Flashback – Consumer Protection Gone Crazy

Back in 2011 I explained how new legislation regarding credit cards led to the companies increasing fees and interest rates. More recently, about a year ago, I once again emphasized how well intentioned consumer protection laws often have unintended consequences. Here is that entry from August 23 of last year.

[Last time I wrote about a lawmaker introducing a bill to protect Americans from Internet addiction, a condition that has no formal definition or diagnosis. Whenever a problem or “epidemic” arises, someone in power decides that there is a government solution to change the conditions or behavior. (Even when the government was the source of the problem.)

People are not trusted to solve their own problems, often because they don't. In the end everyone loses some freedom because of the bad decisions of a few. It takes critical thinking to identify the root of the problem and personal responsibility to own the solution instead of passing it off to a higher power.

This dynamic was reinforced a few days ago when a package arrived from one of those catalogs that frequently appear in the mailbox. In the package was a gift pen, similar to those used by various companies as promotional items. It was an ordinary retractable ballpoint similar to those from a dentist’s office or a job fair but with one difference. It came in a plastic sleeve with the words, “WARNING: Cancer and Reproductive Harm” followed by a web address.

The address led to the California Proposition 65 page. “The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment is establishing this website to provide the public with information on chemicals, products and locations often associated with Proposition 65 warnings.  These warnings inform Californians about their exposures to chemicals that cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm.” 

Notice that the above statement reads, “cause cancer” not “may cause cancer,” implying that they have studies to definitively prove a direct causal link. Since the list includes over 900 chemicals, that is a doubtful assertion. Looking at one random example: “The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) lists coconut oil diethanolamine condensate (cocamide DEA) as an IARC Group 2B carcinogen, which identifies this chemical as possibly carcinogenic to humans."[Emphasis added] Apparently it only takes possibly to make the list. 

The full list includes a large number of arcane-sounding chemicals, e.g., Amikacin Sulfate and Zalcitabine, but it also includes alcoholic beverages, aspirin, tobacco smoke, nicotine and oral contraceptives.  

How helpful is this? Is tobacco smoke or nicotine a surprise? Why do Californians need the information and not everyone else? Coffee contains acrylamide, which is on the list, so last year a judge decided, "coffee sellers in the state should have to post cancer warnings.” But in “2016, the cancer agency of the World Health Organization moved coffee off its ‘possible carcinogen’ list.”

This isn’t science; it’s judges and lawmakers deciding what should or should not be on a list. It’s “The Boy Who Cried Wolf” gone crazy. People don’t have time to be careful about 900 chemicals and all the products they go into. I have no idea which part of the promotional pen I should worry about or how it might hurt me. Tanning beds and sunlight are not on the list only because they are not chemicals. The situation is so bad that my seven-year-old granddaughter upon returning from a vacation in San Diego commented about how silly it was seeing all the warning signs everywhere coffee was sold.

Not only is this not helpful, it adds cost. The extra warning labels and signs cost money. It is costly to reformulate products to avoid having to post warnings, or worse, to avoid the threat from lawyers, “some of whose businesses are built entirely on filing Proposition 65 lawsuits” on behalf of “straw man plaintiffs." The cost of these nuisance consequences comes back on all of us. (Economic understanding reminds us there is no magic money tree to make up the difference. It all gets passed along to the end consumer.)

Does the list ever shrink or become reasonable, or do we get to the point where everything needs a progressively more meaningless label? I’m sure many people thought this was a great idea back in 1986 not realizing that they may be creating a monster.]

Flashback - The Homeopathy Scam

[It's Friday and time for another flashback. This time we go back to April 2015 when I ask, does homeopathy really work? Since then I have posted a few more times on the same subject. All of that research comes to the same conclusion. No, it doesn't. Here is the original.]

In a widely circulated article from the Guardian newspaper, the news from Australia is that it does not. The headline reads: “Homeopathy not effective for treating any condition, Australian report finds.” After a thorough and extensive review of over 200 research papers on the subject, the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) states: “there are no health conditions for which there is reliable evidence that homeopathy is effective.”

They go on to warn that people who use homeopathic medicine as an excuse to delay or avoid professional medical help may be putting their lives at risk.

