Category: Social & Political Issues

Wave Goodbye to Quality Standards


Declining-chartRemember how in the beginning of the year, we got a cascade of breaking news about problems with Boeing 787 Dreamliners?  First there was a battery fire, then an oil leak, a fuel leak, engine cracks, a damaged cockpit window; then an emergency landing of an All Nippon Airways 787 followed by the airline's grounding of all 17 of the jets.  On the same day Japan Airlines announced that they will stop flying their 787s as well.  It must've made Qantas's execs feel real good about the cancellation of the 35-units order ($8.5 billion list price - nearly 10% of the projected annual revenue) back in August of 2012 due to endless quality-related delivery delays.

It was not the first time either that the largest aerospace company in the world gave up a painfully huge chunk of already budgeted revenue.  In 2008 Boeing lost its bid for a $40-billion U.S. Air Force (!) contract to build 179 refueling aircrafts.  Whose tankers won favors with the Pentagon? The French competitor's – Airbus (!).  I recall reading at the time that Boeing's executives were so sure that the US defense order was pretty much in their American pockets that the celebration gala was already booked and catered.  I also remember that many inside sources cited the higher quality and reliability of the European tankers.

There is a reason why I consider these Boeing's quality issues to be so distressing.  First, the United States lost significant portions of international market shares in steel, heavy machinery, tools, household appliances, electronics, and consumer goods.  The mere notion of an American TV set became a memory: I still remember how it made me feel reading in 1999 about the buyout of the last U.S. TV maker Zenith Electronics by South Korean LG.  

The decades-long American automotive dominance (at one point 75% of the global supply) was first overtaken in the 1980s by the Japanese manufacturers with far superior quality and lower prices.  Now, China became the world's leader in the production of motor vehicles (23% of the global market).  Only the tremendous support of the US government keeps our carmakers in second place with an 11.8% share.  Then again, the frequency of auto recalls are really getting out of control, so it's anybody's guess how long we will be able to keep this standing.

Even while all these repositionings were taking place, I kept saying that the national economy will not completely deteriorate as long as the US continues supplying the world with two types of products, which pretty much define our era – microprocessors (Intel still manufactures in Chandler, AZ and Hillsboro, OR) and airplanes (Boeing's facilities are 90% domestic).  But now, with Boeing's value in an apparent decline, our country really pushes itself into a danger zone.  I mean, a slice of the defense budget, funded by our own taxes, went, of all countries, to France!!!

How did it happen?  Who's fault was that?  It's everybody's fault (well, maybe it's the media's fault first and then everyone else's).  In this celebrity-obsessed culture, merit-based standards have disappeared.  No one wants to work and be rewarded according to their contributions into the final output, being it tangible products or services.  No one cares about the quality of their work.  And nobody looks into the future.  Everyone wants to be rich and famous with a minimal effort, RIGHT NOW.  US manufacturing is getting suffocated by bizarro day-trading patterns, market-driven executive bonuses, union bargaining, wide-spread ignorance, and laid-back work ethics.  What quality?  As a result, a few products and services still produced domestically have a very low value per dollar spent.  From airplanes to… pretty much everything.

Yes, it's not just the industrial sector.  Every step we take, we are confronted with bad attitude and terrible quality.   Commercial and residential construction is slow and unpredictable.  Most of NYC bridges are overdue for maintenance by decades.  The cranes are falling onto nearby buildings, because City inspectors take bribes.  It's common knowledge that there is no such a thing as a leveled house – they are all crooked, with slanted floors and uneven walls.  It's not enough just to hire expensive contractors – if clients want the renovations to go smoothly and with decent results, they must supervise people who are paid $100-$250 per hour.     

Most doctors don't want to think about the patients' specific symptoms - their primary concerns are billing the insurance and getting pharmaceutical "incentives."  And that's why the US is the most overtested and overmedicated country in the world.  Don't even get me started on the sales staff.  If your mechanic tells you that the car will be ready in 3 hours, you would be wise to multiply that by 2.  The food deliveries are always a hit-or-miss – every other order is messed up.  But everyone expects tips, even if your dishes arrive upside down.  The old doormen in my building used to not only know my name, but even recognize the frequent visitors.  The young replacements cannot even associate my face with my apartment number – it's too much to ask. 

