Manifesting, Really?

About 40 years ago a consultant descended on the company where I was working to meet with all employees (who later magically became associates) to introduce them to the power of what he called “visioning.” According to him, visioning was the key to achieving your goals in life and at work. He had convinced the executive team that harnessing such power would thrust the company forward.

 

Participants need only form a strong vision in their minds and things would turn out favorably. If it didn’t work you weren’t doing it right. As would be expected, employees dutifully attended training, and then returned to their desks to do their jobs in the usual way. Like most business fads, it quickly faded. The only benefit was that someone caught daydreaming could plead visioning as a defense.

 

Until recently, I assumed that fad had died – but no! It merely got rebranded and now is being sold to individuals as manifesting.

 

I found the details on this site from August 2019, “The Do’s and Don’ts of Manifesting.” 

 

“Manifesting is cultivating the experience of what it is that you want to feel — and then living and believing in that experience so that you can allow it to come into form.” It can be used to “attract whatever you want, whether that’s a successful business, good health, a relationship or even a material object.” There’s no limit to the power of manifesting as long as you align with the loving energy of the universe. (It sounds a lot like praying that Notre Dame will win the football game.) 

 

It is further defined as “the process of vibrating at a high frequency so that you become a vibrational match with the Universe and can co-create your world.”

 

According to the site’s own survey, a vast majority are confused about how to do it right. (Maybe they’re wondering why it’s taking so long for their dreams to come true when they are concentrating/vibrating so hard.) 

 

But then come the disclaimers. Practitioners err in thinking that exactly what they want should magically appear. It doesn’t work that way because the Universe is wiser and may have different plans. You may sometimes get what you want, but you don’t have total control.

 

Even though it may initially sound loony and airy-fairy, there are some positive messages. The video on the site emphasizes focusing more on what you have that’s working, being grateful, instead of stressing about what you don’t have or how long it is taking. This is a good message, which I call perspective and have written about here about 150 times.

 

That’s followed by more good advice about not trying to force or control everything. Don’t sweat the small stuff, be aware of your financial situation and be in control your feelings.

 

When I first read all this alignment with the vibrations of the Universe stuff, it seemed laughable. But deeper down it looks more like a religion for the non-religious: “We can trust that an energy beyond our own is working on our behalf and that everything is working out for us — even if we don’t know exactly when or how it will happen.” Readers were advised to be patient and practice manifesting not just on special occasions but every day, the same advice you would hear about prayer in any church, temple or mosque. 

 

The problem is that some people are selling this as a standalone, magic solution to all life’s problems, while the part about taking responsibility is easily overlooked. You can’t just sit down and wish things into existence. The Lord does help those who help themselves.

Some Short Examples and Comments About the Five Dimensions

Critical thinking: A few weeks ago a furniture company was advertising 20% off or 0% interest until Jan 2024, which was about 40 months away. If you take the delayed payment offer and pay full price, you sacrifice the 20%-off bargain. That is the equivalent of paying over 5% in annual interest – not exactly a no interest deal after all.

 

Responsibility: It seems fine to harass, shame or even arrest people who don’t wear a face covering, yet in the case of a person who has children without the means to support or feed them, there is unlimited sympathy and generous financial support from the government and others.

 

Economic Understanding: Recently Subway lost a court case in Ireland. They tried to avoid paying tax on their bread, but the court ruled that their bread contains too much sugar to qualify for the “staple food” exemption. The media reported mockingly on the unhealthiness of Subway bread. 

 

One newscaster closed with “now it will cost Subway more” – wrong! It is really a hidden tax on the Irish Subway customers as they pay more for their sandwiches. I doubt if it will cost Subway any business as they raise the price a bit. Newscasters and most of the people who listen to them don’t understand economics or business.

 

Note: A recipe on Food.com for homemade white bread uses at least as much sugar as the Subway recipe. 

 

Perspective: Does anyone else find it odd that football players celebrate every time they make a good play? These people are highly paid to play a game. They are expected to throw the ball or catch it or tackle an opponent or keep him from catching the ball. When they do what they are paid to do, they make first down signals, high-five each other, do dances and mug for the camera. Try doing that in your job and see where it gets you!

