Buy Now, Pay (or regret) Later

Usually on Black Friday I write about perspective – that any deal on electronics is not worth the life of the person trampled in the stampede. Another aspect of perspective is appreciating what we have and not constantly yearning after more or bigger or newer. The problem is that understanding the difference between wants and needs is only a first step. It must be followed by the discipline not to ignore reality by buying something anyway, especially something you can’t afford.

What seems to be catching on today is a new gimmick called point-of-sale installment loans. “This holiday season, it's not enough to spot a great Black Friday deal on a big screen TV or a sweater. You need to consider whether you want to take out a loan at the checkout, too.” 

That’s right; shoppers no longer need to go to a bank for a loan to buy something they can’t pay for. An installment loan at checkout breaks the cash register receipt into a number of easy monthly payments. That service is now available at Wal-Mart and at many other retailers, both brick-and-mortar and on line. And installment loans are expected to be “hot this holiday season, as retailers attempt to drive sales and shoppers demand easy-to-understand credit.” Retailers are partnering with finance companies to give shoppers these loans, even to people who might not qualify for regular credit cards. Instead of paying at the time of purchase, shoppers can take the items home and pay in 3, 6 or 12 monthly payments.

This is not a new idea, but was usually limited to big-ticket items. Furniture stores have used it for years. The problem is that the eventual monthly payments add up to more than the original price – sometimes 20% or 30% more. 

Not paying cash at checkout is not new either. Credit cards made that possible years ago, and both arrangements involve interest. But shoppers generally ignore the interest in light of the convenience and recognize some advantages over credit cards. Installment loans have no late payment fees, which are a big revenue source for credit card companies, and people tend to like the idea of a predictable, fixed amount each month.

It really is the same idea as a mortgage or car payment, but now the idea is moving downstream to less expensive purchases. Another source says installment plans have a “wide appeal but resonates most strongly for debit users. Four-in-ten would consider using an installment plan for everyday purchases like groceries and household items.”

An American Banker article has another explanation for the trend; “many younger Americans are uncomfortable carrying credit card balances, partly because they saw their parents struggle with debt during the financial crisis and prefer the more certain repayment terms of installment loans.”

This brings up a few issues. First, the financial problems of the parents of younger Americans were not the fault of the credit card. They were problems of discipline and perspective. Going into debt in a different way is no guarantee of success. Since installment plans have no late fee, what do they do instead, send debt collectors or repossess the sweaters and Christmas toys? (This is not addressed in any of the stories.)

In effect, this is just another marketing ploy to get people to spend money they don’t have. The example in one of the articles was of a woman who bought tires from Wal-Mart. She was all right with paying the $644 in three monthly payments of $224, but she “doesn't remember the interest rate.” (It’s about 18% APR.) In this case, tires were probably a necessity, but sweaters, purses and toys?

All this is happening while U.S. household debt, according to Motely Fool, reached $13.54 trillion earlier this year, “an amount that has risen for 18 consecutive quarters.” 

Wake up America; debt is debt! Have a happy Black Friday, but don’t do anything foolish.

Pursuit of Happiness?

Last week the news broke that Americans spent about $9 billion on Halloween. That’s over twice the budget of the entire National Park Service and included almost half a billion dollars on costumes for their pets.

My first thought on hearing this was that people must be feeling pretty good about their life and their personal economic situation if they are willing to spend so much celebrating what years ago used to be a time for homemade costumes for kids going door to door. Now it has become a full-fledged manufactured holiday along the lines of Valentines Day. 

The overall spending level on Halloween has been consistent for at least the last eight years.

But the original story decries it as out of control consumerism. The writer labels that much spending on a non-holiday as a sign of conspicuous consumption. “Conspicuous consumption is designed to show others you are rich, smart or important.” It used to be a case of having a bigger house or fancier car than the neighbors. Today it’s having a better picture of themselves or their pets on Facebook or Instagram and garnering more likes.