My own receptionist, for God's sake, is too lazy to ask about the caller's business – she just gives me a name.  And even that she doesn't care to get right.  A 45 year-old man with a fairly deep voice called the other day.  "Ted Fisher," he replied to her sleepy "Who's calling?" question.  She patches herself through to my extension and says,"Patricia for you." 

MONEYNEWS: The Shit Will Hit the Fan Soon – Didn’t I Say So?


For a really long time now, I've been explaining (and so have other realists) that the overpricing of pretty pieces of paper (aka stocks, bonds, treasury bills, etc.) caused by the gambling games of cocaine-fueled, high-strung nitwits in high-rise brokerage offices and delusional day-traders glued to their hand-held devices has nothing to do with real production values, revenue growth, profit generation, and economy improvements.  

It's shocking to me that people seriously accept the stock market "rally" of the past few months as a sign of tangible fiscal gains. The same goes for the rise in housing prices resulted from the unprecedentedly low mortgage rates artificially kept down by the US Treasury.

Don't you people understand that, just like with a terminal patient, this is a temporary remission before the downfall?  You cannot take a candy wrapper that worth 1 cent and say that its price is $430 just because there is a schmuck who is willing to shell out that kind of money for it and hope that there is another idiot out there who will pay $450.  Any, more or less logical, person should understand that the real value behind the candy wrapper is still 1 cent, regardless of how much money you pay for it.  But apparently the general public is severely lacking common sense and logical aptitude.

You know what else they are lacking? The disposal income – the money to spend, the moolah to throw around, the dollars to buy the products of the very companies, whose stocks comprise these people's pension and college funds.  If the consumer market contracts, how can companies generate revenues?  How can a nation experience a recovery, when 99.9% of it is getting poorer and poorer by the minute?

This issue of the constant reduction of consumer spending is at the core of the economic disasters ahead of us.  And apparently the public-stock billionaires, whose wealth is so easily added up and compiled into lists in the Forbes's offices, have already caught up with the reality - they are in high-gear disposal mode.

Please-please read this MONEYNEWS' article about Billionaires Dumping Stocks.  In addition to listing the relevant verifiable facts, it also refers readers to the voice of reason – an economist with an impeccable prediction record who foresees a market adjustment as dramatic as 90%!!!  And if you want a really full picture read the other articles linked below as well.   

Related articles

'Aftershock' Author Robert Wiedemer to Moneynews: Investors Buy Into Fed's '100% Fake' Recovery
Billionaires dumping stocks like they're going out of style (including bank stocks).

Downton Abbey and Economics of Large Country Estates


Downton-abbey-period-films-15626885-1896-1090Not quite Doctor Who just yet (it's not easy to compete with one of the top five grossing broadcasts in BBC's history), Downton Abbey is, nevertheless, an undeniable international success.  NBC Universal estimates that in the past three years the show has been viewed by as many as 120 million people worldwide.  Despite being a somewhat traditional British period melodrama, the hit series became popular in Scandinavia, Russia, South Asia, and the Middle East.  Over 8.5 million American households tuned in to their local PBS stations to watch the Season Three finale.  In January, an article in the New York Times told the story of Jim Carter's cycling trip to Cambodia: while wandering among the temples of Angkor Wat, he was surrounded by a crowd of Asian tourists, excitedly calling to him, "Mr. Carson!  Mr. Carson!"  This is what I call making TV history!

Of course, the casting is superb.  But there is no denying that, first and foremost, the show owes its popularity to the excellent storytelling skills of Julian Fellowes.  The writer/creator made his characters alive with a realistic mix of "good and evil" traits in each and every one of them.  He also managed to construct a multifaceted entertainment device, which reveals different aspects of the tale, depending on a particular viewer's interests.  There is plenty of romance, nearly operatic dramatics, suspenseful intrigues, social tension, snappy one-liners reserved for Maggie Smith's deadpan delivery, and spellbinding details of the times when craftsmen still cared about beauty and quality, not just immediate functionality.  