 

Discipline: Consider those on-line sports betting ads. It’s initially risk-free as they promise to match your losses up to a certain dollar amount. Aren’t they counting on enough people getting hooked, even if it’s only a bet or two a week? As the saying goes, over the long run the house always wins. 

 

Here is some evidence of that. This source “estimates that New Yorkers bet $837 million on sports in New Jersey. When subtracting the payouts for wins using a conservative hold percentage, it’s an estimated $57.1 million in revenue for the operators and $6.2 million in tax revenue lost by New York to New Jersey.” With it not yet legal in New York, total losses to the state in taxes on the profits could be over $203 million.

 

Discipline (alternate): Despite being told for years to build a six-month emergency fund, most Americans were dependent on government enhanced unemployment and stimulus checks immediately after the pandemic struck and complained when they were delayed.

 

Other miscellaneous ideas: 

Three useless words – “go ahead and.” Every time you hear them “go ahead and” replay the sentence in your head with out them. It’s shorter and means exactly the same thing!

 

The only way to be an optimist these days is to have extremely low expectations. 

 

“Some free black people in this country bought and sold other black people, and did so at least since 1654, continuing to do so right through the Civil War.” (Source: Article by Henry Louis Gates, a black historian)

Speaking of Insurance

Unfortunately, I must name a particular brand to make the point. It's not meant as criticism, only as another example of how people often don’t ask the right questions about money and economics.

The example is the Allstate commercial about their accident forgiveness program. Whenever I see it I ask, “Where do people think the money is coming from – surely not some magic money tree?” But that is the impression the ad leaves. Have an accident and your rates don’t go up, even though you expect the insurance company to pay for the repairs.

If the company has some sort of accident forgiveness fund set aside in a secret vault, where does that money come from?

As always, the company’s money comes from their customers. They use it to pay their employees, pay their rent and utilities, pay the claims that come in, reward the shareholders by making a profit and pay for the production and airing of those television commercials. To make this work, they must collect more money in premiums than they pay in claims! On average every one of their customers pays them a little more than they get back; that’s true for all insurance companies – even the non-profits.

Generally, insurance companies reward good drivers by raising premiums only minimally to account for inflation and industry-wide claims experience. Drivers who have accidents are considered a higher risk and must pay more, so on the surface accident forgiveness sounds like a good deal. But beware the details. 

The program has been around for a long time. Here from Fox Business back in 2011 is one explanation of some of those details. It’s not free. “At Allstate, for example, you get accident forgiveness by upgrading to a Gold or Platinum coverage plan. Gold costs 8 percent more, and Platinum 15 percent higher than a standard policy.” To qualify for Gold coverage, “you need to go three years without a collision,” but with Platinum coverage it kicks in immediately.

So there apparently is an accident forgiveness fund, but the people who signed up for the program are the ones funding it. It’s almost like buying auto insurance and then buying more insurance against a first accident. 

It’s similar to life insurance where the company is betting, based on life expectancy tables, that you are not going to die until you have given them enough money to invest and come out ahead. For auto insurance they set rates betting you are not going to have an accident, based on your driving record so money is left over to pay for the exceptions. The added premium is a bet you make against the company to protect you against an unforeseen incident. 

The rest of the article says that this added protection might be good for some but not for others, and it’s best to talk it over very carefully with an agent. 

Several other companies also offer some form of accident forgiveness and the Allstate program may have changed since this 2011 review, but the main point remains the same: There is no magic money tree! Companies don’t reward us out of the goodness of their hearts or by lowering the CEO’s salary. They collect it from their customers; and in every transaction it’s our choice whether a purchase meets our needs and is fairly priced compared to the competition.

Acting and Reacting

Is the world getting safer or more dangerous? Data about crime, wars and accidental deaths indicate that life this century is much safer than it was in the past. These events are very noticeable and easily measured. On the other hand, we often ignore or excuse less immediate dangers that arise as our interactions with the world become more complex.