That is also the conclusion of this Fox Business article: “Social media 'pressure' drives Halloween spending.” Their conclusion is based on a survey showing that “48 percent [of millennials] admitted to purchasing Halloween items solely for posting online, and four in ten millennials felt a lot of pressure to spend that money.” They were not alone. Over thirty percent of the generations that bracketed them admitted to having the same motivation.

This idea of conspicuous consumption goes beyond dressing up for selfies as this Forbes article explains in: “What Handing Out Full Size Candy Bars on Halloween Says About You, According to Behavioral Economists.” Stores this year were stocking more packages of full-size candy bars in anticipation of the pressure to out-do or at least keep up with the neighbors. “Your Halloween treats can signal not just what you have, but aspects of your character, such as your generosity.” It’s about social signaling, how we try to shape what others think of us.

This whole dynamic, too, is amplified by social media, the way it sets expectations and the way it makes the spread of a reputation, positive or negative, so much faster and easier.

So it’s conspicuous consumption, a sign of insecurity, that drives people to dress the dog like a cat or a box of cereal. It doesn’t sound like they are spending for the sake of a good time or to celebrate happiness at all.

Finally, this Washington Post story from last March confirms that notion: “Americans are the unhappiest they’ve ever been, U.N. report finds.” The US dropped for the third year in a row to 19^th place among 156 countries in the United Nation’s World Happiness Report, an annual ranking of overall happiness. 

“By most accounts, Americans should be happier now than ever,” writes Jean M. Twenge, one of the report’s co-authors. “The violent crime rate is low, as is the unemployment rate. Income per capita has steadily grown over the last few decades.” It’s hard to believe, except that the news media rarely reports this type of good news. Instead they dwell on the negative, the scary and the sensational to incense the audience and attract clicks and eyeballs. 

Commenters on the report blame the trend toward unhappiness in part on the rise in addiction, but isn’t that more of a symptom than a cause? Is it an increase in screen time, activities that have been linked to increases in depression?

Perhaps one key can be found back in the full-size candy bar story. “Our satisfaction is very subjective…it’s not absolute, but driven by what we expect.” Expectations are set by perspective. If we lack perspective we allow others to judge us and set our expectations, and that can only lead to unhappiness.

You Can’t Judge a Beer by Its Cover

The alternative title could be Beauty and the Beer. 

In either case, I am not awfully qualified to talk about beer. I drink it rarely, at the infrequent cookout or gathering, primarily when that’s what everyone else is having. I let someone else choose the brand because they all taste about the same to me. I would always prefer a moderately priced wine.

That being the case, on some of those occasions I’m puzzled to hear someone defending his choice of beer as the best tasting. Television ads have also for years touted the taste of their beers, especially stressing how they can remove the calories without negatively affecting the great taste, presumably allowing imbibers to get drunk without getting fat.

That’s why I was so surprise to see, first on the TV news and later on the CBS website, the headline: “ ‘They want more than just a great beer’: How craft breweries are embracing cover art.” That’s right, craft breweries – considered by some to be the best of the best, small batches, meticulously brewed, old-world recipes, etc. – are trying to differentiate themselves with artistic labels. Or as CBS puts it, “Craft beermakers go to extraordinary lengths to brew up the perfect pint – and lately, that attention to detail has shifted to what's on the outside as well.”

They go on to explain how one particular brand was rated Best Beer Label in a recent USA Today poll. “For years, the can has been one of the most sought after in the world.” 

Their competitors are following their lead, teaming up with artists and designers to create new and captivating labels. Some examples of their efforts are listed here in a piece called, “The 20 Best Beer Label Designs of 2018.” Although these are fun to look at, the first question that comes to mind is, who is judging which is the best? As subjective as the rest of the art world is these days, it’s likely one person’s opinion vs. another. Are they going to develop “schools” of beer can art?