There is also a fundamental atmosphere of dignity surrounding the leading characters, regardless of their social origin.  The audience is subconsciously attracted to the possibility of people treating each other with respect and making sacrifices.   It's an escape from the reality of contemporary human behavior: Individuals of power caring about their charges? It's something no employee experiences nowadays.  Servants not spitting into their patrons' dishes?  Well, let's not even go there…

So, the show provides viewers with a lot of engaging material. To the point that most people don't even realize that one of Downton Abbey's most remarkable aspects is that its stories are painted on a solid factual canvas of the early 20th century.  But, the geeks of  history and socio-economics, who also love the show, are very anxious about the future of the Crawleys and their glorious home.  They don't brush away the tidbits about possible sell-off, lost castles, shortage of funds, and estate management – they soak it all up.

Because, you see, these were not easy times for the British gentry and their large country estates.  No siree!  In fact, by the time we meet them in this BBC series, they've already suffered several serious economic blows.

The majority of families with hereditary titles were not industrialists, bankers, or international traders.  They were (and many still are) landowners: centuries ago their royal sovereigns granted them counties and shires to rule; the fancy names came with the properties.  For many generations, it wasn't befitting of any European aristocrat, not just a British one, to make income-earning efforts.  The only careers acceptable for men were political or military: some of them contrived imperial plans and the others led people to death trying to fulfill them.  (As you recall, Matthew Crawley's solicitor practice was considered problematic as recently as the dawn of the last century.)  Of course, the only acceptable activities for women were bringing in a rich dowry (like Lady Cora did), making "society" connections, bearing the offspring, playing a hostess, hunting, and gardening.

The only source of most squires' income was that rural land they owned.  Up until the last quarter of the 19th century, they played a significant part in the agricultural sector of the economy by letting out large parcels to farmers.  And this was enough to keep the estates and their upstairs and downstairs occupants in good shape.

Believe it or not, the first shift for the worse was caused by a stock market crash – the 1873 collapse of the Vienna Stock Exchange (yeah, the "investors" could've learned their lessons back then, but they never do!).  This is not the right occasion for going into the genesis and the consequences of the Panic of 1873.  Let me just register my belief that this was the first link in the chain of economic events that led to revolutions, both World Wars, and the Great Depression.  Hell, our current reality may be affected by it!  However, the most relevant aftermath of the event, to this post's subject, was the Pan-European poverty which led to the contraction of market demand and agricultural depression.  Most of the British Country Estates experienced severe deterioration of their income.

Unfortunately the disappearance of revenues coincided with an escalation of standards (and costs) of comfortable living.  The Industrial Revolution offered possibilities for new luxiries to the estates' owners: innovative plumbing, electricity, central heating, phones, etc.  It would be silly for lords and ladies to stick to the retrogressive ways of existing, in an Amish sort of way, for the sake of frugality.  But can you imagine the capital investment required to outfit a stately home such as Downton Abbey with all the modern amenities?  And how about those utility bills covering 100+ rooms?

As it always happens, when the national economy goes sour, the governments use taxation instruments to cover their own holes.  While the Death Duty was first introduced in Great Britain in 1796, through the multitudes of loopholes, it remained a nuisance until the late 19th century.  But starting with the 1890's all bequeathed property became subject to the "probate duty" with the persistently increasing taxation rates (they peaked to 65% in 1940, becoming one of the major sources of funding the UK's World War II efforts).  Truth be told, economically speaking, the best thing that could happen to the Downton's inhabitants is for Lord Grantham t0 stay alive all the way to the end of the show – this will spare the audience from witnessing not just the loss of the character, but also the most significant financial blow.