As I have been describing behavioral examples of errors in the five key dimensions over the last 10 years, it becomes clearer that much of the human race is still attacking twenty-first century problems with cave-man level of skills. Just as the hunter-gatherers required immediate reactions to survive, when they heard a rustling in the bushes that may or may not be a snake or predator, humans retained those instincts, following a course of acting first and analyzing later. 

Likewise the practice of not trusting or even attacking people from a different tribe or with a different belief system carries over today in many forms. “My god is better than your god” is not necessarily ancient grounds for confrontation. It happens in a modified form daily on social media.

These instant reactions and mini-superstitions come to us immediately, before we have a chance to engage our critical thinking. Thus critical thinking is often omitted from our decision process, used only to justify or rationalize actions after the fact.

Several recent books describe this psychological phenomenon in detail: Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman; Nudge, by Thaler and Sunstein; and The Power of Habit by Charles Duhigg are among them. They tell how, as humans evolved, we developed mechanisms to be able to make quick decisions in times of panic or emergency. We react instantly, responding to emotional triggers often before we are aware of them. We are more comfortable following our established patterns of behavior. These programmed, intuitive reactions saved our ancestors, but they serve us poorly today.

That explains in part the need for COVID-19 bail out packages. According to Market Watch: “A shocking number of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck.” One survey says it’s at least half, another estimates 74%, as “one in four families making $150,000 a year or more are living paycheck-to-paycheck” and three in ten families having no emergency savings. No wonder it’s a crisis! The article says people are struggling.

This problem keeps coming up year after year, yet there is no change. 

Apparently what people need is something called financial literacy. An article in Ideas.TED from late last year asks: How financially literate are you?” and tells “3 things you should know about your money.” These three things are not close to rocket science: knowing how much money is coming in vs. how much you are spending; knowing your credit score and knowing how much credit card debt you have. Do we really need seminars and newsletters to teach people how to spend less than they earn to have a little left over at the end of the pay period or to read a credit card bill? These are third-grade skills.

Don’t blame it on credit cards or the eagerness of banks to lend customers more money than they can afford to borrow. These excuses are a cop-out. But this problem arose only in the last half-century or so. The world gets increasingly complex while we still try to cope using our cave-man instincts, act now and analyze later.

Critical thinking does not come naturally. It’s hard work and can sometimes be unpleasant. But it’s increasingly needed to keep up with the new products and services that technology throws at us at an ever-accelerating pace.

Flashback - Bottle Your Own Water

[It was about five years ago that I first posted this about bottled water. By now everyone has at least one water bottle at home and, with a few very rare exceptions, clean running water. Of course, it's those few rare exceptions that make the news and get people all excited. But then, as now, I am interested in promoting behavior.]

It distresses me every time I see someone pushing a cart full of bottled water around the grocery store.  I always wonder what they are thinking. Don’t they understand that it’s much cheaper and just as healthy and convenient to buy a bottle once and fill it with tap water every day? While there is so much publicity about Americans who are food insecure, others still choose to spend grocery money this way.

I recently ran across this excellent posting with a good explanation for those who are not current with the science and will not choose to reject it out of hand because it doesn’t agree with their preconceived position. (One of the wisest statements I know is Paul Simon’s old song lyric: “A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.”)

The article begins with the different kinds of bottled water, how you can tell the source of the water, and what regulations apply. In general, the EPA regulates tap water, whereas the FDA regulates bottled water, but only if it is shipped across state lines. Some states regulate bottled water and the industry itself has voluntary standards.

It then goes on to address the beliefs that bottled water is purer, healthier, tastes better and is the more ecologically responsible choice.

Purity is a difficult thing to measure and prove, therefore, “the FDA prohibits bottled-water manufacturers from implying that their water is ‘safer’ or ‘purer’ than any other kind of water.”  It goes on to say: “Bottled water sources are typically tested for harmful contaminants once a week at most. Municipal water supplies are tested hundreds of times every month. Tap water may not be perfectly clear, or it may have a slight chlorine aftertaste, but according to the Minnesota Department of Health, those are merely aesthetic qualities that do not indicate the water is unsafe.”

