In the end all that matters it what you leave behind. The memory of a deed or two. The council of a solace few the story of a smile. Labor is only worth the experience, not the fruits. Smile
Category Archives: Politics
Redefining Succes$- Demonetizing the Concept
I recently wrote an article titled “Flutes and Fiddlers” (take a minute to read it if you have not) and in it I stated that I would not call myself a successful person, and it got me thinking. Why would I say that? What is success?
The very definition is this:
“The accomplishment of an aim or purpose”
Success is not something you can physically possess but a soluble emotion that is reachable by all no matter the stature of the pursuer! Americans tend to define success by money, and by what money can buy. We are known around the world as a rather materialistic country, always striving after things and defining success by the accoutrements that money can buy – such as our snazzy cars, the size of our homes and designer clothes. And that’s just what we get – more things. This doesn’t mean more fulfillments or contributing to make the world better in some way. It simply means more things. Life is not about “things” it’s about fulfillment of task or living for something.
Most people in America walk into a large, beautiful home and immediately become envious of the person that holds such wonderful tangible things, but it is time we step back and look at the larger factors of life. What has that person given up to obtain such “success”? It comes to the fact, success is purveyed in many ways in America and all forms of success come with pros and cons.-O.K. lets move on.
Other countries define success more in terms of whether their work supports their family life. If they enjoy their work, and if it gives them an opportunity to spend time with their family and have a balanced life, they’d consider themselves successful. I would say this is a holistically better perspective on what success truly is. Living a life for the betterment of your family and impacting the lives of others; a far more rewarding success story than a stake of faith-based currency that can be demoralized overnight leaving the rich significantly less wealthy- to me fulfillment has more value; this is more evident now, with jobs scarce and money tight. A majority of Americans are now seeking more satisfying work—and giving up material goods to get it.
There truly are many different perspectives of what success is throughout mankind. Most possess qualitative traits that I myself relate to far better than the American way of “success”
Making a Difference
I myself have found that success is defined by how my life will be summed up at my funeral- call it legacy. I constantly as myself “will they be talking about my contributions to their lives and how blessed they feel to have known me as a friend or co-worker? Or “how big of a waste of flesh I was”?
For most, success is ultimately defined by the Good that has been contributed, and by what is remembered about someone who has finished the work.
Success and Joy
Some define success by whether their job suits them and by how much joy they have as a result of their work. They define it by the joy they feel when they do the work; the joy they feel when they’ve finished the work; and by the joy that others feel as a result of their work.
Success and Balance
Some define success by the sense of balance they have between their work lives and the rest of their lives. For them, work is not what success is about. They believe that life needs to be balanced, and that work is not meant to be the only thing in our lives.
John Woolman, an early American abolitionist, cut back on his successful work as a tailor because he wanted to be “free of cumber.” When his work was getting so cumbersome it was controlling him and left him no time for other things of value in his life, he did not consider himself successful.
If a job is driving someone, demanding all their time, and giving them no balance between their work, physical exercise, time with their family and other relationships, and time for spiritual growth, then the balance is off and many would consider this is not living a successful life. This can lead to a frenetic lifestyle, as well as illness, family problems, and not paying attention to the values that make a good life.
With that said I would say any person that lives a life with goals and meets them is a successful person. To simply measure success on how much money and stuff we have is naïve and empty. If you pay your bills, live within your means, and have a life with or without children and you are happy; then to me, I would say that you are successful.
In my lifetime I have, accomplished many of my goals ranging from Service to this Nation, fighting in a war, running a triathlon, attending college, and starting a family. Milestones such as these perpetuate success far more than cash and home value. Living a life with purpose is far more warranting of success; than living one without: I am not trying to say people with money are without purpose, but there are those that have flopped and have not got back up. A successful person has goals set and is actively working to achieve them. I want to stop and say that I by no means rank within what many would deem the judge and jury of success, but I think that for to long we have gauged success with fame and fortune in America. That is not the case- fame to me is something I would never want, and I have never strived for it, and to possess a fortune and hold on to it; would be against my character and my belief that too much is too much. I enjoy aiding others far too much to be a millionaire, and a fancy home with large amounts of square footages seems fleeting to me and cumbersome. Success is applicable to all, and based on the will of the chaser.
In closing, success is not a monetary sum, and it has never been! We idolize the rich and famous as if they are vastly more successful than us-that is not true- we are just as successful if not more- fulfillment remember? The sooner we look past the quantitative factors of “success” than I truly believe our outlook on life will be far better than what it currently is. I am not saying be content with what you have; that will never happen- we are human, but instead be ambitious for what you want and know that every step of the way you are successful!
Other Articles to read.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-besaw/redefining-success_b_4118779.html
Artic Turf War- Its all about location!
This is a compiling of information that is available and source information is displayed below.
The diminishment of Arctic sea ice has led to increased human activities in the Arctic, and has heightened interest in, and concerns about, the region’s future. The United States, by virtue of Alaska, is an Arctic country and has substantial interests in the region. On May 10, 2013, the Obama Administration released a national strategy document for the Arctic region.
Record low extents of Arctic sea ice over the past decade have focused scientific and policy attention on links to global climate change and projected ice-free seasons in the Arctic within decades. These changes have potential consequences for weather in the United States, access to mineral and biological resources in the Arctic, the economies and cultures of peoples in the region, and national security.
The five Arctic coastal states—the United States, Canada, Russia, Norway, and Denmark (of which Greenland is a territory)—are in the process of preparing Arctic territorial claims for submission to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf. The Russian claim to the enormous underwater Lomonosov Ridge, if accepted, would reportedly grant Russia nearly one-half of the Arctic area. There are also four other unresolved Arctic territorial disputes.
A number of Arctic nations have tried to stake claims outside of their Exclusive Economic Zone.
-On Dec. 20, 2001, Russia submitted its claim to The UN Commission on the Limits of Continental Shelf, requesting an additional 1.2 million sq km (over 460,000 sq miles) of marine economic control.
-The Canadian government has begun programs mapping its continental shelf, and as of 2006 it has committed $51 million to the project.
-During 2008, the US government spent $5.6 million to prove that the US continental shelf off the coast of Alaska extends beyond the 200-mile EEZ limit.
-Denmark spent around $42 million between 2004 and 2010 to improve its claims for outer continental shelf territory. As discussed below, other Arctic nations have also been scrambling to stake claims because resources are becoming available due to the melting of the ice.
Russia’s Stake:
Russia is the most important player in the Arctic, with significant economic, security and governance interests in the region. This is primarily because of natural resources. Over 20% of undiscovered global hydrocarbon reserves are located in the Arctic area and most of them in the Russian Arctic. These natu¬ral resources are vital to Russian national security and economy; oil and gas alone account for roughly 20-25% of Russian GDP. Russia’s domestic social programs, infrastructure investments, and mili¬tary modernization are all critically dependent on revenues from natural resource export.
Similarly, hydrocarbons provide important leverage for Russian foreign influence. This is especially the case with energy-dependent Europe, where a third of the natural gas consumed is imported from Russia. The Arctic plays an increasing role in this equa¬tion as a strategically vital resource base for Russia. So far, the Russian Arctic has been responsible for about 10-15% of Russian GDP and 25% of its foreign exports and there are systematic efforts to increase these figures.