Further tightening of the taxation screws came on the wings of social justice as it was interpreted by the 1909 People's Budget, conceived by two future Prime Ministers: David Lloyd George, then a Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Winston Churchill, then President of the Board of Trade.  This fiscal Act was essentially a first attempt in British history to redistribute wealth.  It resulted in the increase of income taxes and a mandatory revaluation of land every time it changed hands with 20% taxes imposed on the value increase.  The likes of the Crawleys nicknamed the political duo behind it the "Terrible Twins."

Of course, World War I dealt a terrible blow to all Europeans, including the British landed gentry.  Always a great source of life-changing drama, the war becomes the predominant backdrop of Downton's second season.  In a very tactful way, while focusing on the inhuman horrors of combat with numerous lives lost and deformed, the show still managed to pinpoint the specific effect this terrible turmoil had on the economy as a whole and the estate itself.  The withdrawal of working-age men from civilian life devastated both the remaining income-generating opportunities and the property's service.             

So far, the series creators have been kind to the viewers who became emotionally attached to the beautiful property: they only mention a possibility of a sale.  But the sad truth is that, by that time, there were only a handful of people who could buy these grand houses. 

Some of them became regional museums, schools, prisons, etc.  A few others opened large portions of the living quarters for public viewing.  Most of the art displayed to the paying visitors in these mansions and castles doesn't belong to the titled heirs anymore.  One part of the People's Budget was a provision for Acceptance in Lieu, which allowed for inheritance tax debts to be written off in exchange for donation of national treasures.  While the legal ownership got transferred to such esteemed institutions as the Victoria & Albert Museum or the National Gallery, the art objects are allowed to retain their familiar positions as long as they can be viewed by the public for at least 100 days a year.  

However, the rest of Great Britain's large country estates were simply demolished.  Since 1900, over 1,600 important houses had been destroyed in England, Scotland, and Ireland; many of them architectural gems and the seats of historical figures.  Some of the demolition spoils – fireplaces, library panelings, balustrades were sold for next to nothing; many ended up in America.  

From the point of view of economic history, Julian Fellowes already wrote a sequel to Downton Abbey in his screenplay for Gosford Park (2001), based on an idea by Robert Altman, who also directed.  The movie takes place in 1932 and Sir William McCordle (played by pre-Dumbledore Michael Gambon) resides comfortably in his Victorian estate, because he had cast aside gentlemanly ideals a long time ago.   He is a World War I profiteer, a ruthless manufacturer exploiting the labour of women and children in his factories.

By the end of Downton's third season, the key decision-makers seem to be in agreement that Matthew's insistence on turning the estates into a big-scale industrialized agricultural enterprise is the only way to keep the place attached to the name.  It remains to be seen how far Julian Fellowes will push the historical realism into the melodramatic mosaic of the show, while preserving its high ratings.

2013 Golden Globe Awards and the Foreign Press Conspiracy Against America’s Future



Like many other people exposed to human congestion and the environmental deterioration of big cities, I got hit by a terrible flu.  So, for quite some time I could only summon enough strength to drag my ass to work (THAT show, of course, must always go on).  Hence, as reactions to the Golden Globes broadcast go, this post is definitely outdated.  On the other hand, my sentiments are unlikely to change, so it’s just as well…

Nearly every time I go abroad, I am exposed to various degrees of anti-American attitudes.  Last time I was entering London’s National Gallery, I had to watch American flags being set on fire on Trafalgar Square.  In most European countries, economic and social difficulties are openly blamed on the US by both official and popular opinion-makers.  People shamelessly gloat every time we have a natural disaster and entertain themselves with predictions of our imminent economic and moral destruction.  Even in Amsterdam’s coffeeshops (aka hash bars), where the consumption of various cannabis products is supposed to make customers laid-back and agreeable, the hostility flares up at the sound of an American accent. I’m not going to venture into the anti-US mood swings of many Asian, African, and Latin American Nations – it would require a separate series of posts.

Individuals and nations alike have a need to absolve themselves and blame someone else for their troubles.  The wealthiest country in the world full of fucked up crap (as a true patriot I never deny problems) makes for an easy target.  But why don’t they first stop going to McDonalds, watching our movies, googling, and tabulating in Excel?  And, please, stop blaming us for Justin Bieber!  He is Canadian, for crying out loud!