Purity is not as big a deal as the health benefit, but here too, bottled water falls short. “In May 2005, the ABC news program ‘20/20’ sent five different national brands of bottled water and one sample of tap water taken from a New York City drinking fountain to a microbiologist for testing. The lab tested for contaminants that can cause illness, like E.coli. The results showed no difference whatsoever, in terms of unhealthy contaminants, between the bottled waters and the tap water.” Other tests have shown the same thing. The Mayo Clinic advises: “Tap water and bottled water are generally comparable in terms of safety.” From the National Geographic website:  “Not only does bottled water contribute to excessive waste, but it costs us a thousand times more than water from our faucet at home, and it's likely no safer or cleaner.” Finally, this CNN article from 2013 concludes:  “if you're buying it because you believe it's safer than tap, you may want to start heading to the sink to fill up your glass.”

Taste is also an issue.  Some people are willing to pay a price 500 times higher for better tasting water. “But a couple of very non-scientific, blind taste tests have found that most people – or most people in New York City, to be more accurate – can't actually tell the difference between tap water and bottled water once they're all placed in identical containers.”

The biggest drawback to bottled water is that many organizations and researchers consider it an “environmental nightmare.” From the production operations, to transportation, to disposal of the bottles, to the minimal recycling of bottles, the overuse of resources, the littering/landfill issues, and the associated pollution make bottled water an environmental loser. This was the National Geographic’s primary objection.

So if you are one of the people who contribute to the over $11 billion in annual bottled water sales, please note that the industry itself does not even claim that it is healthier and safer. They state it this way: “Although bottled water has often been likened to tap water, bottled water actually achieved its market stature by enticing consumers away from other packaged beverages perceived as less wholesome than bottled water.” Perhaps the best advice comes from the Readers Digest article in 2008 to “Rethink What You Drink.”

Are Cars Too Expensive?

It’s hard not to feel like a victim when the media keeps reminding us that we are being taken advantage of and pointing out the evildoers. This segment from CBS This Morning is fairly typical.

The question posed and answered was: “Can a middle-class budget buy a new American car? Probably not.” They begin with the fact that the average vehicle price increased by about 38% for a new car or truck compared to 10 years ago. Of course they don’t mention that more than half of that amount can be attributed to normal inflation. Some comes from required and optional safety improvements and some from added amenities. 

That situation will likely not improve in the future as GM just settled a six-week strike with 46,000 union members who will receive $11,000 ratification bonuses along with other contract improvements. This sets the level for negotiations with the other two US automakers. Economic understanding reminds us that those added costs will be passed along to the car buying public, but back to the story…

Armed with the average annual take-home pay and the recommended percentage for car payments, Tony Dokoupil visited a couple of New Jersey dealers to price a typical car. The only way he could meet his presumed budget was either with a 96-month loan or by buying a much smaller car.

Where is the problem according to CBS? “The big three auto-makers are retiring many family sedans while rolling out souped-up SUVs and trucks at premium rates that families often can't afford without taking on loans that are now larger and longer than ever” while “a record number of Americans fell behind on their car payments.”

About this time I’m yelling at the TV that automakers don’t make cars that don’t sell. The reason they are producing bigger cars is to meet the demand. They are not the bad guys.

To back this up I found a site from January 2019 headed: “39 Interesting Car Buying Statistics, Trends, & Analysis.” Two facts near the beginning of the list were: 

• “Passenger car sales dropped below 30% of the market share in August 2018 for the first month ever. (USA Today) 
• Sales of mid-size (15.6% decrease) and compact cars (13.6% decrease) fell in August 2018, while compact crossovers and SUV’s rose about 14.8% of the market share. (USA Today)”

That’s what people are buying.

Later in the list is the fact that the “top three features consumers are looking for in a new car are safety (21%), Bluetooth/USB connectivity (15%), and a spacious interior (11%). (Crimson Hexagon).”