Russia’s increasing northward focus is also due to the fact that Russia’s mature hydrocarbon sources in Western Siberia are slowly drying up. Recent hydrocarbon activities in the Russian Arctic have taken place primarily through onshore projects in key locations such as the Yamal Peninsula and in nascent offshore projects on the Arctic sea bed in the Barents, Pechora and Kara Seas. These offshore projects have often taken the form of joint ventures between Russian and international energy corpora¬tions. This signals Russia’s need to seek investments and technological know-how through international cooperation.
However, key offshore projects – such as the Shtokhman gas field and Prirazlomnoye oil field – have turned out to be extremely challenging and have been suffering from continuous delays and shuffling of foreign partners up until today. Russia has also set its sights on resource bases outside its territorial borders and submitted a claim for the extension of its continental shelf to the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) process as early as 2001.
In order to access, exploit and deliver Arctic natu¬ral resources to global markets, Russia also aims to develop critical infrastructure in the Northern Sea Route (NSR), including ports, search-and-rescue (SAR) centres, route administration, ice-breaking capability, and oil spill response capabilities. In addition, non-maritime parts of the Arctic trans¬port system – pipelines, aviation routes, railways, and roads – and the overall socio-economic con¬ditions of the region require development and modernization.
Russia also has security interests in the Arctic. Russia seeks to project its sovereign authority in its wide Arctic region through improved border control (FSB), to provide safety and security espe¬cially in the NSR, and to maintain credible forces to secure critical infrastructures. Russia also seeks to maintain, develop and project a credible military force – primarily naval, aerial and missile assets – in the region in order to be able to react in various politico-military scenarios, as well as to deter the expansion of unwanted foreign military presence into the (Russian) Arctic.
China’s Stake:
China approaches the Arctic as a global power and an “Arctic stakeholder” affected by Arctic develop¬ments. China’s interests towards the Arctic have been growing steadily and it has become a part of Chinese strategic discourse. Overall, however, the Arctic remains a relatively minor aspect of China’s official foreign policy China’s growing Arctic interest must thus be understood primarily as future-oriented, reflecting its aspiration to be pre¬pared for the Arctic opening and its consequences.
The primary motive for China’s gradually increas¬ing Arctic interest is the economy. As a growing economy and a non-littoral Arctic stakeholder, China aims to secure access to opening Arctic ship¬ping routes, which could offer substantial savings in maritime transport and diversify Chinese security of supply. China also seeks to strengthen its ability to access Arctic resource bases, including rich fishing waters in the Arctic Ocean, rare mineral deposits in Greenland, and hydrocarbons in Russia
The United States stake:
The US has traditionally been a “reluctant Arctic power” that has paid a limited amount of policy attention to the region, and only primarily to its own Arctic backyard, Alaska. Lack of public aware¬ness, long distances, the low-threat environment, budgetary concerns, and more pressing global issues have all ensured that the Arctic has remained in the background of policy-making.
While the Arctic continues to be a relatively minor topic on the overall US foreign policy agenda today, the US has started to pay closer attention to the region with the publication of key strategic documents and high-profile participation in Arctic affairs. In short, the Arctic has gradually emerged as a “new” foreign policy frontier in the US.
The exploitation of natural resources – gas, oil, and minerals – is the primary driver of contemporary US policy in the Arctic. To enhance US energy security and the economy, the Obama administration has encouraged the responsible development of domes¬tic oil and gas production. In recent years, due to a declining trend in production in existing oil fields on the Alaskan North Slope coupled with a lack of new onshore sites, there has been domestic pressure to explore offshore oil in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. Major energy corporations from the US and abroad have acquired licenses for offshore produc¬tion blocks. These efforts, however, have been chal¬lenging and beset with delays due to US administration pressure after recent environmental accidents. In addition, advances in unconventional gas and oil production have reduced the urgency to go Arctic.
Secondly, the US also has a range of security inter¬ests in the Arctic. Importantly, parts of US strategic deterrence, global missile defense and early warn¬ing architecture are situated or operational in the Arctic region. The issue of freedom of navigation in the Arctic is another important security interest for the US. This is because accessible and open inter¬national maritime routes are arteries of the global and US economy and key enablers of flexible power projection by the US military
Section 112 of the Arctic Research and Policy Act (ARPA) of 1984 (Title I of P.L. 98-373 of July 31, 1984)4 defines the Arctic as follows:
As used in this title, the term “Arctic” means all United States and foreign territory north of the Arctic Circle and all United States territory north and west of the boundary formed by the Porcupine, Yukon, and Kuskokwim Rivers [in Alaska]; all contiguous seas, including the Arctic Ocean and the Beaufort, Bering, and Chukchi Seas; and the Aleutian chain.
The European Union Stake:
The European Union has started to show increas¬ing interest in Arctic affairs. The EU is intimately connected to the Arctic region through its Arctic Member States as well as various EU competences, policies and regulations with a direct bearing on the Arctic in areas such as the environment, climate change, trade, energy, research, transport, and fishery. That said, the EU has never been a forerun¬ner in Arctic governance, nor has it been accepted as a legitimate “stakeholder” by all Arctic states. This was mostly because of the EU’s politically insensi¬tive stance towards sealing and whaling and because of the European Parliament’s politically unfeasible initial position, which suggested a comprehensive international treaty to govern the Arctic region on the basis of the Antarctic Treaty.
Over time, however, the EU has come to adopt a more politically aware and conciliatory tone in its Arctic policy. Today, the EU’s Arctic policy maintains that Arctic governance should be built on existing multilateral frameworks – the UNCLOS, the Arctic Council, and the International Maritime Organization (IMO) – instead of a new Arctic treaty, while simultaneously bearing in mind and respect¬ing the sovereignty and national interests of Arctic states themselves. Due to the influence of various member states with divergent interests, the EU continues to lack a coherent Arctic strategy and moves forward at the level of policy statements. While the EU has sought a greater role in the Arctic, it has come to recognize that the Arctic states are the primary actors in the region and that the EU should focus its growing engagement on support¬ing existing successful co-operation and providing assistance in meeting new challenges in the region.
The first EU Arctic interest relates to global climate change, which has various environmental, social, economic and geopolitical implications for the Arc¬tic region as well as for Europe. While the EU has tackled climate change at the global level, its emerg¬ing Arctic climate policy has started to emphasize up-to-date knowledge of regional climate dynamics and the need to invest in Arctic environmental research. These efforts are identified as requiring coordination between the EU, Arctic states and Arctic stakeholders.
Secondly, the EU also has significant economic interests in the Arctic. Europe is a major destination for Arctic resources. Around 25% of Arctic oil and gas output is destined for Europe, and 80% of the fish caught in Iceland and 60% in Norway are sold in the EU.
Consequently, the EU seeks to secure access to Arctic resource bases in the context of intensifying global competition, and to influence policy development in the Arctic states towards favorable resource exploitation and management.
