect processes,” such as inside Newsom’s brain-housing-group.
Developing economics is a branch of economics that focuses its attention on improving fiscal, economic, and social conditions in developing countries. It considers such factors as health, education, working conditions, domestic and international policies, and market conditions with a stated interest in improving conditions in the world’s worst-off countries. One problem with this is that most theoretical economists have never worked in any field and base all their arguments on unproven hypotheses.
Absent here, in the rush to judge how great their ideas are, economists lose sight of how the scientific method of investigation is supposed to work. It’s pretty simple, actually. First, one establishes facts through long-term observation of behavior, forming a hypothesis, predicting the likely outcome of that hypothesis, validating the hypothesis through experimentation, and carefully analyzing the results of one’s work. Skipping over steps or accelerating the process only damages the process of intelligent investigation.
Let’s investigate this further by looking at government subsidies: A subsidy is a benefit given to an individual, business, or institution — usually by the government. It can be direct (such as cash payments) or indirect (such as tax breaks). The subsidy is typically given to remove some burden, and it is often considered to be in the overall interest of the public, given to promote a social good or an economic policy.
There are many forms of government subsidies, the most common of which are welfare payments and unemployment benefits. Presumably, these types of subsidies aim to help people temporarily suffering economically. However, This argument fails when many people are permanently enrolled in such programs and their socio-economic situation remains perpetually unchanged. Another example of government subsidy is the subsidized interest rates on student loans. These are offered to people to further their education. The word education may only partially describe what goes on in institutions of higher education. It makes the casual observer wonder, “What, exactly, are we subsidizing?” People graduating with degrees in gender studies do not contribute to the American economy — and if that’s true, then why does the government (taxpayers) subsidize clownishness?
The argument supporting government subsidies to businesses is that some businesses struggle against unfair competition in domestic and international markets — so the government steps in to level the playing field. This has always been a slippery slope because what happens, from a practical standpoint, is that the government picks and chooses who the “winners” are. Black-owned businesses and those owned and operated by women (of any color) receive government assistance, while those operated by white people, particularly white males, do not. How fair is this? It isn’t fair, and it’s un-American, and some people will argue that if a business needs a government subsidy, it shouldn’t be in business in the first place.
To take the issue of subsidy to the next level, certain politicians propose canceling all student loans. Free education — and we all know the value of something we didn’t pay for or work for. I do not understand the thinking that supports “free college education.”
Democrats (and other communists) are now arguing that government intervention is justified (and necessary) because some (for whom higher education is productive) are unable to finance education loans because of imperfections in private credit markets. Alternatively, owing $60,000 (or more) for a degree in African or gender studies may have been a colossally dumb move. It is time for people to make better decisions for their future by thinking through the problem before leaping into a financial abyss.
We know from practical experience that subsidies encourage the wrong kinds of excesses. Anyone seeking a degree in a field of study without jobs makes no sense. None. We might even ask universities that offer such degrees to explain why they offer them. We may find out, after further investigation, that the government subsidizes universities to offer such degrees. I have no problem with “gender studies” at the graduate level, so long as there is no government subsidy to pay for them.
Why is the government offering to forgive and pay for these loans (at the taxpayer’s expense)? It is entirely political — which means patently dishonest. The federal government has no legitimate role in the educational loan business. Indeed, the federal government has no legitimate role in most subsidies. My conclusion is subjective, of course. No one has provided any scientific justification for choosing winners and losers in a society that used to and should again, exist on merit.
Are there people who are intellectually gifted but economically challenged? Of course. And there are already in place programs that address these people. Student loans are possible, along with educational grants and scholarships. These must be awarded based on merit, not skin color or gender. No person should have a college degree because of an athletic skill set. They shouldn’t be in college if they cannot be accepted into a college or university because of their intellectual ability.
Otherwise, college degrees are worthless no matter how much the government subsidizes them. We all know this — even Democratic politicians (and other communists). In the United States, this topic is all about getting young people to vote for Democrats — and this is a bad idea because even people with degrees in African pottery know that Democrats have never had an idea that advanced Americanism.
What is the fraud of educational subsidies? It is that the government picks and chooses winners and losers. This is not the business of government. Not in America, anyway, and it is time for Democrats to stop treating the American people as if they are living in a developing economy.