The truth is that there is only a small contingent of people in the world who are capable of forming their own opinions even about matters close to their own homes, leave alone those far removed.  The majority, like a flock of sheep, rely on judgments presented by someone else through various media outlets.  Make no mistake: foreigners are just as susceptible to the brainwashing powers of newspapers, magazines, and TV as our domestic masses. 

Prominent journalists and commentators have a tremendous influence on the attitudes of their nations, especially in smaller countries.  Moreover, it’s a reciprocal relationship: as reading and viewing audiences become more receptive to particular sentiments, the media purveyors cater to their likings in order to retain their own popularity. 

Enter Foreign Press…  In general terms, any journalist who lives in the United States (the definition applies to any country, actually), but works for a public medium abroad, reporting on our domestic events, is a foreign correspondent.  These journalists, most of them expatriates, impact the way people in other countries view America. 

They usually conglomerate in major news hubs:  New York City, Washington DC, Los Angeles, etc.  In fact, I believe that New York Foreign Press Association, formed in 1918, is one of the oldest of such organizations.  Yet, not too many people know about it. 

However, many people around the world know about Hollywood Foreign Press Association (HFPA), even though it counts as its members only 93 journalists.  Or, at the very least, people know about the awards they have been granting since 1944 for achievements in film and television – the Golden Globes.  These reporters write on the subject that is most likely to attract the largest audiences – the United States entertainment industry.  They represent 55 countries in Europe, Asia, Australia, and Central and South America.  Wikipedia estimates their combined readership around 250 million (!).  And, boy, do they have an agenda! 

I can probably write another dissertation breaking down the clever and camouflaged ways they perpetuate their purposes: why Argo and not Zero Dark Thirty; why Les Miserables and not Silver Lignings Playbook, or Moonrise Kingdom; why Homeland (even though 100% deserving, but also perfectly fitting in their scheme) and not Boardwalk Empire; why Episodes and Smash and not Curb Your Enthusiasm and VEEP.  Why on Earth did they completely ignore a 2012 movie that not only celebrated the resilience of human spirit, but also raised a bar of creative filmmaking, while breaking the walls of the Hollywood bastion – Beasts of the Southern Wild?

Of course, I am not planning on writing a thesis.  I just want to dwell a little on one question: Why the fuck  did HFPA shove two Golden Globes into the grabby hands of Lena Dunham?  Obviously, they had their reasons. 

If one tries to think logically about this, it seems doubtful that the middle-aged-to-quite-old journalists from Egypt, Philippines, Japan, China, Russia, and Brazil would pay any attention to a tiny show about a group of youngish hipsters, especially the one with ratings too low and viewership too small even by cable standards.  But our own self-absorbed hipster-driven domestic media, in their unforgivable ignorance and blind confusion of values, served up Dunham as an overbuzzed gift.  A handful of people with similar backgrounds proclaimed her to be the “voice of the generation” they really know nothing about.  And that’s a very dangerous claim.   

HPFA took notice; rejoiced; said, “Much obliged!” and started parading this embarrassment to the whole world.  Look, they say to their 250 million readers in various countries, these characters are what all young Americans are like: navel-gazing, purposeless, severely limited in their abilities and skills, obnoxiously bad-mannered, insincere, unaware, incapable of squeezing out of themselves one true emotion or an original thought.  This is the American Future. 