While the beer brands are trying to win business with artsier labels, this is one of the companies trying to win business as a label designer by convincing them of the importance of such a decision. “With the sheer variety of beer labels on store shelves, making a buying decision can be challenging. As a result, many shoppers gravitate toward the brightest, boldest, most unusual designs.” 

Although judging a beer by it’s label may seem like a silly premise, Nielsen studies have shown that the design of the container or box can carry almost as much weight with the beer buying public as the style and brand name.

The whole situation reinforces the observation of how superficial Americans can be. No matter how adamant some are about their favorite brand, marketing departments of large and small brewers are willing to shell out more money for designers to come up with innovative labels to sway the public, increase market share and even turn their customers into beer can collectors. It’s the perfect marriage of two purely subjective judgements, taste and beauty. Will the beer drinkers of today be trading beer cans like their grandparents used to trade baseball cards? Will they march like lemmings to buy the prettiest beer can as determined by the annual beer can judging contest, just as teenagers are influenced by the number of likes on social media content?

Perhaps this means that I have been right all along and that one beer tastes about the same as another, forcing them to turn to a new gimmick to try to stand out.

Do We Really Know Our Own Minds?

Well, except for the big-time procrastinators Christmas shopping season is about over. We have made our choices and spent what will probably again be a record amount of money on gifts, food and decorations. But recent stories in the news force me to wonder how Americans made those decisions, how they make buying decisions in general, and to ask the question: Do we really know our own minds?

The subject comes up after a few recent references to “influencers.” According to one business dictionary, influencers are individuals who have the power to affect purchase decisions of others because of their real or perceived authority, knowledge, position, or relationship. In consumer spending, members of a peer group or reference group may act as influencers.

They have power and they get that power because of their real or perceived knowledge or taste. But do they really deserve it? The only way they can get that power is because the ones whose decisions are affected have given that power to them. (I wrote not too long ago about the celebrity-endorsed sneakers selling for $999 with easy monthly payments – these are sneakers, not a car or a living room set!) 

We may listen to friends and neighbors to get some advice and learn from their experiences, but why do we listen to and follow the advice of sports stars or celebrities who don’t even know us? We let them make decisions for us and define what's cool. It must work because influencers are often paid to sway our opinions.

As this piece tells, there is more to the influencer phenomenon than meets the eye. In what the reporter refers to as a “bizarre and shadowy” industry, some companies feel they must pay influencers to speak positively about their products on social media. Despite the fact that “hundreds of thousands of dollars change hands daily” to buy these endorsements, many consumers trust these influencers as they would their friends and neighbors. The opinion of one experienced investor in a new start-up was that “to succeed, quality didn’t matter, nor did customer satisfaction—only influencers.”

It’s big business with the objective of making up your mind for you about what’s in, what’s out, what’s cool and what’s worth paying extra for. (One agency for influencers expects to make $20 million in deals this year.) And some influencers have been accused of buying followers to beef up the appearance of their popularity and raise their earning potential.

Surprisingly, there is some evidence that the influencers aren’t any better judges of fashion than the folks they try to influence.

A good example came from Payless shoe outlets, the discount retailer with stores in many malls. They teamed up with an advertising agency to make over a former Armani store in Los Angeles and fill it with Payless shoes, marking regular prices up by 10 times, rebranding the shoes with the designer-sounding name Palessi.

Next they “invited fashion influencers to get an exclusive first look at the new brand.” Some of these fashion experts “paid $200, $400, and even $600 for shoes that are normally sold for $19.99 to $39.99” 

In the first three hours they sold more than $3,000 worth of shoes. The company returned the money and let them keep the shoes, but will use the sincere and very complimentary comments in an upcoming advertising campaign.

So the question is: do we have the confidence to stop giving away our power, allowing others, who don’t know us and have little or no real expertise, to affect our decisions as consumers and citizens? Can we achieve a level of perspective to judge what is true and important instead of letting someone else do it for us? In short, can we stop acting like sheep, following the crowds as they follow the paid influencers, just trying to be cool or trendy?