What is homeopathy? The article describes it as the belief “that illness-causing substances can, in minute doses, treat people who are unwell,” and by diluting them in water or alcohol, “the resulting mixture retains a ‘memory’ of the original substance that triggers a healing response in the body.” That is the theory.

Wikipedia defines it as “a system of alternative medicine created in 1796 by Samuel Hahnemann based on his doctrine of like cures like, whereby a substance that causes the symptoms of a disease in healthy people will cure similar symptoms in sick people.” 

The fact that it is not effective is certainly not news as the first paragraph of Wikipedia entry immediately goes on to say: “Homeopathy is considered a pseudoscience. It is not effective for any condition, and no remedy has been proven to be more effective than placebo.” References associated with this conclusion date back to 2000 and earlier. It was known for a long time, but the fact that any government agency has come out so strongly against it is new.

The industry has a different take. The National Center for Homeopathy tells us: “Homeopathy is a safe, gentle, and natural system of healing that works with your body to relieve symptoms, restore itself, and improve your overall health.... It is extremely safe to use, even with very small children and pets, has none of the side effects of many traditional medications, is very affordable, is made from natural substances, and is FDA regulated.”

This British source sees it differently. After an extensive explanation of the theory behind it they describe it as being rooted in superstition, ritual and sympathetic magic; and cite a comprehensive study from 2005 showing that it is ineffective. For the theory to be true “we would have to toss out practically everything we have learned over the past two centuries about biology, pharmacology, mathematics, chemistry and physics.”

It seems many people disagree with the industry portrayal. Many studies have shown it as ineffective, but what about the claims of safety and regulation? The US Government’s National Center for Complementary and Alternative Health states: “We have a fair amount of research on homeopathic medicine for a variety of conditions, but less evidence on its safety, particularly for over-the-counter products.” The FDA “doesn’t evaluate these products for safety or effectiveness” and “some contain ingredients or contaminants in amounts that could cause side effects, drug interactions, or other safety concerns.” [Note: As of November 2019, no homeopathic products have been approved.]

If potential contaminants along with the ingredients are diluted beyond the point of detection, usually the worst outcome would result from people relying on homeopathy to the exclusion of professional medical help, especially if they avoid vaccinations.

So what’s the big deal? It’s just people again throwing away money on products that have been known for years to be ineffective. But when a company gets you to pay money for something that doesn’t work, how can that be legal? Doesn’t the government also have an agency to protect us from our own foolishness, like credit card scams, payday loans and fraudulent vacation schemes? Out of curiosity I asked, “Where does the government’s Consumer Protection Agency stand on all of this?”  

Their website lists under the heading “Current Scams That You Should Be Aware Of” the following categories:  Benefits and Grants, Business, Cars, Citizenship and Immigration, Computers and Internet, Family, Home, and Community, Health and Nutrition, International Relations, Jobs and Education, Money, and Travel and Recreation. A closer look at the Health and Nutrition link shows no mention of homeopathy (but there are a large number of other very interesting topics where Americans have been sold worthless or dangerous products). Until there are enough complaints on this topic, I guess we are on our own.

The government can’t (or won’t) protect us from sellers of every product or service that takes our money and give us only promises in return. Again critical thinking and just a little research can eliminate a lot of wasted time and money and possibly keep us safer.

Getting Smart About Your Health

A recent edition of the Consumer Health Digest in my email was a real eye-opener! It illustrated the primary reason for the need for consumer protection: many Americans are not using the slightest bit of critical thinking or scientific understanding when dealing with personal health issues. They are looking for magic answers and falling for the most outlandish promises with paper-thin backing.

The first article was about a New York University Psychology Department review looking for what they called “drift” from the core mission of social work. It asked: “Should social workers be engaged in these practices?” By systematically searching the Internet for practitioner websites, they identified many offerings that “fall beyond those fuzzy borders” of the defined mission and in fact, “might appear highly questionable.”

Looking at the accompanying table, there is no “might” about it. The long list includes such services as: a course in miracles, angel card reading, Aura-Soma®: Color and Aromas, Auricular Detox, Awakening Your Light Body and Radiance, Biofield Tuning, Certified Cuddle Party Facilitator and Certified Intuitive Healer. And those just brush the surface at the beginning of the alphabet!