Safety is number one. A reliable source provides the unsurprising information that “new small cars are safer than they've ever been, but new larger, heavier vehicles are still safer than small ones.” Not only does this explain the trend toward bigger vehicles, it also explains why the cost of cars may have risen more than inflation – even the smaller ones are safer than ever, plus customers are expecting more amenities.

Finally, Americans for a long time have had a love affair with larger vehicles. In 2016 we read: “With gas prices relatively low, you might be tempted to buy that SUV you’ve always wanted.” A few years earlier: “larger vehicles accounted for 63 percent of total US sales in 2013” and “88 percent of all pickups sold in the US in 2013 were full-size models” and 54% of the SUVs “were on the larger side.” 

A couple of other observations: the percent of budget given to Tony to spend was a range of 10-15%. In the story he used 10% for his examples resulting in a worst-case scenario. There was no mention of a down payment or trade in, but many Americans are underwater with the car they are driving, so this may be fair. But it also could be an indication of where the problem really lies. With cars and many other purchases, buying now to pay later has become normal. (See my last entry.)

Finally, in the story CBS included statements from GM and Chrysler explaining their decisions were based on a “customer-driven trend to larger vehicles” and “based on what the customer wants,” respectively. Much as it’s popular to blame the big corporations for problems, the real problem is the appetite and resulting behavior of consumers. Saving for a car before stepping on the lot and then not overspending seem to be ideas of the past.

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.

Taking a Perspective Break

One of the least accurately used words in the English language is need. It is used as a substitute for want, in the sense of really wanting something. The logic of need is one thing, but the emotion kicks in to make that substitution of need for want so often that two very distinct terms become interchangeable. Losing the sense of that difference leads to unhappiness.

One of the core skills behind successful behavior in the dimension of perspective is the ability to clearly see the difference.

This idea was reinforced by a recent interview in the business section of The Atlantic, “Why So Many Smart People Aren’t Happy” with the author of a book by the same title. After basic needs are met, research shows that there are just three things needed for happiness: “having meaningful social relationships, being good at whatever it is one spends one’s days doing, and having the freedom to make life decisions independently.” These are not necessarily related to intelligence, level of education or wealth.

You may remember news from a 2017 Princeton University study presenting evidence that happiness increases with earnings only up to about $75,000 per year. "The lower a person's annual income falls below that benchmark, the unhappier he or she feels. But no matter how much more than $75,000 people make, they don't report any greater degree of happiness."

Additional intelligence, education or success does not keep people from making common mistakes like comparing themselves to others. Whenever there is a comparison, there will always be a winner and a loser. More ambitious people tend to compare themselves to others with higher levels of accomplishment and across more fields of interest. They end up the loser more often.

In terms of these faulty comparisons, having a grasp of economic understanding comes into play. With a scarcity mentality, people assume that any gain must be offset by a loss for another, and conversely they believe that someone else only comes out ahead (or gets rich) by taking from everyone else. This kind of thinking is demonstrably wrong, but it is convenient fodder for politicians and groups trying to stoke discontent against successful businesses or individuals. (This discontentment does not lead to happiness.)

Working for big rewards and recognition are not advisable. Not only do you put yourself at the mercy of other people’s opinions (and biases), the thrill of the award or pay raise soon wears off leaving you yearning for the next one.

All these false and unadvisable comparisons, this jealousy of someone doing better and this yearning for the next prize or reward, lead to mistaking wants for needs. Using a very Spartan definition, basic needs include air, water, food, basic shelter and adequate clothing. All else is a luxury.The new dress or bigger car is not a need. People lived for centuries without electricity, indoor plumbing and handheld entertainment. Not too many years ago, if you wanted to make a phone call while driving, it required a stop to find a pay phone. Little more than one hundred years ago a major problem in big cities was dead horses abandoned in the street!

Remembering facts like these from time to time gives the perspective to moderate the yearning, to identify, or at least prioritize, the wants.