Motivated in part by a desire to exercise sovereign control over the Arctic region’s increasingly accessible oil and gas reserves (see “Oil, Gas, and Mineral Exploration”), the four Arctic coastal states other than the United States—Canada, Russia, Norway, and Denmark (of which Greenland is a territory)—are in the process of preparing territorial claims in the Arctic, including claims for expanded Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs), for submission to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf. (As mentioned earlier—see “U.S. Activities as a Non-Party to UNCLOS”—the United States, as a non-party to UNCLOS, cannot participate as a member of the commission; it cannot submit a claim under Article 76. Over the years, however, it has submitted observations on submissions made by other states, requesting that those observations be made available online and to the commission. In addition, since 2001, the United States has gathered and analyzed data to determine the outer limits of its extended continental shelf.) Russia has been attempting to chart the Arctic Ocean’s enormous underwater Lomonosov Ridge in an attempt to show that it is an extension of Russia’s continental margin. The Russian claim to this ridge, if accepted, would reportedly grant Russia nearly one-half of the Arctic area; a 2001 claim submitted by Russia was rejected as insufficiently documented. Canada also claims a portion of the Lomonosov Ridge as part of its own underwater continental shelf.45 In August 2007, a Russian submersible on a research expedition deposited an encased Russian Federation flag on the seabed of the presumed site of the North Pole. The action captured worldwide attention, but analysts note that it did not constitute an official claim to the territory and was therefore a purely symbolic act.
At a May 2008 meeting in Ilulissat, Greenland, the five Arctic coastal states reaffirmed their commitment to the UNCLOS legal framework for the establishment of extended continental shelf limits in the Arctic.
In addition to this process, there are four unresolved Arctic territorial disputes:
• Scientists have forecast that in coming decades, global warming will reduce the ice pack in Canada’s northern archipelago sufficiently to permit ships to use the trans-Arctic shipping route known as the Northwest Passage during the summer months (see “Commercial Sea Transportation”). The prospect of such traffic raises a major jurisdictional question. Ottawa maintains that such a passage would be an inland waterway, and would therefore be sovereign Canadian territory subject to Ottawa’s surveillance, regulation, and control. The United States, the European Union, and others assert that the passage would constitute an international strait between two high seas.
• The United States and Canada are negotiating over a bi-national boundary in the Beaufort Sea.
• The United States and Russia in 1990 signed an agreement regarding a disputed area of the Bering Sea; the U.S. Senate ratified the pact the following year, but the Russian Duma has yet to approve the accord.
• Denmark and Canada disagree over which country has the territorial right to Hans Island, a tiny, barren piece of rock between Greenland and Canada’s Ellesmere Island. Some analysts believe the two countries are vying for control over a future sea lane that might be created if the Arctic ice were to melt sufficiently to create a Northwest Passage. Others claim that the governments are staking out territorial claims in the event that future natural resource discoveries make the region economically valuable.
The USGS asserted that the “extensive Arctic continental shelves may constitute the geographically largest unexplored prospective area for petroleum remaining on Earth. In the report, the USGS estimates that 90 billion barrels of oil, nearly 1,700 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, and 44 billion barrels of natural gas liquids may remain to be discovered in the Arctic. An article published in Science magazine indicated that 30% of the world’s undiscovered natural gas and 13% of the world’s undiscovered oil may be found north of the Arctic Circle
It all comes down to who can get their way first, and seize control of the natural resources to the north, and these territorial tensions have a high probability of causing addtional global stress. what are your thoughts
The Decline of American Currency and the rise of Crypto-Currency!
As America’s dollar continues to lose its value in the global markets, it seems to me the pursuance of a new international currency is inevitable, and already underway. The American dollar was once a zero inflation currency that was backed by precious metals, but overtime we have distanced ourselves from tangible assets backing the USD, and instead embraced a “Faith” value system known as a Fiat money or currency that a government has declared to be legal tender, despite the fact that it has no intrinsic value and is not backed by reserves. Historically, most currencies were based on physical commodities such as gold or silver, but fiat money is based solely on faith and has caused a declination in value of the U.S. Greenback.
Another well known contributor to the devaluation of the greenback is inflation, which is found everywhere in our economy, except in the government’s statistics. Take for instance corn; the most important food crop in America, is up 75% since 2008. Gasoline is up from $2.25 a gallon to more than $4 a gallon – an increase of more than 40%. The nationwide minimum wage is up by 19%- based on the increase from $5.15 and hour to $7.25. Lastly, the cost of monthly rent is up by 25% nationwide and up 40% in most urban markets, as more Americans seek renting over homeownership due to the 2008 real estate crisis which caused many to lose their home and others to have their homes drop in value.
One last example is, the base price of a Ford F-150, the best-selling passenger vehicle in America, has gone from $18,225 to $36,590 – a 33% increase. This is an arguably domestically sourced and manufactured product. Its price is completely dominated by the value of the U.S. dollar. I know many would say that these examples are not of inflation but instead the rise of Corporate creed and cost of innovative new technology – I would say you have some ground there, but the largest attributor is that our dollar is so far stretched that it no longer holds the value it once did and I will explain why in this article I hope you enjoy the read.
When did we lose control of the US Dollar?
Well it started in 1913.What changed in 1913? That was the year America adopted the Federal Reserve Banking (FRB) system and the nation took its first steps toward abolishing the gold standard and replacing it with a banking system that allowed for unlimited paper money to be created.
In 1966 Alan Greenspan described the new system as a regional Federal Reserve Bank that is nominally owned by private bankers, but more so owned in fact by the government.
Credit extended by these banks is in practice (though not legally) backed by the taxing power of the federal government. … But now, in addition to gold, credit extended by the Federal Reserve banks (‘paper reserves’) could serve as legal tender to pay depositors.”
In other words, the dollar would only be partially backed by gold, and banks could create money by lending out money secured by credit from the Federal Reserve banks (even though the reserve banks did not necessarily have gold on deposit themselves). Thus the seeds of America’s first fiat (currency not backed by gold) dollar system were sown.
At that time, however, there were still restraints upon money-supply growth because the dollar was still convertible to gold upon demand. Anyone cashing in paper dollars was still legally entitled to its value in gold, so the money supply did not balloon completely out of control.
Yet by 1934, the paper money supply had expanded faster than the nation’s gold supply, so in order to prevent the nation’s gold supply from being drained, the U.S. decided to devalue the dollar—by 41 percent. Prior to 1934, an ounce of gold could be redeemed for just US$20.67, however after the revision; the U.S. government would only part with an ounce of gold in exchange for $35. In gold terms, anyone who had a U.S. savings account lost 41 percent of its value—overnight.
Even though the 1934 U.S. currency devaluation rocked people’s confidence in the dollar, World War II thrust the U.S. dollar into a new status: the world’s reserve currency. Toward the end of the war, representatives of most of the world’s leading nations met to create a new international monetary system, later known as the Bretton Woods agreement. At this meeting, the war-torn and virtually bankrupt nations of the world decided that since the U.S. economy had come to dominate the globe, and because it held 80 percent of the world’s gold due to the war, they would tie their currencies to the dollar, which, in turn, could be converted into gold at $35 per ounce.