These and many others on the list have the distinct color and aroma of pseudoscience, superstition and scams using mysterious-sounding methods to lure in customers. It leads to calls for a “concerted national effort to stamp out pseudoscience in all of healthcare.” But people are wasting their time and money of their own free will. We don’t need a national effort; we need a critical thinking population, because it doesn’t stop there.

Next I read about a former massage therapist explaining, “Why I quit my massage therapy career.” The author tells about disputes with his regulatory body and the hate mail from colleagues as he tried, through his writing, to call attention to all the unproven therapies passed off in that field of practice. He concludes, “Massage therapy has a deeply pseudoscientific character overall, defining itself mostly in opposition to science-based or 'mainstream' health care, where rejection of science is actually celebrated by many practitioners, probably a majority."

Again, the problem is not all the false cures, but that so many people fall for these deceptive practices with the hope that they have found the easy and magical way out of their various health problems.

Finally, in that same newsletter from that week: “The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has announced that – as a result of a settlement – [the company] is mailing 227,995 refund checks totaling more than $6 million and averaging $26.57 to consumers who purchased health products from three individuals and the 19 companies they controlled—collectively known as Tarr, Inc.” Refunds included products for weight loss, muscle building and wrinkle-reduction. The company was accused of marketing their products with “unsupported claims, fake magazine and news sites, bogus celebrity endorsements, phony consumer testimonials, deceptive offers of 'free' and 'risk-free' trials, and enrollments of people without their consent in programs that charged them for additional products each month.”

But for every one the FTC catches, how many others slide by with similar schemes using endorsements in place of evidence, self-conducted so-called clinical trials, weasel words like “results may vary,” and the usual other tricks I warn of frequently? The only way to avoid these traps is to wise up, be skeptical and use critical thinking.

As an added note, not all the people that promote such treatments are charlatans. As I was training as a yoga teacher, I ran into a fair number of serious, devoted practitioners. They have a selective acceptance of science, where they want to pick and choose what to ignore and what counts as medicine, therapy and healthy practices depending on how their aura or chakras are aligned. Arguing the facts isn’t worth the time. (I’m sure many a shaman was equally sincere as he hurled virgins into the volcano.)

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?

Fake News Goes Non-political

Not too long ago, when you heard the expression “fake news” the assumption was that the speaker was talking about politics. That seems not to be the case any more.

This thought struck me as I came across a story on the fastcompany.com website with the headline: “Facebook deletes alternative health pages as the war on fake news escalates.”

The move began in the spring of this year, but few noticed except the advertisers who were suddenly being blocked. It appears that Facebook views several of the promoters offering alternative or holistic medicine as purveyors of pseudoscience, declaring them possibly as big a danger to the public as election tampering. “This includes rather large accounts focused on health, natural remedies, and organic living, such as Just Natural Medicine (1 million followers), Natural Cures Not Medicine (2.3 million followers), and People’s Awakening (3.6 million followers). Small accounts with under 15,000 followers were also hit.” Another affected company was Conscious Life News with 1.1 million followers.

The article goes on to say that these and similar complementary and alternative health pages “have been known to spread misleading or false information about medicinal remedies that are not backed by traditional science, or debate issues like vaccination.”

The subject of vaccinations is of particular interest for two reasons. First, Russian bots have been targeting both pro- and anti-vaccination advocates with on-line posts in an attempt to stir up controversy and conflict. Second, the recent increase in outbreaks of measles, mumps, and pertussis among unvaccinated children has “increased mortality from vaccine preventable diseases.”

But this brings up a couple of interesting questions. Why is it Facebook’s job to police all the false information on their pages? And, shouldn’t people be able to figure out for themselves whether their choice of medicine is effective or not?

Neither has an easy answer. Facebook has passed the point where they can declare themselves a communications medium, not responsible for content. The phone companies aren’t held responsible for what you say to a friend, but they also don’t run advertising during your conversation or otherwise try to influence you. That leaves Facebook in an awkward position.

According to the numbers shown above, millions of people are looking for magic answers in the areas of health and wellness. Many don’t care what science says and don’t make good choices.