An extreme example come from the news last week where “an 11-year-old northern Indiana boy shot and wounded his state-trooper father because he was upset that his parents took away his video games.” He got the gun from his father’s locked police vehicle. 

That shows poor perspective – even for a young boy; but how many older and more mature Americans have similar, if less violent reactions, when their wants are blocked or hampered? How many have trouble distinguishing wants from needs? A walk through the mall on a weekend afternoon (at a time when personal debt is at an all-time high) gives a pretty good picture.

Another Look at Retirement

Last time I wrote about the inability of most Americans to cover a $1,000 emergency from their savings. What will they do when they decide to stop working?

This article from CBS puts it bluntly. “The vast majority of older working Americans don't have sufficient savings to retire full-time at age 65 with their pre-retirement standard of living.” Most haven't even been saving at the rate they should have been from the start and sixty percent of those between 55 and 64 are not participating in company retirement plans like a 401(k). The facts that people are living longer and social security is on shaky financial ground only compound the problem. The obvious solution is to dramatically reduce their standard of living, continue working or both.

Similarly this promotional piece from Merrill Lynch reports “most American Baby Boomers under-save [for retirement] by about 20%, but almost two-thirds believe they can retire with a comfortable lifestyle.” They over-estimate how much their contributions will increase in the future and under-estimate how long they will be living in retirement. Most don’t even consider the additional heath care costs that may not be covered by Medicare.

This warning is backed up by an opinion piece on the Bloomberg site. “Too Many Americans Will Never Be Able to Retire." The solution suggested by this author is to increase the number of babies and immigrants, hoping to develop enough workers to support the aging population.

The article argues that this situation where many Americans can no longer look forward to a comfortable retirement and must continue to work is blamed in part on the financial crisis, but the above survey report belies that idea.

On the plus side, some see as a positive trend that more and more older people are still working, “because it adds to the economy.” But others see it as a sign that many will never be able to retire at all.

So his main argument comes down to the problem that the fertility rate in the US “has fallen to 1.8 in 2016, implying long-term population shrinkage.” This will lead to “fewer young workers to support an increasing population of retirees” through Social Security and Medicare contributions. That's why we need cheaper housing, generous child-tax credits and universal pre-K education, in order to bring down the costs of having children. 

Unfortunately, there are a couple of serious flaws in this approach. First, a lower birth rate is characteristic of advanced economies. As the BBC reports: “There has been a remarkable global decline in the number of children women are having.” The global fertility rate has dropped from 4.7 in 1950 to 2.4 children per woman by 2017. Three factors contribute to this drop: fewer deaths in childhood, greater access to contraception, more women in school and working. It’s not just the US, and it’s unlikely that encouraging more children or more immigration will have any effect on a worldwide trend.

Second, the idea of having more children to help support the older generation seems strange. Why should we reward the negligent behavior of parents by placing extra burdens on their children – more Social Security contributions and more taxes to support those "needed" government programs? Within families, grandparents only want the best for their grandchildren, but inter-generationally, they seem to have no problem dumping the cost of their extravagance and their inability to plan onto everyone else's grandchildren.

What Do These Stories Say About Our Country?

I was stunned when I saw an advertisement in the local grocery circular for Spaghetti O’s Organic. I have written many times about how organic foods are no more nutritious than the non-organic, how pesticides used in organic farming can be more dangerous than conventional pesticides and generally how consumers are paying more for a mythical “healthy halo” associated with words like natural and organic.

Intrigued, I went looking for those Spaghetti O’s at the store and found, as expected, that the price was about 35% higher for substantially the same product: same size can with very similar ingredients and nutritional value.  (The original had 10 more calories and a little more sugar.) Taking that 35% and applying it to the average family grocery bill of $600 per week* gives a potential waste of $210 per week or nearly $11,000 per year. Of course it is currently impossible to substitute organic for everything on the grocery list, but each individual choice is contributing to a part of that potential of $11,000. 

* Estimate is based on the low end of the Official USDA Food Plans: Cost of Food at Home, “Thrifty” Plan, U.S. Average, April 2018, so the potential waste for many families could be higher (up to double).