Most of us “get it.” It’s just that most of us can’t do anything about the utterly stupid direction the federal government is taking us. How does one define “utterly stupid?” Try this on —
Joe Biden recently traveled to Dearborn, Michigan, and proclaimed it one of America’s greatest cities. Of course, the entire city has been taken over by radical Muslims, so I’m not sure how Biden’s statement can be true. In any case, while he was there, Biden admonished us not to judge all Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics — which is probably good advice. That came from one side of Biden’s mouth. From the other side of his yap, Biden urges everyone to judge all gun owners by the actions of a few lunatics.
Leftist politicians continually remind us how Social Security is going to run out of money. They’re giving us due warning by sounding the alarm bell. Yet, they never mention that Congress continues to help itself to the Social Security general fund. One should also notice that politicians never tell us that we’re running out of money to support welfare fraud or food stamps. In the first instance, we’re talking about people who worked for their benefit; in the second instance, people who had it handed to them as soon as they illegally arrived in the United States.
Forest Gump’s mama told us, “Stupid is what stupid does.” How is it possible for any rational member of Congress to cut benefits to veterans and reduce the size of the U.S. Army while increasing the benefits paid to illegal aliens?
Of course, if you think that’s bad, what must you think about American citizens who keep electing morons to Congress so that Congress can continue behaving moronically?
On August 18, 1996, the San Jose Mercury News published the first installment of a three-part series of articles concerning crack cocaine, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and the Nicaraguan Contras army.
The article claimed, “For the better part of a decade, a San Francisco Bay Area drug ring sold tons of cocaine to the Crips and Bloods street gangs of Los Angeles and funneled millions in drug profits to a Latin American guerrilla army run by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, a Mercury News investigation has found. This drug network opened the first pipeline between Colombia’s cocaine cartels and the black neighborhoods of Los Angeles, a city now known as the “crack” capital of the world. The cocaine that flooded in helped spark a crack explosion in urban America . . . and provided the cash and connections needed for L.A.’s gangs to buy automatic weapons.”
The series told the story of a Los Angeles drug operation run by Ricky Donnell Ross, described sympathetically as “a disillusioned 19-year-old” who found himself adrift on the streets of South-Central Los Angeles in the early 1980s. Ross began peddling small quantities of cocaine in an enterprise that rapidly grew into one of the largest cocaine dealerships in southern California — until he was convicted of federal drug trafficking charges in March 1996.
Ricky’s story probably isn’t unusual in America’s largest cities. In this case, however, Ricky’s success was made possible by Oscar Danilo Blandon and Norwin Meneses, two individuals with ties to the Fuerza Democratica Nicaraguense (FDN), one group comprising the Nicaraguan Contras. Blandon and Meneses reportedly sold tons of cocaine to Ross, who in turn converted it to crack and sold it in the black communities of South Central Los Angeles. Blandon and Meneses were said to have used their drug trafficking profits to help fund the Contra army’s war effort.
On December 20, 1985, an Associated Press article claimed that three Contra groups “engaged in cocaine trafficking, in part to help finance their war against Nicaragua.” Rumors about illicit activities on the part of the Contras had also been probed in Senate hearings in the late 1980s. However, the Mercury News series contained — or at least many readers interpreted it to include — a new sensational claim: that the CIA and other agencies of the United States government were responsible for the crack epidemic that ravaged black communities across the country. The newspaper articles suggested that the United States government had protected Blandon and Meneses from prosecution and either knowingly permitted them to peddle massive quantities of cocaine to the black residents of South Central Los Angeles or turned a blind eye to such activity.
One interesting side note: Who was the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (1976 – 1977), Vice President of the United States (1981 – 1989), and President of the United States (1989 – 1993)? Who invaded Panama and locked away drug kingpin Manuel Noriega, who testified about the CIA’s involvement in his illicit drug activities?
The Mercury News later proclaimed that the article did not make these allegations. However, notwithstanding the Mercury News’ assertions, involvement by the CIA and the United States government in the crack crisis was implied through oblique references and the juxtaposition of specific images and phrases in the so-called Dark Alliance. Moreover, the Contras purportedly received drug money from Blandon and Meneses — men referred to as the CIA’s army.