Over the past three weeks I have seen numerous reports such as these:

• A doctor placed on probation by the Medical Board of California for four years even though she “received testimonials from celebrity patients…and has promoted [her questionable therapy] on the Oprah Winfrey Network.” Unfortunately celebrity testimonials are not the same as scientific evidence. 
• Crowd funding for patients to receive dubious cancer treatments with much fanfare, although after treatment “many publicized success stories have a tragic ending,” a fact that  is not widely publicized.
• After Federal Trade Commission (FTC) action, an intravenous vitamin cocktail marketer agrees to stop making deceptive health claims.
• The Texas Medical board required a promoter of the multiple chemical sensitivity concept “to revise the form he used to obtain consent to treat patients with injections of environmental substances. The form was required to state that (a) his injections contain only the ‘electromagnetic imprint’ of the agents in question, (b) the therapy is not FDA-approved, and (c) the therapeutic value of the therapy is disputed.”

See several more examples from this RAS post in June 2016.

I have argued in the past against too much consumer protection. Let people make informed choices. But the information above shows that some promoters, even medical doctors, will get away with as much as they can to dupe patients into undergoing unproven treatments until a medical board or the FTC is forced to step in.

Critical thinking should at least make everyone wary enough to shun those who try to avoid legal problems by burying wording in the fine print, “Not approved by the FDA and not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease or any other medical condition.” But even with the help of Facebook, people looking for easy answers and who don't care about science will still be at the mercy of liars and charlatans.

Being Misled About Multivitamins

I have been writing about a couple of related subjects lately. Last Monday’s theme was that no amount of consumer protection will keep the charlatans of the health industry from coming up with enticing schemes based on junk science. Americans must use critical thinking to avoid the traps that lead to certain financial loses and possible physical harm. The second is that much of what makes the news as “a new study” or “latest research” is merely a rehash of previous discoveries, traditional understanding or common sense.

Here is another example from last week characterized as a new study, attacking what to many is a “sacred cow,” which is why it has been ignored for so many years.

Canadian researchers found: “Popular vitamin and mineral supplements didn't provide any measurable health benefits to prevent cardiovascular disease, stroke or early death.” They also “found no helpful or harmful outcomes for people who took multivitamins, vitamin D, calcium and vitamin C.” But this was not based on comparing medical records for a large number of people. Instead findings came from a review and analysis of existing information, many other studies mostly around from 2012 through the fall of 2017 – in other words, old news with information confirmed many times over.

A quick search of the Internet yields many of these previous studies. A CBS News story from December 2013 carries the headline: “Multivitamin researchers say ‘case is closed’ after studies find no health benefits.” The advice back then was to save your money because “supplementing the diet of well-nourished adults with (most) mineral or vitamin supplements has no clear benefit and might even be harmful.” Studies backing up this announcement were not trivial. One tracked 24 studies and two trials involving more than 350,000 individuals. A second followed 5,950 older male doctors over a 12-year period under controlled conditions. Another of 1,700 heart patients showed “no difference in rates of another heart attack, chest pain, the need for hospitalization, cardiac catheterization, or rates of stroke and early death between vitamin-takers and placebo-takers.”

Clearly, this is not new. Many professionals have recognized the ineffectiveness of multivitamins for a long time. Five years ago the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) decided not to recommend the regular use of any multivitamins or of any herbal supplements and recommended against taking additional beta-carotene or vitamin E.

But what about the earlier comment that they found no helpful or harmful outcomes? This comes from the USA Today last summer.  “Taking too much vitamin B6 and B12 could dramatically increase lung cancer in men, according to a new study.” That study consisted of more than 77,000 patients followed for more than 10 years. 

The majority opinion is that these supplements have no benefits, and adverse side effects are possible. So, as this headline reads, why do “Americans Spend Billions on Vitamins and Herbs That Don’t Work”? The numbers vary from one source to another, but the amount spent on vitamins and herbal supplements, which can be far more dangerous, ranges from $30 billion to $37 billion per year, and that number is expected to grow with an aging population and increased health concerns.

Sales typically make up “5 percent of all grocery sales in the United States” with profit margins nearly ten times higher. But despite the high cost and years of research 50% of Americans take at least one multivitamin and about 20%, take other supplements as well. Have they not been paying attention?

The explanation is simple. The power of the industry and the accompanying superstitions that drive people to the magic of supplements and so-called health foods is frightening. As an example, one of the references I cited above proclaiming the dangers and impurities in supplements has an accompanying link to one of those you-may-also-be-interested articles entitled: “11 Vitamins and Supplements That Boost Energy.” After warning of the dangers in the first article, the second sings the praises of a bunch of airy-fairy herbs and chemicals. Everyone should know better, but there is no escaping the hype.