But we are not just talking about kids’ food. This equally shocking report came from the CBS Sunday Morning show a few weeks back. Celebrities are endorsing recreational marijuana in states where it’s legal. Tommy Chong, from the Cheech and Chong marijuana movies, Willie Nelson, Snoop Dog, Melissa Etheridge and Whoopi Goldberg are putting their names on products as a marketing ploy to enhance sales. As the pot marketing expert told CBS, “stores can basically charge an average of a 25% markup over the same type of product that doesn't have a celebrity name on it."  

So people are willing to pay 35% more for canned pasta and 25% more for their weed, based on the packaging, with no substantial difference in the product.  These are the same Americans who stress about retirement insecurity.  Fifty percent don’t have $1000 set aside for an auto repair or a medical emergency and one in four couldn’t come up with $100 in a pinch.

Meanwhile, instead of offering advice on how to live a more financially stable life, the news media fills us with more reasons to spend money needlessly, because Americans are so focused on celebrity endorsements and fads.  We are fed stories about how the Mediterranean diet is being replaced by the Nordic diet as the healthiest way to eat, apparently because it replaces the focus on olive oil with a preference for rapeseed oil/canola oil.  New fads bump out the older ones, but some can't even keep up. Things are changing so fast ; the news cycle and the viral cycle have accelerated to the point where it is no longer profitable for companies to print today's memes on t-shirts. By the time they hit the shelves, they are out of date – and no one wants to be seen in a shirt with a wise or funny saying or image that’s no longer relevant!  What would your friends think?

These are just a few examples of a serious shortage in critical thinking and perspective. Doesn’t it make you want to roll your eyes, shake your head, and hope that people come to their senses soon?

Gas Prices in the News

First let’s check a few gas price projections for accuracy and then think about the real impact of those relatively small changes that so often make the news.

I happened upon this report about gas prices for the Washington, DC area – “AAA: Gas prices projected to rise this summer.”  This report was dated April 2, and they were saying, “AAA Mid-Atlantic estimates that prices at the pump this summer could rise 40 cents or more per gallon.”  The spokesperson from AAA gave a number of reasons for the prediction and concluded:  “We may be looking at $2.60, $2.65, $2.70 by Memorial Day.”  He added that by the Fourth of July $2.80 was possible, but $3.00 was unlikely.

Fast forward to the first day of summer.  This comes from the AAA website showing gasprices for Washington, DC:  Current average price = $2.479.  Average for the last month was $2.537.  It came close, but never hit $2.60, not to mention the $2.70 by Memorial Day.  But those headlines can sure get your attention!

Now on July 3, the AAA site for Washington, DC lists the current average price at $2.46.  What happened to $2.80?

Don’t blame the AAA.  One of my economics teachers used to say, “If you could accurately predict interest rates, you would never have to work another day in your life.”  The same can be said about gas prices.

Meanwhile, the headline from a June 13 issue of Time-Money article reads:  “Gas Prices Are at Historic Lows. Take Advantage With One of These Inspiring Road Trips.”  They point out:  “According to AAA, the average price for a gallon of regular gasoline is $2.33 nationally. That's about 5 cents cheaper than this time last year.”  Because the price is below last year and the lowest since 2005, they recommend a number of road trip options.

How is five cents per gallon enough to justify a road trip?  At that difference a road tripper would be saving $5 for every 100 gallons of gasoline purchased.  With an average efficiency for a small SUV of about 20 MPG, 100 gallons would take you 2000 miles.  Without stopping to see many sights the trip would take at least 4 days.  A $5 savings isn’t exactly going to last very long?

The same article lists other states with more significant predicted price drops of 13 cents to 25 cents in Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, Indiana, and Illinois, but that’s still only about three to five times the miniscule average savings, and to enjoy that savings you must limit your 2000-mile trip to the Midwest.  (Note:  Effective July 1, Indiana raised the gas tax by 10 cents.)

