"I'm From the Government and I'm Here to Help"

As I pointed out about 18 months ago, our lawmakers are always eager to help us solve our own problems.  This often leads to more regulations with ineffective solutions, solutions to problems that don’t exist or unintended consequences.  Motives are good but are based on the assumption that we are unable or unwilling to take care of ourselves or we otherwise acting irresponsibly.

The original post described how Congress was seeking to supplement the ineffective “Do Not Call” list with a special requirement to eliminate computer-generated calls.  The ROBOCOP Act was intended to require that telephone service providers come up with technology allowing their customers to block them.  They felt that these calls were “an annoying problem for telephone customers” as companies delayed dealing with them.  The simple solution of responsible citizens using caller ID to answer only recognized numbers and not buying into every sales pitch that comes over the phone apparently never came up.  We were assumed to be victims.

Now we face another crisis that we are unable to deal with, colorful soap tablets.  A couple of New York State lawmakers want a law to force companies to change the color of the laundry detergent tablets to make them less appealing to children.  I guess they didn’t understand that the “Tide challenge” was teenagers showing off, not children being poisoned. (One baby died in FL back in 2013 and only “eight deaths as a result of eating detergent pods were reported from 2012 to early 2017 in the US, involving six adults suffering from dementia and two children.”)

The company argues that consumers have a choice.  They make Tide in an all-white tablet and in liquid and powder form.  “But New York lawmakers and consumer advocacy groups said more should be done, including the Legislature passing the bill.  They call the new law ‘a sensible measure to address the products' dangers.’”  Yes sensible, if you want to step in to protect people from every possible danger. How many other laws do we need to prevent one death per year?

If that’s not bad enough, California wants to put a warning on coffee due to cancer risk.  Scientists found that high doses of the chemical that gives coffee its color, acrylamide, causes cancer in mice.  They have a law, referred to as Proposition 65, that forces companies to warn customers of all products on the list that they might come in contact with.  California coffee shops are fighting a lawsuit forcing them to comply.

There are currently over 800 chemicals on that list.  Their website explains:  “The list contains a wide range of naturally occurring and synthetic chemicals that are known to cause cancer or birth defects or other reproductive harm. These chemicals include additives or ingredients in pesticides, common household products, food, drugs, dyes, or solvents. Listed chemicals may also be used in manufacturing and construction, or they may be byproducts of chemical processes, such as motor vehicle exhaust.”  You likely can’t run any business without posting warnings – even for chemicals that in high doses may cause cancer in mice.  The only thing they are not protecting their citizens from is information overload!

But why would state and federal lawmakers feel justified in assuming citizens are unable or unwilling to take care of themselves or would choose to act irresponsibly?  One doesn’t have to look very far for examples.

Recently LL Bean, the Maine-based company specializing in clothing and outdoor recreation equipment had to change its generous lifetime return policy.  “The company, which has touted its 100 percent satisfaction guarantee for more than a century, is imposing a one-year limit on most returns to reduce growing abuse and fraud.”  They found that over the past few years people have been returning “items that have been destroyed or rendered useless, including some purchased at thrift stores or retrieved from trash bins.”  The expense is unsustainable.

When lawmakers make these assumptions and pass more laws trying to protect us from ourselves it impinges on our freedom and raises our costs.  Until everyone begins to act more responsibly, we can expect more of the same.

Another Super Food

I’m trying for a while to stay away from the topic of dietary supplements that claim to be the answer to all our health prayers, but it’s tough to do.  As I was zipping through ads on TV one night, I had to stop and back up asking, “What in the world is this?”

It was Super Beets, a powder you dissolve in water.  They call it a circulation super-food, with the “Nitric Oxide Equivalent of 3 Whole Beets in 1 Easy Scoop” and explains that, because we lose half of our nitric oxide as we get older, it helps:

• ·      Support Increased Energy & Stamina Without Added Sugar, Caffeine, or Stimulants
• ·      Promote Heart Health & Healthy Circulation
• ·      Support Healthy Blood Pressure Levels

After some graphs and scientific sounding explanations, they add that the American Heart Association (AHA) tested beet juice against water and 24 hours later subjects “drinking beetroot juice reduced their systolic pressure by 10 mm Hg! The beetroot juice in the study contained only 0.2 grams of dietary nitrate – the equivalent of a large bowl of lettuce or two beetroots.”  (Notice the AHA does not specifically cite the product in the ad.)  Then they list many personal endorsements.

We grow beets in the backyard garden every summer.  They are easy to grow as long as you use row cover to keep the rabbits out.  They are not easy to prepare and cook but taste much better than the ones from the store.  Are they really that good for me and my nitric oxide level?

I decided to do some research and quickly found several review websites for this product and most of them were negative.  The first stated, “there’s no research backing this product’s formula,” adding, “Many customers online are bummed out because they didn’t see any results.” Beets are good for you, but there is no scientific research specifically backing this product.