Yet under the Bretton Woods system there were still limits on how much paper money a country could create. Each country had to police its own currency or be forced into embarrassing devaluations. The U.S. itself was constrained from overprinting money because the dollar remained fully convertible into gold.
However, by 1971, America had again printed vastly more paper money than was backed by precious metal. According to some estimates, so many paper dollars had been created that the nation’s gold supply only backed 22 percent of them. At the same time, French President Charles de Gaulle, recognizing that the dollar was losing value, had been exchanging his nation’s collection of U.S. dollars for American gold reserves. Seeing other nations following suit, U.S. President Richard Nixon closed the gold window in August 1971, no longer allowing foreigners to exchange their U.S. dollars for gold and thus ending the Bretton Woods agreement.
From that point on, America’s dollar became fiat, not backed by tangible assets. As the Federal Reserve bank of Minneapolis says, the U.S. dollar is fiat and is valuable only as long as “people are willing to accept fiat money in exchange for the goods and services they sell”—and only as long as “they are confident it will be honored when they buy goods and services.”
Since people were already in the habit of accepting paper backed by gold, Americans hardly noticed when the U.S. greenback became backed by nothing more than faith—until it started affecting their pocketbooks. Loss of the dollar’s gold backing resulted in a U.S. dollar sell-off in which foreign nations dumped dollars on the open market. This in turn caused roaring inflation and gold to spike up into the $800-per-ounce range. After the FRB jacked interest rates into the high teens, both Americans and foreigners decided they would trust the government and continued using the U.S. dollar.
The U.S. now operates on what many refer to as the Bretton Woods 2 system. Although there is no formal central bank agreement (as was the case with Bretton Woods 1), many countries, especially those in Asia, have more or less informally pegged their currencies to the dollar.
This system is inherently more unstable than the previous precious-metal-based non-fiat system. Since the U.S. dollar is no longer convertible to gold, there is no theoretical limit to how much the U.S. money base can expand—and the U.S. has been taking full advantage of this situation to increase its money supply.
The Dollar’s Decline
During Alan Greenspan’s term at the FRB alone, America’s monetary base tripled and more new money came into being than under all previous Fed chairmen combined. As the government has massively increased the money supply—doubling it in the last seven years alone—those dollars have become less valuable.
So many dollars have been created that only the dollar’s status as a reserve currency, along with the kindness of America’s trade partners, has prevented a complete dollar meltdown. Unfortunately, these dollar supporters seem to be crumbling.
At one point, 86 percent of the globe’s transactions were denominated in dollars. Whether it was Russians and Saudis selling oil to the world, or Chinese purchasing wheat from Canada, the dollar was the primary means of payment. Thus, foreign nations needed to keep huge dollar reserves on hand. This was a gigantic plus for the dollar. Had foreign nations not needed to increase their holdings of dollars as world trade grew, there would have been a massive wave of homeless dollars roaming the world looking to be spent, and as the supply of dollars increased, the dollar’s value would have plummeted. Instead, over the years, America has been able to get away with creating the money needed to pay its bills and finance an otherwise unaffordable standard of living.
However, the dollar’s status as a reserve currency is now being challenged. In 2005, the percentage of dollar-denominated reserves held by foreign nations was 76 percent, not two years later; it is down to 65 percent. “There is a gentle and osmotic process underway,” says economics analyst Julian D.W. Phillips: “a lessening of the role of the U.S. dollar in the global reserves” (Financial Sense Online, Nov. 6, 2006).
Although an all-out revolt against the dollar hasn’t yet occurred, clear signals are emerging that the dollar’s role as the world’s reserve currency of choice could be ending. Several international banks have announced intentions to diversify their reserves away from the greenback: Russia’s central bank, Sweden’s Riksbank, the Central Bank of the United Arab Emirates, Qatar Central Bank and the Central Bank of Syria. Stop and think about this- we no longer have tangible assets backing our dollar.
America’s massive monetary expansion could be about to boomerang on itself, as it did in 1934 and 1971—only this time, the number of dollars involved absolutely dwarfs all previous currency crises. As the U.S. persistently destroys the value of the dollar by overprinting (or, more correctly, over-creating, since most money created is now digital), foreign nations are losing confidence in the dollar and its role as a reserve currency. Foreign central bank sales are the first waves of a coming dollar storm. The more those central banks dump dollars, the greater the loss of investor confidence.
The rise of crypto-currency!
Many may be thinking by this point- WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN!? As I write this article hearings are being held on Capitol Hill to discuss the validity of a digital currency that has been on the rise for sometime but has not poised a threat until recent increases in crypto-currency worth. This crypto-currency has many forms but it seems that there is one that is making enough waves to get congressional attention this week and it is known as Bitcoin, and as I write this article its current value is 1 bitcoin= $544.57, and is recognized almost globally as a relevant currency. I strongly believe that this form of currency has a phenomenal foundation and will not seize to exist, but instead grow in popularity as the virtues of this fiat system values anonymity and translates well in worth globally.
What is Bitcoin?
Bitcoin is a consensus network that enables a new payment system and completely digital money. It is the first decentralized peer-to-peer payment network that is powered by its users with no central authority or middlemen. From a user perspective, Bitcoin is pretty much like cash for the Internet. Bitcoin can also be seen as the most prominent triple entry bookkeeping system in existence.
From a user perspective, Bitcoin is nothing more than a mobile app or computer program that provides a personal Bitcoin wallet and allows a user to send and receive bitcoins with them. This is how Bitcoin works for most users.
Behind the scenes, the Bitcoin network is sharing a public ledger called the “block chain”. This ledger contains every transaction ever processed, allowing a user’s computer to verify the validity of each transaction. The authenticity of each transaction is protected by digital signatures corresponding to the sending addresses, allowing all users to have full control over sending bitcoins from their own Bitcoin addresses. In addition, anyone can process transactions using the computing power of specialized hardware and earn a reward in bitcoins for this service. This is often called “mining”. To learn more about Bitcoin, you can consult the dedicated page and the original paper.
Won’t loss of wallets and the finite amount of Bitcoins create excessive deflation, destroying Bitcoin?
Worries about Bitcoin being destroyed by deflation are not entirely unfounded. Unlike most currencies, which experience inflation as their founding institutions create more and more units, Bitcoin will likely experience gradual deflation with the passage of time. Bitcoin is unique in that only a small amount of units will ever be produced (twenty-one million to be exact), this number has been known since the project’s inception, and the units are created at a predictable rate.
Also, Bitcoin users are faced with a danger that doesn’t threaten users of any other currency: if a Bitcoin user loses his wallet, his money is gone forever, unless he finds it again. And not just to him; it’s gone completely out of circulation, rendered utterly inaccessible to anyone. As people will lose their wallets, the total number of Bitcoins will slowly decrease.
Therefore, Bitcoin seems to be faced with a unique problem. Whereas most currencies inflate over time, Bitcoin will mostly likely do just the opposite. Time will see the irretrievable loss of an ever-increasing number of Bitcoins. An already small number will be permanently whittled down further and further. And as there become fewer and fewer Bitcoins, the laws of supply and demand suggest that their value will probably continually rise.