This is not intended to poop anyone’s summer party plans or put a damper on a fun family road trip.  But do it only if you can afford it without counting on a few cents of savings at the pump.

According to some polls, about 40% will skip the summer vacation because they can’t afford it (the smart ones), while about 20% of those taking vacation will go into debt to do so.  You certainly can’t depend on the price drop at the pump to finance it.  And remember, those predictions are not exactly reliable in the first place.

We Are All Doomed!

Americans line up, spend time and money, waiting for the football game, the rock concert or the blockbuster movie to begin, glued to their smartphones that they bought at Walmart with a credit card, using Facebook that is supported by advertising to gripe to their friends about how big business and the rich are ruining their lives; and they don’t see any connection.  No, all these rich people, most of whom got us to freely give them our money by providing goods and services and entertainment that we value, should now be forced by the government through taxes to give it back to us in the form of government services.  That’s what we have been manipulated into believing is the definition of fair and just.

Many Americans hear in church on Sunday that “suffering” is being beaten and nailed to a cross to die in the hot sun.  They wake up Monday thinking suffering is having a minor backache, and take the pills promising fast, all-day relief.  They show no sense of proportion.  They go on to ignore the fact that their achy body could stem from being overweight and out of shape, and that exercise might be a better long-term solution.  But being too busy is a good excuse to skip the exercise and healthy eating.  They also don’t see the connection between how they deal with their physical health and their financial problems.

Americans are never at a loss for things to protest or be offended by.  If you try to tell them to get a grip or man up (which is, in itself, offensive) you are accused of being an intolerant hater.  But toleration in the extreme is the same as enabling, and objecting to something out of a sincere desire to lead someone away from destructive behavior is not hateful.  When a pharmacy chain refuses to sell cigarettes, no one accuses them of hating smokers.  Having some things you don’t approve of and don’t condone used to be called having standards, now it's called lacking compassion.

And when nothing seems to be going right we turn to the government to fix it.  But as of this writing the presidential election is winding down to a race between what the majority of Americans agree are the poorest candidates in recent memory.  They are overwhelmingly seen as untrustworthy, while offering no positions and no vision. They are too busy accusing and insulting each other, mixing politics with comedy on late-night TV where hosts amuse us by messing up Trump’s hair or taking Clinton’s pulse.  Leaders are supposed to be people we can look up to and admire, people with virtue, who are more interested in the good of the country than their egos and job security.  When the Note 7 smartphone had battery problems, Samsung president admitted that it did not meet “the standard of excellence that you expect and deserve.”  Should we demand a similar apology from the Republican and Democrat National Committees?

No.  We have gotten exactly the kind of candidates we deserve!  They are appealing to the very sense of victimhood we seem to thrive on.  They will fight for us – assuming we can’t or won’t take care of ourselves, assuming that the odds are so stacked against us that only they can bail us out.

When I began writing these short essays almost five and a half years ago, my intention was to gather examples of how our behavior leads to the very consequences the media continues to brand as crises and epidemics.  Now, more than 560 posts later, I am far from running out of examples.  I don’t spend a lot of time searching for weird or exceptional examples.  These are from mainstream news sources and usually national advertising.  Common behaviors are taking America in the wrong direction and the trend continues.  For the past 20 years we see the same mistakes, the same advertising lures and come-ons, the same political appeals, the same handwringing in Washington and on the news.

I feel like the prophet Jeremiah, who was thrown into a well for telling people what they didn’t want to hear.  Unfortunately the truth is that behavior has consequences.  Behavior is not improving.  People are not learning from their mistakes and changing behavior, instead blaming predictable consequences on circumstances, government, political opponents, structural disadvantages, time crunch and distractions, bosses and teachers and authorities in general, big business and Wall Street.

When touring this country in the Nineteenth Century, Tocqueville was amazed by the success of the American experiment.  He later wrote, “Liberty cannot be established without morality.”  He often expressed morality as mores or habits of the heart, in other words right behavior.  As our values and behavior deteriorate, our liberty slips away, the experiment fails and we are all doomed.