What Consumer Protection Looks Like

A few days ago I signed on to the website for my bank of many years and found that they had updated their terms and conditions for dealing with them electronically.  This is not really unusual, and I wasn’t surprised – until I looked at the amount of information.

I found in front of me thirty-three pages of terms and conditions with the changes effective immediately (but in no way highlighted).  It seems the bank’s legal staff had been very busy anticipating every possible challenge to their system along with every possible bonehead mistake their customers could make and subsequently complain or even sue them for, trying to lay all blame on the bank.

After skimming through the document, which is probably more than most people would do, I clicked on the icon connecting me with my account information and was met with another delay.  You can’t consent until you open another 2-page document detailing electronic delivery.  (I already get electronic delivery of statements and notifications, but I had to go through this step anyway.)

Apparently I had to do this because:  “The following disclosures are required by the federal Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (“ESIGN”).  As part of your application, account registration and/or setup and ongoing maintenance of your account, you have the option to receive all required documents and disclosures electronically.” More legalese followed.

“The Disclosures, may include without limitation, disclosures and notices under the Federal Expedited Funds Availability Act, the Federal Check Clearing for the 21st Century Act, the Federal Electronic Fund Transfer Act, the Federal Truth in Savings Act, the Federal USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, and Title V of the Federal Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, together with all rules and regulations that implement the same, as well as all other disclosures that are required by applicable federal, state and local laws, rules, regulations, and ordinances."  (Notice the number of times Federal is mentioned along with rules and regulations.)

·      After telling the customer why all this is required by law, they tell us what we must do to interact with them electronically.  To receive statements you must have:

• ·      A personal computer or other device capable of accessing the Internet;
• ·      An Internet web browser;
• ·      Software to access PDF files;
• ·      A valid email address; and
• ·      A printer capable of printing text screens should you wish to print copies.

Thank you for the tip, Bank!  If I want to print copies of something on my PC, I must have hardware and software to access the documents and a printer!  What a revelation!  (I know I’m getting a little sarcastic, but really!  Must the bank tell everyone this stuff to protect itself?)

So I have to do all this to give consent to receive the information electronically, but I still can’t get it without signing up somewhere else.  “Please note that your consent to delivery of electronic disclosures, notices, and communications does not automatically enroll you in our e-statement service. If you wish to receive only electronic copy of your account statements (and communications we may include with such statements), you must consent separately through [another] application”, which they provide a link to.

Finally, in case I change my mind they add a paragraph on how to withdraw consent.

This seems like a crazy waste of time and money (35 pages!), but that’s exactly what we get in a litigious society where people don’t take some responsibility for their own action and in a society where the government treats its citizens as helpless victims, unable to take responsibility for their own decisions.  Imagine a better system where all this time and effort resulted in real, value-added work.

How Much Consumer Protection is Needed?

We would need a lot less consumer protection if consumers themselves spent more time thinking and researching and less time looking for easy answers and magical products.  Slowing down to think and research relates to the dimension of critical thinking, which promotes suspicion of those easy answers that are so tempting when discipline fails us.

Here is an example of the importance of those practices.  An Australian company is offering for $165 a product called a Geoclense Harmonizer.  (You can order a configuration that plugs into electrical outlets in the US.)  The name itself sounds healthy and friendly, but what does it do?  “The Geoclense is a negative charge resonance field generator designed to balance positive charge resonance otherwise known as noxious, unhealthy energy created by all forms of EMR, RF, Wi/Fi, Earth Radiation and Bioplasmic Radiation to a healthier negative charge resonance.”  That certainly sounds scientific.

The advertising goes on to list twenty-five individual types of "noxious energy" that you will be protected against.  Under the Bioplasmic or Human-generated energy category they include “Negative Psychic impressions/Psychic attacks.”  Under the General category, they include:  “Baby Monitors, Bluetooth Devices and Noxious Resonance from Mould and Fungus.”  You are also protected against stress from seismic faults and drinking water.  All you have to do is plug it into the wall.

Looking at this list, it’s hard to understand what dangers come from all these sources of supposed radiation.  Many tests have confirmed the safety of cell phones, so why would we fear Bluetooth devices or baby monitors?  Should people really worry about the negative psychic impressions floating around the house?  How does plugging a solid block of green plastic resin into the wall protect you from seismic faults, fungus, poor quality drinking water or any kind of radiation?  The website never explains how it works. 