Another question to consider: Unless we change this habitual behavior, how much easier do we make it for foreign powers or other nefarious actors to influence us using the same social media tools?

The Opposite of a Bargain

Today is “Black Friday,” and people love bargains. Sometimes they love bargains too much and end up injuring others as a result. I hope that doesn’t happen this year, but even some mild pushing and shoving is a sign of poor perspective.

Despite the history of Black Friday, the fact that most of us like bargains can be lost on the experts. In early 2012, Ron Johnson, the new CEO of JC Penney announced a major overhaul of their business plan.  “Fair and square” low pricing was to replace the idea of weekly sales and promotions. He assumed everyone could see through those “fake prices” – marked up to be reduced later. It was logical. But Penney soon found out that shoppers aren’t always logical, especially when anticipating an exciting adventure of hunting for deals and then being able to boast about their cleverness. It’s in their shopping DNA, giving them a psychological boost and a feeling of pride to discover how much they “saved.” 

But that is not always the case, as we can see from this Bloomberg story, headlined: “How Companies Get You to Pay More for the Same Product.” 

Some of the tricks are quite old, like the word “repeat” on shampoo instructions or the suggestion to not let kids use more toothpaste than the size of a pea, implying that adults need to use more. 

Many times we are forced or tricked into either paying more or getting less for the same price. But there are also cases where companies use artificial scarcity to boost the price and desirability of the products. The article discusses five categories.

“Shrink-flation” is how they term getting less for the same price. The standard example is ice cream. “Häagen-Dazs brand reduced the size of its ‘pint’ containers from 16 ounces to 14 oz.” Likewise, what used to be a half gallon, became 1.5 quarts several years ago, and now my favorite comes in at 1.43 quarts. The same is true of candy bars and other sweets, but also of some breakfast cereal (17.3 oz.) and canned green beans (14.5 oz.).

The next they call “Auto Bundles.” “The average new car cost more than $37,000 in October, mostly from the desire for bigger SUVs and trucks, but “options packages and custom trim lines can swell a sticker price by thousands of dollars.” The 12-inch touchscreen for a Ram truck adds almost $8,000 alone.

“Premium Economy” is the new trick airlines use to offer more legroom and amenities to those wanting more but unwilling to break the bank to fly first class.

The “Women’s Brands” category emphasizes how women often pay more for the same product from jeans to deodorant. It’s called the “pink tax” and has been around for a while. One brand even advertises their products as “pink tax free,” although that's hard to prove for their tampons.

The last category is the most problematic as it seems to prey on individual’s need to impress – a real perspective killer! It’s dubbed “Fashion Drops.” European luxury brands and other are trying “to put scarcity back in the equation” with special releases of limited productions. (This artificial scarcity has long been practiced by the diamond industry.) One such example given is Kanye West “Yeezy” Adidas sneakers.

Looking up fashion drops was a learning experience. One site, drophype.com (at least they are honest about the hype), promises the latest news on these highly desirable, special releases; but the last posting is 2 years old, so either the hype has cooled or they just fell behind. But some of those Yeezy sneakers sell here for $999, or only $28 a month! 

Those are apparently the latest tricks and lures for unsuspecting shoppers. Good luck for Black Friday shopping, try to keep some sense of perspective so you don't end up owing a monthly payment on your footwear.

My Credit Card Pays Better Interest than My Bank!

Here is an odd realization.  My credit card actually gives me a better interest rate than my bank.

“How can that be?” the crowd will scream.  Everyone is always complaining about high interest rates on credit cards.  They currently average around 16.1% and some are much higher!  Not only that, but if you make a minimum payment or even a partial payment, the interest applies not only to what is left after the payment, but to the entire amount you owed them before the payment.  It takes many years to pay off a credit card if you pay just the minimum, even if you never use it again.  Typical advice from financial advisors and planners is to pay off your highest interest debt first, and that is invariably credit card debt.