Thus, Bitcoin is bound to once again stray into mysterious territory, because no one exactly knows what happens to a currency that grows continually more valuable. Many economists claim that a low level of inflation is a good thing for a currency, but nobody is quite sure about what might happens to one that continually deflates. Although deflation could hardly be called a rare phenomenon, steady, constant deflation is unheard of. There may be a lot of speculation, no one has any hard data to back up their claims.
That being said, there is a mechanism in place to combat the obvious consequences. Extreme deflation would render most currencies highly impractical: if a single Canadian dollar could suddenly buy the holder a car, how would one go about buying bread or candy? Even pennies would fetch more than a person could carry. Bitcoin, however, offers a simple and stylish solution: infinite divisibility. Bitcoins can be divided up and trade into as small of pieces as one wants, so no matter how valuable Bitcoins become, one can trade them in practical quantities.
In fact, infinite divisibility should allow Bitcoins to function in cases of extreme wallet loss. Even if, in the far future, so many people have lost their wallets that only a single Bitcoin, or a fraction of one, remains, Bitcoin should continue to function just fine. No one can claim to be sure what is going to happen, but deflation may prove to present a smaller threat than many expect.
Can Crypto-Currency be a danger to world economies?
Electronic payments aren’t new. Bitcoin’s only innovations are its status as an independent currency and its decentralized network design. But those differences might make Bitcoin — or rather, crypto-currency in general — an existential threat to the modern liberal state. If widely adopted, crypto-currencies would cripple government in three central functions: taxation, police and macroeconomic stabilization. That is exactly what Bitcoin’s biggest fans are hoping.
1. Taxation: How do governments collect taxes on transactions in Bitcoin? The answer is they don’t, and they can’t. Crypto-currency’s strong protections on anonymity make it impossible for any state to know who is buying what, who is paying whom, who earns what, and who has what in savings. That poses a direct challenge to the power of states to levy taxes.
The problem is that Bitcoin makes tax evasion easier. States could enforce reporting of Bitcoin income for individuals and businesses, as they try to do for cash, which is also hard to track. But encryption and the peer-to-peer network structure make Bitcoin even harder to follow than physical cash, and digital cash is much better than the physical kind for storage and transactions, so the scale of the challenge could end up being much bigger.
2. Police: It would be almost impossible for states to detect certain crimes. One of the major alleged uses of Bitcoin — though, of course, one can never truly know — is buying illicit drugs. Bitcoin’s cryptography makes it uniquely able to facilitate money laundering, insider trading, fraud, and bribery. The transactions would be untraceable, and the money doesn’t ever have to return to the bank, where the financial crime might have been detected.
3. Macroeconomic policy: A Bitcoin economy would undermine the power of real-world central banks to make monetary policy. Yes, governments can influence the demand for national currencies by requiring taxes to be paid in them. But the monetary lever on private transactions and lending would be gone if such commerce was denominated in Bitcoin. And by displacing governments as currency issuers, Bitcoin also threatens their ability to finance public debt. In a world where many transactions are anonymous, it’s unclear how governments could even compile accurate economic data, without which macroeconomic policy is impossible. Economic depression in a Bitcoin regime could be an insoluble problem.
Only time will tell if what I discussed in this article is relevant to future practices in the global marketplace, but it is evident that the USD will not play a part in global commerce as it has for decades in the future. We no longer hold the industrial prowess to maintain the standards that made America great we have sold those rights away so that a chosen few can make a big payday. What America does now to combat these rising issues will set the precedent on whether we can one day reclaim our title as a civil industrial nation.
Our Voice. Our Action. Our Nation.
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/MarketTalk/story?id=3630951
Shift From U.S. Dollar As World Reserve Currency Underway (+93K Views)
War without Boundaries- Swatting the Bee hive!
The pervasive and ever evolving nature of which we find ourselves fighting “The War on Terror” currently is an interestingly perplexing situation. We are now using “Cloth and Dagger” techniques that metaphorically swat at the global “bee hives” of International terrorist organization. Effectively, causing more and more attention to our Nation; America finds itself the exposed face of the offensive against the anti-western movement.
To me we are dehumanizing the way we fight our battles, and turning over the American death-dealing to a remote-control wielding specialist. That lacks the skills to be an impressive grunt but has the innate ability to command a screen and push the correct button when commanded. America has thousands of operatives throughout the world that are inserting and extracting in hostile theaters throughout the globe sweeping up “high value’ targets or H.V.T’s. We are now acting in a “War without Borders”, and that is truly a scary thought to me- as I always found solace in the fact my loved ones were far from “the action” while a volunteering few impressed into the protection of our sovereignty. War is a malevolent action that mankind has partaken in for centuries and it has always involved some form of “sword to flesh” man-to-man action that creates a boundary between the innocent and the vengeful commissioners of the opposing perspective. The question I have started to ask myself is “what if others Countries start to act like America?
You know the whole Golden Rule mantra of “do onto others; as you would want done on to you”. We are sending drones on strikes almost weekly and it seems we do not levy the thought that technology is wide-spreading and Terrorism is well-funded. I truly believe that it is only a matter of time before the drone strike offensive is going to turn against us (this is not an apocalyptic rant), and we have not vested enough thought on this very fact! The boundaries of war are quickly diminishing and the conversation of this admonishment is not being discussed, because the internal calamity that is known as the modern United States of America does not allow the time for broad open discussion about this fact. What defenses does America have against CONUS attacks from abroad? Well it seems that the best way I can put it is how other Nations are handling our drones’ strikes. Snipe it, hack it, and jam it. This is what Al-Jazeera is stating as rational ways to defend against this American birthed offensive. We are unaware of the temperature of the attitudes that our drone strikes create as Citizens because we are more focused on what the Media is blasting and marketing to us as prevalent news, than to focus on how unsafe it is becoming to live in America do to the actions of Our Government.
Let’s look at it this way. We all remember the tough guy in our childhood that enjoyed fighting and was good at it and boasted about his triumphs in the metaphorical “arena” of street fighting (at least I remember that guy!). It seemed that person always found himself up against a crowd of fed-up individuals reaping the rewards of opportunity(this is in the get pushed, and you push back era of course). Now, ponder on that scenario and think big picture. We cannot maintain the mantle of biggest tough guy on the block, without the support of allies, financing, and of course civility. Over the last decade we have progressively malingered our global allies into a corner, and now they are slowly reproaching themselves away from us. I am sure we all have witnessed a train wreck of a person pursue something to the point where we are left with no choice but to leave them to fight their own battle- it is human nature- we see an overwhelming and or life threatening situation and we break away from it. Look at the global climate; it is all about the actions of America!
We find ourselves improperly financed, internally divided, and legislatively confused on the correct path of America. It is a volatile time to live in America. I support this by saying; Americans are disengaged and nestled up to the idea that our interests both domestically and internationally are being minded in the House and Senate, which we have clearly seen are not! With that I also point out that most Americans are not seeking accurate information on non-partisan politics they are simply leaning “left” or “right” and that is the stance on prevalent events and a large colluder of the sovereign unity that has made America an enviable global presence.