The rest of the website uses testimonials and junk scientific “studies” to confirm the effectiveness.  We hear how people felt so much better after plugging it in and see through Kirlian photography how their aura is stronger.

A real scientific study from an Australian consumer review organization tells a different story.  The power of the Harmonizer is “based on the principles of 'orgonomy', which…was pioneered by Dr. Wilhelm Reich, an Austrian psychoanalyst who died while serving time for refusing to obey an injunction against selling quack medical devices.”  The review team tested the Harmonizer against seven of the company’s claims using simple tools such as a compass to detect the reported effect on the earth’s magnetic field.  In all cases except one it failed to show any effect at all.  Where it did live up to the company’s claim was the fact that “it uses absolutely no power. Hardly surprising for an inert lump of plastic, but it does beg the question as to why you need to plug it in at all.”

This product and others like it try to capitalize on public misperceptions like the fear of power lines that was popularized in the 1980s but has long since been debunked.  Even without the benefit of the above review, it takes a minimum of critical thinking, research and common sense to come to the right conclusion about such products.  We really don’t need the degree of consumer protection that Washington is always trying to enact and re-fund.  We just need a populace with better scientific understanding and a willingness to spend a little time to think it through.  Each $165 saved is an extra $165 toward paying off that mortgage or saving for retirement.

More Dimensions of Mythology

(This is a continuation of a series of postings beginning on July 8.  It would be best to start reading at that point.)

Last time I gave examples of how the personal mythology can lead us astray within the dimension of economic understanding.  Now, we move on to discipline.

Discipline is the dessert dimension.  It focuses on delaying gratification and doing the hard work necessary to reap rewards.  So what if I don’t study, the test isn’t until next week.  So what if I spend all my money as I earn it, retirement is a long way off.  So what if I smoke cigarettes, I can always quit before it gets too serious.  So what if I have a drinking problem, I’ll sober up in time for work.  So what if I don’t finish high school, it’s boring and there are more exciting ways to spend my time.  And so it goes.  The consequences are remote, and people think they can afford to not take them seriously.

There is some mythology at work here, some story people are telling themselves to justify the action, to make themselves the heroes of their life stories.  It’s not cool to diet or save up for a large expenditure or practice moderation or, in some cases, abstain.  That’s hard work, and besides it’s not cool to worry about the future.  Live for today!

These bad habits don’t happen in isolation.  When millions of people buy more house than they can afford, the economy crashes.  When two-thirds of the population is overweight or obese, it has ramifications in health costs for us all.  When people reach retirement age with no savings, they look to the government, that is the rest of the taxpayers, to bail them out.  When people haven’t acquired the skills and education to get more than a minimum wage job, they expect us to help them raise their families, through artificially high pay or government support.  All these supportive actions that count in some mythologies as compassion are, in many cases, crutches for people with self-inflicted wounds.  But those who take this tough-love view are condemned as uncaring.

Responsibility follows discipline because when people fail in discipline, a natural response is to try to blame someone else.  To remain the hero of their personal mythology, they can’t admit weakness or failure, so they claim victimhood.  "It wasn’t something I did; it just happened to me."  This stance makes it easy for others, who also want to be the heroes of their own story, to step in, riding to the rescue with funds, programs, legal defense or new laws. 

Government agencies, private advocates and various programs are a natural spin-off of these pleas for help.  But what many don’t understand is that when we don’t take responsibility, we give up some freedom.  These programs and agencies don’t go away.  They have a mission.  In many cases the irresponsibility of a few results in restrictions on everyone.  When someone is careless and then claims to be a victim, passing on the (financial) liability, it affects all of society.  Every school, club, and organization in the country cannot function today without insurance and hold-harmless agreements signed in advance.  The number and sheer silliness of some product warning labels are not just a source of amusement, but a serious symptom of society gone wrong.

Some consumer protection is needed and the FTC does a good job of catching and prosecuting companies for false advertisements, but we as consumers have a responsibility to research and make reasonable decisions about our own spending and our lives in general.

This whole idea of research and reasonable decisions leads to critical thinking, which is where I’ll pick it up next time.