Sad but True
1. If you were so lucky to be paid $44,600 in 1975, cost-adjusted inflation means you would need to earn $167,870 in 2006 to have the same buying power. Compare those figures to this statistic: if you were so lucky to have earned $75,100 in 1985, today you would need to be earning $141,340. Are you rubbing your eyes?The power of the dollar as measured in the above example went down over the 10 years between 1975 and 1985. Even though your yearly wages went up by about $31,000, the buying power dropped by $26,000! This loss due to inflation probably went unnoticed because like many Americans, you turned to “plastic” to buy goods. Now you expect to carry a certain amount of “plastic debt” in order to maintain your lifestyle.
Once the dollar was taken off the “gold standard” by then President Richard Nixon, the US Government could print money without the need to back “paper with gold.” Take 2006 for example: the government was short a few trillion dollars, so the secretary of the treasury went to Congress for permission to print the necessary money.
This devalued the dollar against other currencies and made it less potent in America for the purchase of goods. In fact, in every 40 year period, inflation and the unabated printing of money by the government renders the dollar worthless.
The obvious implications of this practice are retirement savings. Those people saving and investing with the hopes of retiring “comfortably” will find the amount well-short of what will be needed, especially if the person lives beyond 80. If a person starts saving at 30 (say $3000), by the time they reach 70, that original sum is lost to inflation. Only a small portion of it remains due to the reinvestment of dividends and capital gains, but it will be insufficient to offset the cost of goods at that time.
This is what makes pensions and social security so important. You need every source of income to pay bills and other needs as you grow older.
2. Alcohol commercials flood all college sports events as much as any professional venue. Drinking at college is more American than college and diplomas. And, even if colleges attempt to curb alcohol at sporting events and on campus, having access to beer and “hard stuff” is easy for any college student, especially females.
Unfortunately, this American drinking tradition kills over 1400 college students ages 18-24 each year. Too many die from “binge” drinking, a popular “sport” among those who believe they are invincible and want to “party hard.”
Since you don’t see this kind of grim statistic in other industrialized countries, part of the blame is the lack of education and role modeling available to students growing up in their communities. Drinking is an “adult activity” and many times is associated with celebrations that encourage excessive drinking and irresponsible behavior (like drinking and driving).
If parents dealt with alcohol in a responsible fashion with their children by allowing them to taste various beverages and discussed the negative outcomes that alcohol can produce, drinking at college would not be such a “big deal.” Like most social activities, once students have their freedom, they may be overly enthusiastic and ultimately harm themselves.
Neurologists suggest that the brain doesn’t fully mature until after age 26. If that is the case for the majority of college students, why would we expect them to exercise “common sense” when offered a chance to “go wild?”
3. Last week (USA Today June, 22, 2006), US Representative Connie Mack (R-FL) wrote a letter to the editor about Hugo Chavez, President of Venezuela. Mr. Mack wrote about how Chavez is using his oil money for a “rapid build-up of military Russian AK-47s and 25 million rounds of ammunition.” He strongly believes that Chavez is a threat to America and to democracy in South America. Mack stated, “Hugo Chavez is no friend of freedom, and he is no friend of ours.”
Of course, Mr. Mack did not say anything about the volume of oil the US buys from Venezuela (about 14 percent of US imported oil), the nationwide presence of Citgo franchised gas stations or the heating oil donations from Chavez to the poor of New York City last year. There was no mention that the US should respond to this dictator by creating a national energy policy that would begin to choke the flow of money to Chavez and others like him.
It appears that Mr. Mack wants to “condition” Americans for the prospect of war with Venezuela. Instead of demanding conservation and alternative energy policies, Mr. Mack wants to bludgeon Chavez the same way Saddam was deposed in Iraq. His concerns are not peace with long-term solutions but how to sell another war.
Given the state of politics, including scandals and the embarrassing political disconnect with Americans, there’s probably a good chance more politicians annoyed with Chavez because he did not contribute to political campaigns or buy his weapons from America. Chavez will go away, along with the others like him, if we stop buying his only resource.
No comments:
Post a Comment