In my opinion, I feel War is a necessary destructive beast! That has for centuries maintained prominent boundaries but we are seeing those global boundaries that caged the metaphorical beast being washed away, and I feel we will one day find that the current borderless context of our current offensive plan is only increasing the threat to Our Nation and unifying our enemys!
The last subject of our current offensive plan is the interestingly perplexing internal issue of the current administrations, firing of many of the great Generals that have protected America for the last decade; men that I served under in my time as a Marine Infantryman that have unwavering commitment to the cause of America. Some of the Top Officers listed below totaling 197 officers in all relieved of duty.
America has found its self in a war with many fronts with a diminishing presence of experienced Generals, and the absense of a ferocious presence of perplexed constituents…I am sure we all have played chess at one point in our lives, does this seem like we are protecting our interest?
Gen. Carter Ham, Army
Served as head of the United States African Command during the bloodshed in Benghazi, Libya when four American citizens, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens and two retired Navy Seals, were murdered by militants on Sept. 11, 2012. Senior military officials told TheBlaze Hamm was extremely critical of the Obama administration, including when reinforcements were not sent to help the U.S. citizens under attack in Benghazi. Hamm “resigned and retired” in April 2013.
Rear Adm. Charles Gaouette, Navy
Commander of Carrier Strike Group Three. He recently served as deputy commander of the U.S. Naval Forces, U.S. Central Command. He was in charge of Air Craft Carriers in the Mediterranean Sea the night of the Benghazi assault on Sept. 11, 2012. Under testimony, he told Congress there may not have been time to get the flight crews to Benghazi, but left the door open when he told Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) under cross-examination that he could have launched aircraft to the destination. He was later accused of using profanity in a public setting and making at least two racially insensitive comments. While he was cleared of any criminal violations under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, he still faced administrative penalties that have ended his career.
Maj. Gen. Ralph Baker, Army
Major General Baker served as commander of the Joint Task Force-Horn at Camp Lamar in Djibouti, Africa. According to several military officials who spoke to TheBlaze, he was also involved in some aspect with the Benghazi incident Sept. 11, 2012. He was relieved of command and fired for allegedly groping a civilian, but no assault charges or sexual misconduct charges were filed with military JAG officials.
Brigadier Gen. Bryan Roberts, Army
General Roberts took command of Fort Jackson in 2011. He was considered a rising star in his field and served in Iraq during his service as the commanding officer of the 2nd Brigade Combat Team. He was the deputy commanding general of the United States Army Recruiting Command at Fort Knox, Ky. He was relieved of duty and fired for adultery — still on the books in the United States Code of Military Justice but rarely since President Bill Clinton’s indiscretions.
Maj. Gen. Gregg A. Sturdevant, Marine Corps
Director of Strategic Planning and Policy for the U.S. Pacific Command and commander of the aviation wing at Camp Bastion, Afghanistan. He was a highly-decorated Marine with two Naval and Marine Commendations, two Naval and Marine Good Conduct medals, as well as the Air Medal with a gold star. He was one of two commanding officers suddenly relieved of command and fired from the military for failure to use proper force protection at the camp after 15 Taliban fighters attacked Camp Bastion on Sept. 14, 2012, resulting in the deaths of Lt. Col. Christopher K. Raible, 40, and Sgt. Bradley W. Atwell, 27.
Maj. Gen. Charles M.M. Gurganus, Marine Corps
Regional commander in the Southwest and I Marine Expeditionary Force in Afghanistan. Highly decorated with a Defense Superior Service Medal, two Legion of Merit with Valor, and three Meritorious Service Commendations. According to several military officials, Gurganus questioned having to use Afghan security patrols alongside American patrols after two officers were executed at their desk and a platoon was lead into an ambush on the front lines.
Lt. Gen. David Holmes Huntoon Jr, Army
Served as the 58th Superintendent of the United States Military Academy at West Point, N.Y. He graduated from the same academy in 1973 and had served in Senior Planning and Education Services through the majority of his career. He was “censored” for “an investigation” into an “improper relationship” according to the Department of Defense. Nothing was released to the nature of the improper relationship. Nothing was even mentioned if an actual investigation even took place.
Vice Adm. Tim Giardina, Navy
Deputy Commander of the United States Strategic Command. He was commander of the Submarine Group Trident, Submarine Group 9 and Submarine Group 10, where every single one of the 18 Nuclear Submarines with Nuclear Trident Missiles of those three groups were in his command. This commander earned six Legions of Merit, Two Meritorious Service Medals, two Joint Service Commendation Medals, and several other medals and ribbons. He is under criminal investigation for the alleged use of counterfeit gambling chips, while playing a poker game at a western Iowa casino.
Major Gen. Michael Carey, Air Force
Commander 20th Air Force in charge of 9,600 people and 450 Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles at three operational wings and served in both Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. Carry was fired October 11, 2013, for “personal misbehavior,” according to ABC News. Pentagon and Air Force senior officials have remained relatively tight-lipped about Carry’s firing.
Our Voice. Our Action. Our Nation.
http://www.thenation.com/article/166124/brief-history-drones# http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2013/07/201376122240540295.html
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/10/23/military-sources-obama-administration-purging-commanders/
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/102913-677116-197-military-officers-purged-by-obama.htm
Affordable Healthcare by the numbers.
We all hear a lot of talk in regards to the Affordable Care Act or ACA or ObamaCare in the news and to me it is always so vague on details it leaves me scratching my head asking ”what is ACA really doing for Americans- holistically?” I know I am not alone in this thought as even politicians are scratching their heads wondering what they signed off on without really reading. So I did a little research based on of course the numbers and attached a graphic from the Heritage foundation on the current fiscal budget to reference as you read (if you chose to). Enjoy!
So first let’s take a look at the full scenario in America based on surveys conducted by various agencies in which I will list at the end of the article for your review.
• Based on a 2012 Census report there are 48 million uninsured Americans or 15.4%
• In 2012, about three-fourths of working-age adults with low incomes (less than $14,856 a year for an individual or $30,657 for a family of four)—an estimated 40 million people—were uninsured or underinsured.
• Fifty-nine percent of adults with moderate incomes (between $14,856 and $27,925 for an individual or between $30,657 and $57,625 for a family of four)—or 21 million people —were uninsured or underinsured.
• Adults who were uninsured were less likely to receive recommended preventive care in 2012. For example, only 48 percent of women who were uninsured during the year received a mammogram within the recommended period, compared to 77 percent of those who were well insured all year.
• Median household income was $51,017 in 2012, not statistically different in real terms from the 2011 median of $51,100
The ACA health insurance premiums are projected to be an average of $328 monthly or $3,936 annually for a Bronze package. I myself settled up to battle the Healthcare.gov (when it worked) to see if the healthcare exchange would be better for myself and family and my premium per month was $946 per month- my employer coverage is currently $115 per paycheck bi-weekly and will increase by $30 a paycheck next year so with my current high deductible plan I will pay $290 per month with additional cost going to a tax-free Health Savings Plan which I will contribute $500 to annually with an additional contribution of $800 annually from my employer. I am apart of the 85% of Americans that have health insurance coverage – my worries are what about those that do not?