By allowing them this opportunity, Dunham did a great service to the foreign entertainment journalists.  Therefore, she has totally deserved her two Golden Globes.  By letting her climb on stage at the Beverly Hilton Hotel twice, they exposed her as a “new American entertainment and media darling.”  Look, they say, this is the person hailed as a breakthrough by culture commentators and “intellectuals” (God, forgive me, for calling them that!), talk show hosts, Hollywood producers, the art community and whatnot.  They adore her, while in reality she is:

A “creator” without an ability to imagine characters, situations, or plots.  She can only transfer to paper and/or screen her own personal existence or the lives of the poor exploited mother-fuckers who got caught into her sticky cobweb.  If there is a need to invent something genuine, it’s Jenni Konner (the actual coiner of “the voice of a generation” label) or Sarah Heyward to the rescue.  On a few occasions Dunham ventures out of her comfort zone of the first-hand experiences, she steps right into the fuzzy cloud of her girly fantasies with an explosion of silliness.  I swear, the only time Dunham made me laugh out loud was during the 5th episode of the 2nd season – what buffoonery!  Honestly, in comparison, the wetly dreaming Dunham makes Stephenie Meyer look like a real creator. 

A ” writer,” whose first published work will be a self-help book.  What?  No secret collection of innocent and fragile early poetry?  Every respected author has it somewhere in their most private drawer.  Of course, it probably wouldn’t garner a $3.6 million advance.  The real literature never does (see Arts and Entertainment by the Numbers – Books).

An “actress,”  who couldn’t memorize her acceptance speech lines – the only winner of a Golden Globe with a piece of paper in her hand.

A “comedienne,” who tries to be funny by reminding her fellow nominees how much younger she is and telling them that they helped her through middle school.  Even though, I have to be honest – I cannot complain too much about that, because it gave Tina Fey a chance to write the funniest line of her career to date: “Amy, I know you since you were pregnant with Lena Dunham.”

A “director” incapable of overcoming her personal feelings and give some screen time to her other “lead” characters, cutting out their best tidbits (which are just a few to begin with).   You are right, Howard Stern, “she hogs the screen,” and I have no idea what kind of strings she pulled to make you recant your true opinion of her.    

A chameleon, who changes her attitudes depending on her PR management’s recommendations.  First, her characters were “reflections.”  Obviously, she was told that they were not very sympathetic.  Now she says that the “girls” were exposed as being self-absorbed on purpose.  The show gets criticized for being too white.  Instead of admitting that she really has no people of color in her life, she throws Donald Glover into her hodgepodge…  only to cast him away after two episodes.  The PR whispers into her ear that she comes off as too sure of herself in all her interviews and talk-show appearances, and she starts screaming about her “confidence issues” every time she gets a chance.  Seriously?  I know quite a bit about self-doubt.  You don’t fool me.  

A “nice girl” (as proclaimed by all), who in her conversation with the former It Girl, Miranda July, for Interview magazine openly admitted that she was a complete asshole as a school girl and a college student, and that now she adapted an equally “sweet” disposition towards everyone without any discrimination.  Apparently, some people get confused assuming she is their friend.  

A conniving manipulator, who undercuts all reasonable critics by calling them haters or qualifying them as shallow: “I’m a real person with a real body and that’s why you don’t like me.”

What can I say?  Even if the foreign press was a dark-magic cabal, they couldn’t conjure a better poster girl for their purpose of showing the American future in the worst possible way.

Now, let’s see.  Do Girls’ characters actually represent any portion of the 43 million Americans ages 20-29?  Yes, they do – 800,000 hipsters residing in the big cities on the East and West Coast, who faithfully watch the show (the other 3 millions of viewers consist of the hipsters’ parents, the media, and the cultural pundits).  That’s less than 2%!  

Does Lena Dunham, who takes her voice (plus, face and body) of the generation role very seriously, actually represent anybody at all?  Yes, she does – a handful of privileged kids, who were empowered by their well-connected parents to do whatever they wanted and were handed undeserving opportunities by the mafia of Nepotism.

And the saddest part is that dear Lena is not going anywhere.  Nowadays, award-winning shows scattered all over the place: broadcast networks, FX, Showtime, etc.   To keep the statuettes’ numbers up, HBO will continue pouring money into products that attract foreign and domestic media attention, whatever the reason.  They just picked up Dunham’s new show idea for development.  In return, she will keep upholding her family tradition by shoving her crap into everyone’s face. 

Look at that photo!  This is what she does: like a fucking hamster on stilts she wobbles on the red carpets and in the back rooms, trying to imprint herself on as many “players” as she can, making the foreign press and their readers very happy.