The next website lists reviews of the product, many of which are not complimentary, e.g., one customer saying how, “it tastes awful and there has been no substantial change in her energy levels.”  Other reviews fail to verify the claims of improved stamina, heart health or blood pressure.  The powder doesn’t mix well, clumps up in the container and is expensive.

Yet another site has the following: “Superbeets supplement does not work towards its claims. It does not improve energy levels nor enhance muscle building process. There are many side effects observed by customers who have used it.”  This is a summary from a site that seems otherwise favorable to dietary supplements.

Another conclusion from a review website:  “beets contain high levels of nitrates, as do other foods like arugula and iceberg lettuce, spinach, celery, and more.”  But “there simply isn’t enough clinical evidence to say with any certainty that food-based nitrates can improve exercise performance, boost energy, or maintain stamina—including SuperBeets.”  And each serving “contains about one-third of your daily recommended intake of added sugar.”

The conclusion was pretty much unanimous.  If you want a supplement with no scientific backing (many people do this all the time), that other customers gave overwhelmingly negative reviews to (tastes bad and doesn’t work), that doesn’t seem to deliver on the three main benefits it promotes, that contains a lot of sugar, that is expensive and has numerous possible side effects (upset stomach, gas, bloating, nausea, and cramping), this is the one for you.  Otherwise, maybe not.

As in so many other cases, enough people must take them at their word and buy the product to allow them to produce and distribute it, to produce and run the TV ads, to pay their employees and to make a nice profit.  What does this add to our society except a good example of another failure in critical thinking?

Government: "Do It - It's Good For You!"

Here’s another bad idea drawn from the pages of the USA Today.  “New Mexico’s high school juniors would be required to apply to at least one college or show they have committed to other post-high school plans as part of a new high school graduation requirement being pushed by two state lawmakers.”  Under the proposed law applying to college or presenting a personal plan to join the military, commit to a vocational program, work in an apprenticeship or become an intern will become a requirement for high school graduation.

Lawmakers are concerned about the drop in college attendance in the state and hope to adopt this approach, which is based on a program in the city of Chicago, not exactly the best place in the world to copy educational reforms from.  Note:  In Chicago high schools fewer than three out of every four students graduate over a five-year period, far worse than the national average.

One reason it’s a bad idea is that it assumes that the state is superior to parents and students in knowing what is best.  Some young people are not cut out for college, either academically or based on personal interests.   Some are not socially or emotionally ready to go to college right out of high school and would benefit from a year or two off.

Another reason it’s a bad idea is that high school students are smarter than lawmakers in the sense that they are very astute at gaming the system.  They have been living for eighteen years under the thumb of one authority figure or another and have develops skills for finding loopholes.  The obvious loophole here is to apply to a college with the lowest application fee.  Send the application in – requirement met – and then go about your business.  (Here is a list of 426 colleges with no application fee found after a two-minute Internet search.)

 Another reason it’s a bad idea is that the last thing New Mexico high school students, especially those from some of the poorer districts, need is one more hurdle to high school graduation.  For the more rebellious, instead of encouraging college attendance, it may discourage high school graduation.

College is also a huge financial commitment, one that continues to haunt the current wave of young (and not so young) college graduates.

Finally, lawmakers are notoriously poor at influencing behavior through legislation.  They write thousand-page laws to try to cover every possible contingency, yet motivated people will find ways to circumvent tax laws, immigration laws and a host of others.  In 2011 a federal law cracked down on the credit card companies, and before it became effective the credit card companies raised some fees and minimum balances to, at least partially, offset the effect of the law.

Lawmakers with good intentions try to get people to do what they see as the right thing.  In the process they don’t consider all contingencies, they try to force everyone into the same mold, they give individuals (students and parents) permission to shirk their own responsibility and they complicate life for everyone.

Throw Out Those Jeans

The word is spreading that buying jeans is stressful and we should not wear them if we are over 53 years old.  Well, that was so crazy I just had to look into it.

The first story I found came from a local TV station in Florida.  It said, “A new survey found some adults may be getting too old for jeans.”  Later they refer to the survey as a “study” adding, “the stress people experience while jean shopping is intense by age 53, with 6 percent becoming so upset they burst into tears.”  It also takes up to 8 days to find the perfect pair and “research showed women spend twice as long as men searching for the right fit.”  So in the course of the article, it has gone from a survey to a study to research, from asking people to fill out a questionnaire to scientists in lab coats with secret cameras or something.

Since it gave a link to the “new study” I thought I would go straight to the source.  The link connected me to the Daily Mail, a British Newspaper, and the article there was dated November 1, 2016 – hardly a new study.  That story told me that most people spend “up to five days looking for ideal fit” with a total average cost of over $45.  (I guess they weren’t talking about designer jeans or those trendy ones charging more for pre-worn holes.)  After all that work and expense of hunting for jeans, about one-quarter said they never found their ideal pair and almost one-third gave up looking.  Finally, the information did come from a survey, not a study, of 2000 people in England.