The American news media picked up on the Mercury News series’ insinuation and made it explicit in coverage of the series. On August 20, 1996, the headline of the first article to cover the Mercury News series, published by the Associated Press, stated, “Newspaper Alleges that CIA Helped Spark Crack Cocaine Plague.” It was followed by other articles and editorials declaring that the crack cocaine crisis had been created by the CIA and/or agents of the United States government.
Later, critics and commentators debated whether the Mercury News articles accused the United States government of being responsible for the nation’s crack cocaine epidemic. In an October 2, 1996, Washington Post article, Gary Webb (the reporter who wrote the Dark Alliance series) asserted that the article had not claimed that the CIA knew about Blandon’s drug trafficking. Webb was quoted as saying, “We’ve never pretended otherwise … This doesn’t prove the CIA targeted black communities. It doesn’t say this was ordered by the CIA. . . . Essentially, our trail stopped at the door of the CIA. They wouldn’t return my phone calls.”
It is at least interesting to imagine that the United States government would target blacks for cocaine use — and for those who say there is simply no way any agency of the United States government would do such a thing, harken back to the time when the U.S. government distributed blankets to Indians knowing they were infected with the Small Pox virus.
And would this be the same United States government that uses undercover FBI agents to entrap Americans and then arrest and prosecute them? Would it be the same Department of Justice that conspired against a sitting American president?
Naturally, more than a few African-American leaders were particularly troubled by the articles, mindful of the frequency with which young blacks were being incarcerated for drug offenses … particularly if they weren’t getting their fair cut.
The Mercury News series was not only a story about the United States government and crack cocaine. It also revisited allegations concerning the Contras and drug trafficking that have been reported upon and investigated for many years. In 1987, the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Narcotics, and International Operations of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations began an investigation focusing on allegations received by the subcommittee chairman, Senator John Kerry, concerning illegal gun-running and narcotics trafficking associated with the Contras. There’s another fellow who would be interested in a cut, but no one reading this likely voted for him anyway.
In any case, a two-year investigation produced a massive report in 1989 analyzing the involvement of Contra groups and supporters in drug trafficking and the role of United States government officials in these activities. Allegations of cocaine trafficking by Contras also arose during the investigation conducted by Independent Counsel Lawrence Walsh into the Iran-Contra affair. Drug trafficking allegations, however, were not the focus of that inquiry, so the Walsh report included no findings on any such allegations.
It is undisputed that individuals like Meneses and Blandon, who had ties to the Contras or were Contra sympathizers, were convicted of drug trafficking, either in the United States or Central America. There is also undeniable evidence that certain groups associated with the Contras engaged in drug trafficking. However, the pervasiveness of such activities within the Contra movement and the United States government’s knowledge of those activities are still the subject of debate. It’s all talk. My guess is that all those in power know what’s going on and who’s involved in it. If that is true, there is no reason to hold a hearing to reveal the truth. In fact, among those who know the truth, the last thing they want to see happen is for everyone else to learn the truth.
Does the “C” in CIA stand for cocaine? I don’t know; if I did, I’d be wise to keep it to myself. Why? Because some people claim that the agency protecting America is also responsible for the assassination of an American president. Compared to JFK, I’m a very small potato and easily baked.
So much is written lately about the good old days in America when everything was nice. Everyone, they say, had a job. It was a time when the entire family sat down at the dinner table, and someone offered a prayer of thanks. One may recall that television programs emphasized the best of fatherhood and motherhood in towns where the city cop was a jolly, good-natured man, where people regularly attended church services, the government was honest, and gasoline was only 27¢ a gallon.
Life back then would sound great if it were completely accurate. For most people, it wasn’t true. Few “regular” folks could afford a $12,000.00 house or a $60.00 monthly house payment. In 1950, the average rent for a three-bedroom, one-bath, two-story home was $45.00. The average annual income back then was $3,300.00. Most people didn’t own a car. In 1950, there were no interstate highways. People ate well enough — if they liked a steady diet of meat and potatoes, chicken and dumplings, or seafood casseroles.
There were indeed nifty television programs in the 1950s and 1960s … Father Knows Best, Leave It to Beaver, and The F.B.I., but these were soon replaced with Sanford and Son and The Jeffersons. The producers of those last two shows never understood that we weren’t laughing with them — we were laughing at them. Both programs were typical of black humor, which wasn’t as funny as sarcastic and mean. Nor was there any clever wit.