Tragicomedy of Obama’s Fiscal Cliff “Win”



A20120613_federal_spending_pigccording to common definitions, a tragicomedy is supposed to have both funny and sad elements, making you laugh and then cry, or the other way around.  For me personally, this genre achieves the strongest effect when it generates a subtle emotional shift: one minute you are laughing your head off and in the next moment, even though nothing drastic happens, you find yourself with a face full of tears; you don't even notice how it happens.  You know what I'm talking about…  All Russian "comedies" are tragicomedies and so are Salvador Dali's paintings.  Fellini was a master of the genre - that is because he understood that Life itself is a tragicomedy.  What a movie he could've made out of this fiscal "cliff-hanging" bullshit!

First I was chuckling softly to myself on account of the make-believe "impasse" antics so eagerly played out by the White House and the Capitol up until December 31st after more than 500 (!) days of supposedly diligent preparations.  We know we cannot take this seriously anymore – we've seen this happening before.  Why are they threatening each other?  What were they going to do if they didn't reach some sort of a half-ass decision?  Jump out of their windows?  We are not that lucky. 

I was roaring with laughter when our Nation's executives, who have US Treasury, the Federal Reserve,  IRS, Government Accountability Office, a bunch of Nobel Prize Laureates in Economics and what have you at their disposal, shyly admitted that for decades they've been forgetting about the goddamn INFLATION (!!!) whenever they tried to separate the middle-class from the wealthy or establish alternative-minimum tax (ATM) exclusions.  Now the stupid $250K mark of "the rich" I previously cursed is out of the window replaced with more sensible $400K.  The ATM scheme got eased up as well and it will be indexed to the value of money from now on.         

I hope you agree with me that the 5% increase of the capital gains tax rate from 15% to 20% for the upper class is also a laughable point.  Some commentators declare that the proverbial "1%" lost.  I say, "Bravo!  Great win, you, guys – just 5%!"  Apparently, it's Ok to tax the top tier of my earnings at 35%, while someone with $1 billion of assets and $100 million of annual gains contributes 20%!  Do we really think that additional $5 million will make that much difference in a life of a family that can afford anything they could possibly imagine?  I mean, Dolce and Gabbana just became billionaires on account of increased demand for luxury goods!   

On the other hand, someone who makes $100k a year will really miss the $2,000 that will be taken out of his net earnings due to the reversal of the Social Security tax rates after only two years of relief.  You cannot help feeling a little sad about it, especially when you consider that 77% of American households are affected by this change.  If each of these families loses on average around $1,000 of disposal income, it will translate into nearly $90 billion drop in consumption of goods and services.  I felt kind of embarrassed, though, shedding a tear about it.  After all, we've been contributing 6.2% into Social Security fund forever.  We knew that the 4.2% rate was only a temporary abatement.    

But now, three weeks later, I cannot shake off a feeling of  desperation.  Oh, there were no new developments or anything like that – everyone in Washington was too busy preparing for the inaugural celebrations.  It's just that the general public's hopeless ignorance became evident once again and it is tragic.  It appears that the immediate reduction of the paychecks is one and only concern for the majority of people.  The short-term loss is blinding - it works as a diversion from far more important issues.

People forgot that the fiscal cliff deal wasn't just about the government's revenues.  The other side of it, the one that deals with the federal spendings, wasn't and still hasn't been addressed at all.  If no solution is developed, the Nation will require to borrow again, even though the already raised Debt Ceiling has been (surprise!) reached. 

But I have much scarier questions.  Why the hell the government is using my Social Security contributions to plug their fiscal deficits?  Why are they funding somebody else's payments with my money?  What happened to the money current retirees contributed from their own paychecks?  Where did they go?  Oh, don't worry – I'm well informed.  These are rhetorical questions.  I know that my generation is the last one that MAY BE able to get federal retirement benefits and that our children do not stand a chance to get even 50% of what they shell out of their earnings.  But why are we not wailing about it on every corner?