Now, let’s look at the penalties for the coming years if one were not to procure health coverage for various personal reasons:
(All calculations are for perspective purpose only! Flat and null of market fluctuations based on if more Americans were to obtain insurance in this time frame, affects of inflation over time, lowered average premium cost, and amendments made to penalties.)
2014 Scenario
In 2014, the fine to remain uninsured is $95 per person (up to a family maximum of $285, or 1 percent of family income, whichever is greater) and $47.50 per child. Now most families in America will be charged the max $285 based on the above mentioned data. As most that would not qualify for subsidies as they make to much money so in the first year these charges would equate to approximately 30 million American families being charged this fee so that would be $8.5 billion collected in fees the first year and $6.8 billion paid out for subsidized beneficiaries.
2015 Scenario
The penalty will increase to $325 per person and $162.50 per child in 2015 or $925 maximum or 2% of family’s annual income; greater cost will be deducted. Penalty fees will be collected in the amount of $27.75 billion and $6.8 billion dispersed to handle subsidized beneficiaries.
2016 Scenario
In the following year the penalty will cap at $695 per person and $347.50 per child or 2.5% of a family’s income up to $2,085; greater cost will be deducted. In each of these penalty scenarios that I just discussed most family’s will pay the top amount each year for not having health insurance, so using the above mentioned number of 30 million Americans unable to procure health insurance in the year 2016, the amount of fees collected from uninsured working/unemployed Americans would be $62.5 billion and than tax funds would pay $6.8 billion for those that are subsidized with credits.
Now let me wrap up the numbers portion of this article….
In just three years, ACA will collect fines of $98.75 billion if the uninsured stay as they are and face the penalties as they have not found a affordable way to obtain health insurance at the average median income of $51,017 a year, and distributed 20.4 billion for subsidized beneficiaries based on my flat line calculations that do not include fluctuations in the market as they are difficult to predict with my level of research.
Enrollment and Exemptions
Many of us know you can sign up for health coverage on an exchange anytime between now and March 1, 2014 and your coverage would begin Jan. 1, 2014, at the earliest. If you do not enroll in that window, you will not be able to get health coverage through the insurance exchange marketplace until the next annual enrollment period unless there are extenuating circumstances. To achieve subisidies and exemptions you would have to fall under one such scenario of the following:
•You are uninsured for less than three months of the year.
•You live illegally in the United States.
•You’re incarcerated and not awaiting disposition.
•You’re a member of a recognized Indian tribe.
•Your income is officially deemed too low ($10,000 a year individual/$20,000 family).
•The lowest-priced converge would cost more than 8 percent of your household income.
•You’re a member of a recognized religious sect with religious objections to insurance, including Social Security and Medicare.
•You’re a member of a recognized health-sharing ministry
My Thoughts..
I am not sure if this program will settle the weary American woes of health insurance, but I am certain that it will cost financially weary Americans some additional money every year if they are not able to budget appropriately for Health coverage in their current fiscal scenario. My hope is that Americans look at these numbers and start to engage a plan to either go with the current ACA policy or become engaged in a solution to better our American health industry through vigorous passion and undeniable voice! What is your stance?
OUR VOICE. OUR ACTION. OUR NATION
For inforamtion verification and sourcing see links below:
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/hlthins/
http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/reports/2012/uninsuredintheus/ib.shtml
http://www.irs.gov/uac/Affordable-Care-Act-Tax-Provisions
The Requirement to Buy Coverage Under the Affordable Care Act
Attrition of a Nation
href=”https://andrewsoption.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/samgrow_3001.gif”>
This article I present to you today does not seek to sway opinion, but gives you the data and history to establish your own voice on the current and future state of America. We have the prowess as citizens to protect the state of Our Nation; we must now find the action to voice our concerns and bring action to a stalemate that has perpetuated a gridlock in Our Government! Please take the time to enjoy my article and establish your own stance on America’s condition!
As of this moment America stands a Population of 313,914,000 or 245,959,000 Civilian non-institutional population with 155,486,000 ready and able to work, but only 144,170,000 currently designated as employed. That puts America at a 58.6% currently employed! American companies are trying to justify continual job growth as the cost to hire increases with an American worker making $8.50 cost an employer $13.51 with hard cost and soft cost attributed to this information. America is not facing anything exclusively climatic in its current predicament it is now a relevant issue because the numbers are higher and the American people know more about current events than ever, but just because the information is placed in the hands of the American people it has become stagnate in its current position as the American way is appealing to most that live it – even with all the current issues – Americans face a time when the information is present but the will to act on the information is absent. The self-persuaded welfare state way of life has long but taken a hold of Our Nation, and the growing mindset of “If I do not do anything, someone else will” has a strong grasp on the integrity of action in most Americans! The nation is divided as a two-party government struggles to establish common ground and drive the American vessel to the next era of distinguished global presence!
1920s
• Population: 106,521,537
• Unemployment 2,132,000 or 5.2%
• Average annual earnings $1236
• Teacher’s salary $970
• Life expectancy: Male 53.6, Female 54.6
We all revel in the culture of movies and series that reminisce on the socioeconomic of the 1920’s and forward, but fail to see the denigration of social norms. The 1920s saw the growth of popular recreation, in part because of higher wages and increased leisure time. Just as automobiles were mass-produced, so was recreation during the 1920s.
The 1920s saw the emergence of non-sporting national heroes like Charles Lindbergh, who made the first solo nonstop flight across the Atlantic in May 1927 – These were the “Roaring Twenties” and the strong economy of this era also created the right environment for many important changes in the day-to-day social life of the American people. The 1920s brought a feeling of freedom and independence to millions of Americans, especially young Americans. This unclouded experience of social grandeur made every Citizen with in America boast of National Pride and benefit from a bipartisan democracy that was filled with PROUD AMERICANS!
1930s
• Population: 123,188,000 in 48 states
• Unemployment : 12,830,000 or 25%(labor force information not collected until 1940s)
• Average salary: $1,368
• Minimum wage: $0.35 an hour
• Life Expectancy: Male, 58.1; Female, 61.
This is the period between the stock-market crash of October 1929 and the bombing of Pearl Harbor in December 1941, and dominated by one of the worst economic crises in American history (that is comparable to what we are seeing today). Many called the 1930s “years of standstill,” when “everybody and everything marked time.” The confidence of Americans in progress and prosperity, so marked during the 1920s, suddenly vanished. But hard times were not new, and many Americans had suffered even during the prosperous 1920s.
Unemployment had risen from 1.5 million in 1926 to nearly 2.7 million in 1929, which in comparison to the 92,228,496 register Citizens in America at the time is a staggering number for the time period! That means unemployment in 1929 stood at approximately 8.7% – again a relatively high number considering the times.