Some of us may have experienced households like those depicted in popular television shows, but I wasn’t one of them — nor anyone in my neighborhood. Most of our fathers went to work early in the morning, arrived home late at night, and had no time (or interest) to deal with our growing-up problems. The only heart-to-heart conversations I remember having with my stepfather surrounded my below-average report card from school and the time I threw a baseball through Mrs. Evans’ living room window. They were both one-way conversations.
I grew up in the post-World War II period. My parents worked — so if the house was tidy, I tidied it as part of my chores. The scenes from Leave It to Beaver, where Ward Cleaver comes home from work to a house nicely maintained by Mrs. Cleaver, whose two boys have upper-class bedrooms and study desks, didn’t resonate with me. I’m not sure anyone in the Cleaver family watched television — but I recall that the black and white television Dad brought home in 1954 was a blurry mess. I also remember not having a telephone in our house until around 1956.
Looking back and comparing what I remember about post-war life in the United States doesn’t compare with what others remember. In 1945, the American people were tired of war. They’d seen two World Wars and an economic collapse. Were it not for all the talk about iron curtains and Russians in space, it might have seemed that everything was returning to normal. I wouldn’t know what “returning to normal” meant if people spoke about 1939 as usual, but that’s when America went to war again in 1950. To the number of war dead in World War II, Americans added another 40,000 killed in action. Ten years later, we had duck and cover drills in schools because everyone lived in fear of atomic bombs dropping out of the sky.
People today also observe how much religion has changed in America, claiming that in the 1950s and 1960s, we were all God-fearing people. I don’t remember that. I remember that with two world wars, a disastrous conflict in Korea, the assassination of a president, the Vietnam War beginning in 1964 (it actually began in 1954), and Time Magazine’s announcement that God was dead — we all shrugged because we figured as much.
Life in America was not great in the decades following World War II. I do agree that whatever it was, it has gotten worse. In the 1950s, people didn’t brag about ripping off Uncle Sam through welfare-for-life programs that included between six and ten illegitimate children everyone else had to pay for. Back then, there was no affirmative action program, so if people were successful, they could say they did it by standing on their own two feet. These days, anyone can become president or a judge, and the chances of either are significantly improved if they’re black, female, and empty-headed.
America went off the tracks somewhere along the line. Let’s see if we can narrow it down: 1933 –1953, Democrat President; 1960 –1969, Democrat President; 1977–1981, Democrat President; 1993—2001, Democrat President; 2001—2009, Moron President; 2009—2016, Communist President; 2021—Present, Moron President, the sequel.
With that kind of track record, post-World War II Americans never stood a chance. And that’s where we are today — worse off than in 1950, but much of it is our fault. We can honestly say that yesteryear gave us a solid foundation for the present disaster.
No set of values, no matter what their origin, nor any amount of morality can withstand an increasingly corrupt society in which everyone aspires to become Hunter Biden. Whether interested in philosophy, business management, or a law degree — no academic achievement or learning matters in a corrupt society. Is there a connection between a morally deficient president and depraved attitudes among young people? Some say, “Absolutely.” No matter how well brought up young people are, don’t expect them to hold tightly to their morality if their president, judges, teachers, professors, or the people they elect are incapable of honor, and all of those they admire most are rakes.
Corruption is as complex as the most exasperating cancers and has the same effects. It reaches into our social, economic, and political systems, undermines democratic institutions, adversely impacts national economies, and destabilizes the rule of law. Studies show that corruption hinders investment, reduces growth, restricts trade, distorts the size of government expenditures, weakens the financial system, and strengthens the underground economy. A strong connection has been demonstrated between corruption, increasing poverty levels, and income inequality. This uneven distribution of wealth also has a significant impact. Corruption costs 5% of the world’s average gross domestic product (GDP). In dollars, $2.6 trillion.
Ancient philosophers (Plato, Aristotle, Machiavelli, Kautilya) have observed the effects of unethical behavior as a sign of moral decay in society — which tells us that this problem is nothing new. Buddhists tell us that corruption, as an outcome of greed, is an affliction of humankind. It’s been around forever. But that doesn’t make it okay.
We define it as dishonest, fraudulent (illegal) behavior by those in power and an abuse of public trust for personal gain. Even those who speak out against it are corrupt, such as the United Nations Convention Against Corruption. They tell everyone else not to do it, but there may not be a more corrupt organization than the United Nations or the World Economic Forum.