This high interest seems like a scheme for banks to make more money, but it is partially due to the need to cover the risk they face when lending money, which a credit card is.  Some of those people will default on their debt and never pay them back.  The default rate on credit cards is up this year, but usually hovers around 3%.  That’s 3% of people who walk away from their debt leaving the banks holding the bag.  They charge the high-risk people more because they are more likely to default, but they charge everyone else more (except for those low, teaser introductory offers to get you hooked) to make sure they have collected enough to cover their losses.  As I’ve written elsewhere, businesses and governments really have only one source of money:  our wallets.  We all end up paying the price for bailing out the deadbeats.

Given all that information, what I’m saying about getting interest from the credit card company doesn’t seem to make sense.

But I’m not talking about the interest consumers have to pay.  I’m talking about the interest the credit cards pay us in the form of those cash back bonuses.  Discover pays 1% on all purchases (with some 5% quarterly specials) and a Capital One card advertises 1%,  2% on groceries and 3% on dining.  So here is the catch; when I pay off my credit card in full every month I get a cash bonus for every dollar I have spent and I pay them no interest.

When I look at a typical bank savings account I find an interest rate of 0.1% at Chase, for example, (or 0.4% for a Premier Account with monthly fees and/or monthly limits unless the balance is over $15,000).  So for practical purposes, the Discover credit card pays me 10 times as much for the money I spend each month as the bank would pay me if I let them keep my money for a year (assuming I did not have to pay any extra fees).

I know it’s not a pure comparison, money spent is clearly not the same as money saved, but the contrast is still interesting.  The credit cards don't pay me interest for lending them my money.  They pay me to borrow their money hoping I will end up paying them more in interest in return - but I don't!  It’s a curious result from some creative critical thinking.

Chiropractic - Handle With Care

Several months ago I noticed a couple of friends going to the chiropractor on a regular basis and tried to talk them into trying a yoga class instead.  They said they were too old and stiff for yoga, a typical response, and besides, Medicare paid for the chiropractor.  I wasn’t sure this was correct, but let it go.

Recently though, I ran across a fact sheet from the government and learned the following: “Spinal manipulation is a covered service under Medicare. However, maintenance care is not considered by Medicare to be medically reasonable and necessary, and is not reimbursable by Medicare. Only acute and chronic spinal manipulation services are considered active care and may, therefore, be reimbursable.”  It went on to define maintenance therapy, which sounded exactly like what my friends were getting.  Of course, I don’t have all the information and may be wrong, or the chiropractor may be violating the law.

From what I have read most chiropractors are honest and sincere.  They and their patients believe that treatment of subluxations in the spine provides relief from pain and other back problems.  Likewise Medicare recognizes subluxation as a problem that calls for medical attention.  But this in itself may be a problem.

One of many skeptical sources shares a different view.  “According to classical chiropractic, a ‘subluxation’ is a misalignment of the spine that allegedly interferes with nerve signals from the brain. However, there is no scientific evidence for spinal subluxations and none have ever been observed by medical practitioners such as orthopedic surgeons, neurosurgeons, or radiologists. On May 25, 2010, The General Chiropractic Council (GCC), a UK-wide statutory body with regulatory powers, issued the following statement:  The chiropractic vertebral subluxation complex is an historical concept but it remains a theoretical model. It is not supported by any clinical research evidence that would allow claims to be made that it is the cause of disease or health concerns.”  It’s like a metaphor that American professionals and  their patients take seriously.

Besides proper coding and billing, chiropractors must also be careful about the results they promise.  Some have advertised that spinal manipulation can improve general health, cure many different diseases, cure children of earaches, autism, and asthma, and prevent spinal degeneration.  None of these claims have any scientific backing.

Then there are the cases of unethical behavior like this one in Utah where the doctor was disciplined for financially abusing two patients and failing to cooperate with board investigations among other offenses.  But ethical failings happen in every profession.