During the 1920s millions of Americans were forced off farms by deflated crop prices (like we are seeing today), soil depletion, and farm mechanization. Yet the Great Depression of the 1930s hit with unprecedented force. Millions of Americans who had recently joined the middle class because of easy credit, installment buying, and low-cost stocks lost everything. For working-class Americans and the poor, the situation was worse: jobs were nowhere to be found; many sharecroppers were thrown off their farms; malnutrition and despair were constants. Worse still was the condition of the elderly, children, and families. Seniors who lost years of savings in the banking collapse were too old to find work and were forced to rely on hard-pressed families and charity to survive. Education was slashed, and millions of children lost their schools. They too had to work at whatever they could find, contributing their meager earnings to their families. When local governments defaulted on their debts to the rich in order to keep schools and welfare services open, wealthy citizens organized tax strikes and liquidated private charities. At the federal level congressional investigations in 1933 and 1934 revealed sensational securities fraud, profitable ties between business and government (especially in the airmail business), and the tax loopholes provided for the wealthy. The public was outraged, and Roosevelt took advantage of this anger to reverse the relationship of government to the powerful, placing government at the service of common people. It was a situation alien to a society and economy geared to abundance, unlimited growth, and opportunity.
Roosevelt’s New Deal intervened at an unprecedented level in the lives of average Americans. Direct emergency relief, although meager, kept many from starving; public works projects provided temporary jobs for millions; federal insurance protected the life savings of American workers; housing and farm loans protected millions from foreclosure; Social Security provided retirement and unemployment protection (Does this sound at all familiar?); Roosevelt’s support for organized labor insured millions of workers of high wages and safer working conditions. These policies that were adapted by this administration laid the foundation of a welfare state and were overwhelmingly supported by the public (Is this not sounding familiar yet?). But they did not cure the Depression.
1940s
• Population: 132,122,000
• Unemployment: 8,120,000 or 3.9%
• Average labor participation: 46.1%
• National Debt: $43 Billion
• Average Salary: $1,299.
• Teacher’s salary: $1,441
• Minimum wage: $0.40 an hour
• Life expectancy: 68.2 female, 60.8 male
In 1941 as many as 40 percent of all American families lived below poverty level, and nearly eight million workers earned less than the legal minimum wage of $0.40 an hour – accurate as of October 25, 1945 and equal to $11.50 today – as inflation in the 1940s was 43.88%, which has over the course of time increased by 2194.96% in the year 2013.
In the 1940’s 8,120,000 Americans were unemployed, and the median income registered at $1,289 per year, but the average yearly earnings did rise momentarily in 1940 to $1,754, but fell back to $1,289 in 1944. The labor force expanded from 56,180,000 in 1940 to 65,290,000 in 1945 with an overall population of 132,122,000 this would put the labor participation rate at 42.5% in 1940 and 49.4% in 1945 a staggering increase due to the increase in Industrial production. In this time many began to celebrate the rebound of America’s economy post war and reveled at the optimistic policies that had created such an opportunity, but the national debt at this time was $43 billion and the economical picture improved during this era, but the sense of crisis created by the Depression permanently altered lifestyles and attitudes. The so-called depression mentality of fear and economic caution marked an entire generation, even as the economy boomed after World War II. In this timeframe America stepped-up its industrial prowess of production and thus improved the material lives of many people, but with only less than 50% actively engaged in the labor force it left many relying on the Welfare state created by Roosevelt’s “New deal”. You have to ask yourself is America’s history going to be cyclic amortization of ignorance of partisan Politics or are we going to one day seek a holistic bipartisan social structure. The only way this can occur is if we know where we came from and can arbitrarily argue as an autonomous body that bipartisan policy that aids in production and increased civil liberties is what made America a just and thriving Democracy.
1950s
• Population: 151,684,000 (U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census)*
• Unemployment: 3,288,000 or 6.8%
• Average Labor Participation : 59.2%
• Average Salary: $2,992
• Minimum wage: $0.75 an hour
• Life expectancy: Women 71.1, men 65.6
Though the 1950s prosperity benefited many Americans, it also obscured widespread poverty which today is still commonplace in Our Nation! More than 20% of the nation lived below the poverty line – or based on the above mentioned data approximately 30,336,800 Americans; some in desolate rural conditions as migrant workers, others in the crowded and dirty slums of American cities. In this timeframe the needs of the minority groups went largely unanswered, and the condition of cities rapidly deteriorated – some of what we are seeing today, but there are now more social wealth programs available today than there was in this era. The increasing gap of socioeconomic grew greatly in this era as the wealthy continued to thrive with tax loopholes, low minimum wages and high demand for domestic products.
1960s
• Population 177,830,000
• Unemployment 3,852,000 or 8.5%
• Average Labor participation: 59.4%
• National Debt 286.3 Billion
• Average Salary $4,743
• Teacher’s Salary $5,174
• Minimum Wage $1.00
• Life Expectancy: Males 66.6 years, Females 73.1 years
The 1960s were an era of protest and social revolution. In the civil rights movement blacks and whites protested against the unfair treatment of races. Towards the end of the decade more and more Americans protested against the war in Vietnam. The 1960s shattered American politics with the assassination of John F. Kennedy, who was the first Catholic President in American history, and was later gunned down in Dallas in 1963. When his brother Robert ran for president in 1968 he too was killed by an assassin’s bullet in California.
1970s
• Population: 204,879,000
• Unemployed in 1970: 4,088,000
• Average Labor participation: 60.4%
• National Debt: $382 billion
• Average salary: $7,564
• Life Expectancy: Male, 67.1; Female, 74.8
At this point I would say that most of us can remember the remaining era’s predominant events. So I will give to you the data of the timeframe. I hope that you can take what is given to make a relevant opinion on the current events of America, and the cyclic nature of history. We can correct the movement of the nation we just have to embrace history and encourage our children to promote change in an articulate manner as our current focus has embodied a sloth like stance on mutual propriety and social presentation through verbal prowess. The way we present ourselves today will affect the outcome of this Nation as our children simply mock our actions and political views, unless we teach them how to find the information that will allow them to embody a stance of political individuality that promotes National growth and a promising future!
1980s
• Population: 226,546,000
• Unemployed: 7,637,588 or 7.1%
• Average Labor participation: 63.8%
• National Debt: 1980 – $914,000,000,000
• Average salary: $15,757
• Minimum Wage: $3.10
• Life Expectancy: Male 69.9 Female 77.6
1990s
• Population: 281,421,906 (2000 Census)
• Unemployment: 5,800,000 or 4.2%
• Average Labor participation: 66.4%
• National Debt: $3,830,000,000,000 (1997)
• Average salary: $25,679
• Minimum wage 5:15 hr
• Life Expectancy Male 73.1 Female 79.1
20th Century
• Population: 313,914,040
• Unemployment: 11,316,000 or 7.3% (as of Aug. 2013)
• Average Labor participation: 58.6%
• National Debt: 16,738,158,460,000 (October 2013)
• Average salary: $51,200 (August 2013
• Life Expectancy : Male 76 Female 81
OUR VOICE.OUR ACTION. OUR NATION.
Labor Participation information: http://www.bls.gov/mlr/1999/12/art1full.pdf
Minimum wage information acquired at the following link http://www.dol.gov/whd/minwage/chart.htm