Three main types of criminal corruption exist: embezzlement, influenced transactions, and abuse of power. There is also money laundering, obstruction of justice, and accepting bribes. It is bad enough when high-ranking officials engage in corrupt behavior — worse when they demonstrate how easy it is to get away with it. It sends the wrong (corrupting) message to “the people.” Good people cannot abide corruption in their officials because they pay the price of a corrupt government. Society suffers because once people lose confidence in their government, which they perceive is immoral, it is impossible to regain it.
Ethics, morality, values, and integrity, which are predominant influences in defining the individual’s self and society’s behavioral outcomes, are deeply influenced by psychological makeup and vice versa. There is a broader perception that the general decline in values and social ethics has manifested in more corrupt behavior at the individual level and in rewarding unethical behavior within society — if for no other reason than it perpetuates lower standards of behavior. It allows people to “get over.” In certain ways, corruption has become integral to the American lifestyle — and this means that since it is generally acceptable, it is more difficult (some say impossible) to eradicate.
The foregoing explains why people vote for the least honest politician; a corrupt individual will work to fulfill the socialist dream of a lifetime of something for nothing. To get that something for nothing, people will ignore political corruption. It’s one of those Badda Bing — Badda Boom moments. And all it costs is the Nation. I’m sure America will still be here in another fifty years; it’s just that no one alive today will recognize it.
There are a lot of problems with our (American) economy, but the first thing to worry us is that no one seems to be able to agree about it. Some people say it’s just great, and others tell us we are at the end of life, as everyone knows. Most people who disagree about the state of our economy are theorists. Economic theorists are academics who study and wax eloquently about it but never develop sufficient practical experience to know it. No one who understands what theorists do cares what they think. People who know something about the economy usually keep it to themselves.
One academic recently told his readers that President Biden’s economic plan is working, and he doesn’t understand why so many Americans are sour on the economy. Another fellow ends his argument by admonishing readers to think about the cost of economic growth to the average American worker. He argued, “Subtract the cost of the climate crisis, the cost of poor health, and the stress in our lives that causes poor health — and then, if you want to measure economic success, do it by looking at the dinner tables all across the United States.”
The truth of America’s economy is probably somewhere in the middle of these two arguments, which tells us that anyone who relies exclusively on the “experts” to tell them how the economy is going is grossly uninformed. Informed citizens don’t need to be geniuses in every aspect of government; they only need to know enough to separate the wheat from the chaff — to know what’s real and what isn’t.
Here’s how it usually works: talking heads assure viewers/listeners that the world is ending, and they get down in the mouth and blame the President. Or the heads tell viewers that there will soon be a new car in every garage, and they become giddy and credit the President. The world isn’t ending, and no one is getting a new car unless they are willing to pay for it. The truth is that the president receives more blame and credit than he deserves. The lesson: citizens should do more thinking and less complaining.
Here’s some information that may help: all our general understanding of the economy could be more forward-looking. By the time we understand that the economy has fallen off, the events of the fall have already happened. What people should know and accept about the economy is that some aspects of it have an accordion effect: gas and food prices increase and decrease. Most other consumer prices (and taxes) go up. When these prices rise slowly, we have low inflation (but inflation, nonetheless). As a general statement, price levels seldom fall. The federal government’s job is not to bring down prices; it is to make a soft landing for inflation.
Some people take a different tack — they blame a poor economy on price-gouging corporations. To make his point, one talking head argued that the cost of living is increasing for regular Americans with no more money to spend. Inflation doesn’t bother the wealthy but plays hell with everyone else. While low-income people have government-created safety nets, the middle class stands alone.
If people stopped spending $44,000 on Japanese-made cars, the cost of Japanese cars would decrease. Less demand, increased inventory, lower prices. Gotta move ’em along. What if the middle class refused to go into debt for an overpriced home: would the cost of homes decrease? If shoppers refused to buy beefsteak at the supermarket more than once a month, would the cost of steak decrease?
When consumers feel overwhelmed by the economy, do they have any options? Everyone has options. Rather than moaning about things that are beyond their control, why don’t consumers boycott over-priced/over-rated products? Maybe boycotting is too hard. Perhaps it is easier to observe and whine about an ever-diminishing disposable income. And keep voting for politicians who only make the economy worse.