The Huffington Post picked up the story back in 2016 from the same Daily Mail article when it was still fresh.  They did point out, after complaining about the results, that it was “far from scientific.”  But they put an interesting spin on the information.  Despite the British newspaper having a picture of a man in jeans accompanying their piece, the Huffington Post headlines read:  “Most Annoying Study Reveals Age When Women Are Too Old For Jeans.”  (Giving some women another reason to feel victimized by society or science is a guaranteed winning headline.)

To add fuel to the fire, the Huffington article mentioned another survey putting the cutoff age at 47 based again on the opinions of another 2,000 Brits – unspecified as to whether that survey referred to men, women or both.

The same information was also presented on NBC’s Today show site just a couple of weeks ago, again as a new study, but most of their links took the reader to ads for jeans.

A takeaway should be that, despite what reporters seem to think, surveys are not the same as studies or research and deserve a lot less attention.  Even studies and research have their flaws and are very often published and reported long before we can put any faith in their findings.  This jeans survey may be a silly example, but it demonstrates how critical thinking and personal research can quickly get to the bottom of any news report on surveys, studies or research, especially ones pertaining to more serious subjects.

Another lesson is that Brits seem to obsess about how old is too old to be wearing jeans.  It’s a good thing Americans have a strong sense of perspective.  They aren’t so superficial as to get caught up in trivial subjects, stressing out over the “ideal” pair of jeans with the “perfect fit,” the pressure sometimes driving them to tears – or are they?

Brief Review

As I reach the 700^th posting on this site, it’s time for a brief review.

For more than 20 years Americans have been dissatisfied with the direction of the country.  When asked whether the country is headed in the right direction overall in monthly polls, the majority (often around 65%) answers “no” more than three-quarters of the time.  They look to government to fix it, so parties rotate in and out of power and nothing seems to change.  Dissatisfaction remains high.

In place of ineffective government solutions, this site offers Real Solutions based on behavior, because behavior has consequences.  As individual behaviors accumulate, they become societal trends.  And just as individual foolishness results in individual unhappiness, these societal trends result in crises, epidemics and our general dissatisfaction with the overall direction.

Behavior, though, seems elusive.  Behavior is whatever someone says or does, the decisions he makes or beliefs she professes.  How to get this myriad of choices and actions organized and understandable can be a challenge.

One way to do this is to classify behaviors by the personality traits they reflect.  I use the term dimensions for these traits and propose five as key to success:  Economic Understanding, Discipline, Responsibility, Critical Thinking and Perspective.  If behaviors in these dimensions are positive, consequences will be beneficial, the individual and society with thrive.  The opposite is also true.

So for nearly seven years on each Monday and Friday, I have scanned the news and published a critique of one or more particular decisions, actions or choices that seem to reflect popular trends and result in poor outcomes.  Sometimes people don’t see the connection between their money and tax policy or between costs and prices urging lawmakers to take actions with unforeseen consequences (Economic Understanding).  Doing the right thing is hard in terms of saving money, eating healthy and the rest, so they turn to purveyors of too-good-to-be-true formulas, diets and get-rich-quick schemes wasting time and money (Discipline).  When they fail or are injured as a result of poor choices, they look for someone else to blame or bail them out (Responsibility).  Conspiracy theories, faulty scientific studies, unproven medicine, statistical long shots, hasty decision making, gut feel and emotional responses all lead to wasted time and money and dangerous outcomes (Critical Thinking).  Finally, lack of gratitude and unrealistic expectations cause us to feel that things are worse than they really are, that we don’t have enough and must keep striving for more (Perspective).

Taken together these five key dimensions explain why there are so many problems with retirement insecurity, obesity epidemic, gun violence, opioid epidemic, helicopter parenting, college debt, fad diets, smartphone and game addictions, failing schools, teen and adult sleep deprivation, consumer fraud, scientific illiteracy, deceptive advertising, media-driven fears and hype, health and financial scams, frustration over income inequality, frivolous lawsuits, plastic in the oceans, demonization of business, failed government programs, political divisiveness and much more.

The purpose of these short essays is not to nit-pick and complain, but to show how most major problems in the news, all those crises and epidemics, result not from the lack of some new government program, but from behavioral choices.  The examples are intended to teach readers how to identify faulty behaviors for themselves and classify them into the Big Five Dimensions. 

If some critical mass of the population begins to take the five dimensions seriously in their own lives and tries to influence the behavior of others, the pull of society will get the whole country headed in the right directions.  The government can keep us secure, maintain roads, and enforce laws, etc. while we do the rest.  Without a significant change in behavior, no law or regulation, no new administration will be able to fix what we ourselves have broken.