In short, it is smart to be skeptical about the benefits of a visit to the chiropractor.  Maybe yoga, physical therapy or some other stretching routine will yield the same benefits.  Maybe most of the effect is placebo, based on a belief it will work.  All I know is that when I do a weekly review of medical articles, information about an investigation of problems with one chiropractor or another – ethics, false claims, and other problems – appears quite often.

(For a comprehensive scientific critique of the practice, see this YouTube video.  But I know many will read this or even view the video and still ignore facts that don't agree with a worldview they don't want to change.)

iPhone Perspective

When the Utah representative, promoting the new healthcare plan, suggested that people could spend money on healthcare “[r]ather than getting that new iPhone,” it pushed some people’s hot button.  A few days later Wired came out with the headline “No, iPhones Aren’t Luxury Items. They’re Economic Necessities.”  In it the author explains how, only ten years after their introduction, iPhones and similar smartphones have moved from the novelty category to must-haves.  To get ahead and stay ahead, “you have to stay connected in an economy built on the assumption that anyone is always reachable anywhere.”

Of course, you would expect Wired to take this stance, just as Car and Driver might scoff at people wanting to ride their horses to work.  But they make some strong arguments.  Even if the lawmaker was referring only to those who buy the newest model, discarding a perfectly functional phone, he probably picked a poor analogy.  What Wired can’t argue is that all Americans make excellent decisions when prioritizing their spending.

Given that Wired is right and iPhones are in fact a necessity, there are still two disturbing aspects of the article.  One has to do with perspective and the other with magic-money-tree thinking.

Perspective helps us take the long view, in this case to look back and understand how we got here and where we are heading.  Only ten years ago this condition of constantly being connected was not nearly as urgent.  Twenty years ago, it was not even possible, except for a few very rich or innovative with their car phones or big, clunky handheld portable telephones, both of which were limited to making phone calls.

Today we must think about society in terms of Moore’s Law, the insight that processing power doubles every 18 to 24 months, exponential growth.  You buy a new computer and it seems obsolete a few months later.  By some accounts you have more computing power in your smartphone than on Apollo 11.  And things just keep getting smaller, faster and more connected.  On their website Intel proudly states, “The inexpensive, ubiquitous computing rapidly expanding all around us is fundamentally changing the way we work, play and communicate.”

The perspective question is how are we changing with it?  Are we struggling to keep up?  We may be technologically savvy, but how many parts of our lives are falling through the cracks?  How are we reacting to the big and small threats that accompany these rapid advances?  If we are getting so advanced and sophisticated, why do we still face so many basic problems:  retirement insecurity, the obesity epidemic, inadequate sleep, a struggling education system and fears that our children and grandchildren will have shorter, less happy lives as they struggle to pay off overwhelming personal and public debt?

That fundamental change in work, play and communication has not translated into a fundamental change in thinking and behavior.  So many decisions are still reactions.  We use social media to fight with strangers or stress about frightening potential outcomes based on politically motivated predictions.  We blithely share our personal data, while constantly on guard against hacking and identity theft.  Our focus is distracted from simple solutions (like eat less and exercise more) by the constant barrage of demands on our time.  Faulty behavior in the five key dimensions results from everyone walking through life staring at a device while processing the information with a primitive brain (evidenced by PSAs reminding parents to tell kids to stop texting while crossing the street).

The magic-money-tree aspect of that article is also a problem.  They cite the following:  “Last year, the United Nations Human Rights Council declared that the internet was a basic human right.”  This is the same organization that protested when Detroit turned off the water supply to those who were seriously delinquent in paying their bills.  The UN likewise called access to clean water a human right – even if you won’t or can’t pay for it. 

The UN, Wired and many others must understand that rights are recognized and respected not granted.  We have rights to free speech, religion, to bear arms, etc.  Those rights are guaranteed by a requirement on the government not to interfere or deny them.  They are not like these UN-established rights, a good or service you can demand that the government or someone else pay for.  A declaration of these rights does not make the cost go away.  

Yet we scurry through our lives as they become exponentially more complex, texting, taking calls or making appointments on the run, mystified by such basic economic concepts.  Without better performance in the five key dimensions, how will we ever be successful in this new, fundamentally changing society?  If what was brand new ten years ago can become a necessity today and technology is growing exponentially, we must be alert and approach new threats and risks deliberately, not with the same behavioral habits as our ancient ancestors.

It's the Behavior!

I don’t write about political topics, which is difficult these days as nearly everything seems to turn into a political topic; but with the presidential elections only about 15 months away and more candidates than you can shake a stick at, I started thinking about how very curious the election process in America is.

It’s like sitting at a play.  The lights dim and the cast comes on stage and starts to bow to the audience whereupon the audience starts clapping and cheering.  You nudge the person next to you and ask why is there what appears to be a curtain call when the play hasn’t even begun.  He explains that there are two very similar plays but only room on the stage for one, so each cast comes out and whoever gets the loudest applause gets to do their play.  “But how do you know if either of them are any good when they haven’t started yet?” you ask.  “Well you are supposed to read the reviews and decide, or look at plays from previous years to judge the quality.”

As it turns out most of the people in the audience haven’t read the reviews and aren’t really interested in the theater.  Some just go along with what their friends are telling them.  Some don’t feel like it but were told it was their duty to show up for the opening curtain call.  Others were picked up in vans or busses and brought to the theater by people who think everyone should see one or the other of the plays.  Some walk in the door for each performance with their mind made up about which play they want to see because they have grown up believing that the one is good and the other is subversive or evil or naïve.

When the curtain goes up, the star of each play had better be a good-looking actor with a smooth confident delivery and lots of charm, because that will draw the most applause.  If he or she looks or sounds like a certain segment of the audience, it can also elicit louder applause.  Comparative acting ability will be a mystery until the play actually starts.

Once the initial curtain call is over, part of the audience feels smug because they got what they wanted; the other part feels cheated.  In reality most will not pay close attention to what is going on after the play begins.  The play is supposed to make people happy so they can go on living their lives and not worry about any big outside problems and issues. 

Unfortunately, for at least the past 25 years, if you ask Americans what they think of the “play,” most of the people most of the time will say they are not satisfied.  Polls put it this way:  Do you think America is headed in the right or wrong direction.  No matter who the “actors” are or what “play” they are doing, the response has been consistently negative.

That is what these bi-weekly essays are about.  The answers to most of our problems can and should be found outside the “theater.”  Fighting terrorism is best done by the government.  Most of our other problems are not, as these hundreds of examples over the past 4 years easily show.  What children eat in school or what they learn or how well prepared they are should be issues for educators and parents.  How overweight we are and how unprepared we are to retire are problems we created ourselves.  Whether we make careful and mature choices cannot be guaranteed by “consumer protections.”  The added cost of insurance and everything else we buy resulting from frivolous lawsuits and the justifiably paranoid reaction to a litigious society is part of regular business practices.  Parents having children without the means to feed them is not solved merely by feeding those children.  Courtrooms used as a weapon of delay and intimidation by advocates and special interests rather than as a path to justice threaten progress and rational judgment pushing common sense by default into the realm of zero-tolerance.  Charlatans with ever more sophisticated communication tools continue to prey on a credulous populace with promises of miracle foods and miracle cures, with warnings of health dangers and evil conspiracies, with get-rich-quick schemes and with hype of all kinds to sell us goods, services and entertainment that don’t add to our happiness.

America is headed in the wrong direction because we have a society awash in often-unconscious destructive behavior.  Government can’t legislate proper behavior, yet Americans go to the polls every couple of years hoping for a miracle, applauding the “actors” and expecting to be able to idly sit back and enjoy the show.