I am making this page to highlight many of the items that make no sense in life and which are causing great grief, often financially. I will not go into the ridiculous illogical language problems like we drive on a parkway and park in a driveway. These items should have all been dealt with long ago but apparently the power structure, incompetent people in areas that could help steer those in power, and an ignorant populace stand in the way of progress.


1. The improper use of decimals as it applies to money, particularly on sales signs in stores. If a 5 pound bag of potatoes costs 99 cents, you wouldn't post a sign stating .99 cents as Walmart use to do before I pushed them to start showing they hire people with at least a high school education. Amazingly, a co-manager at Walmart had such trouble that she threatened physical harm onto me and then forced me out of the store. That's the frail human ego for you. If exposed to be an ignorant unintelligent person, embracing immature tactics to deal with the situation may be invoked. I am shocked how dumb people could rise to high level positions.

2. Car insurance. I could go into this on may fronts but for the time being, I want to address just the amount of driving which is fairly proportional to the risk and thus should be proportional to the premium paid for car insurance. The company "Progressive" opts to not be progressive in this, neither "Geico" nor any of the rest of the car insurance companies I spoke with. Apparently those whom I spoke with never really though much about the issue and the few who did made illogical arguments against having proportional premiums.

So here's an example:
The typical person drives 6K miles in 6 months. I drive 600 miles in 6 months. My premium before considering the miles driven is $130. The whopping discount I get for driving 90% less than the typical driver amounts to ZERO to 5%. Now, is 90=0? Is 90=5? One half-witted car insurance company who thought he'd have fun arguing with me told me if they hired employees to check the odometer readings of its clients it would be out of business. Well, I say half-witted because the stance is valid, however, who is to say there has to be additional agents, especially nearby to all the clients in the areas the companies serve? I pose two solutions: having the client go to a police or highway patrol station for odometer verification and the other is to have the client pay to have a notary public verify. In either case, the major effort is on behalf of the client and only those clients whom drive much less than the typical driver would be able to make this feasible and moreover, not all who would save would actually make use of such a sensible program. For those clients who are prudent and especially those whom drive far less than the typical driver, this is long overdue.

3. Large corporations getting special tax breaks for relocating. Though I have a logical basis in saying corporations should not be taxed as it is an entity that is not human and once the money earned by a corporation is passed onto a HUMAN, that is where the taxation really should be invoked. If corporations were not taxed, we could have lower priced goods for not having to pay the taxes of the corporations (the taxes are simply embedded in the prices of the goods and services) as well as the overhead of the corporations would decrease ever slightly by not needing to have additional tax accountants, lawyers and the like involved in trying to skirt from paying taxes. The thing is while PRESENTLY corporations do pay taxes, why would there be the unfairness of a large corporation getting big breaks and a smaller corporation or say a small individual company got get the same treatment? At first some might say the larger the corporation the larger the gain in jobs and everything else that comes with it. But how about considering the many smaller entities that if were given similar treatment, the many smaller entities as a whole would contribute more than the one to several large corporations given special treatment? I say best to give no one any special treatment to avoid the inefficiency of the infrastructure to create

4. Rebates. Who gets them and who has to be charged disproportionately? Say government gives away $1,500 in rebates to those who buy a new wood stove (this is currently done). How about those renters in apartments who work, barely getting by? Those who own homes to make use of a wood stove generally would have far more assets to afford a wood stove. Though when it comes to taxation, those who own homes would generally pay more in taxes (some obvious exceptions of course would be low-income seniors who bought their homes a long time ago before prices got absurdly high) and thus the money they get in rebates would be sort of offset by what they pay in taxes, the problem is that it is not exactly a uniform trade-off as some buyers of wood stoves pay high taxes, some low, some around the middle, and then you have to consider even low income persons and yet still some who do pay a good amount in taxes but whom opt to live in an apartment anyway, that these persons not paying for a wood stove end up subsidizing those who do. So then why the rebates? Often it's to get the country to save on energy. But if a program does not work in an equitable way, then why do it? Also what must be considered is when there are rebates there will be a handful of corporations who will have massive sales increases. So is the purpose also to serve some special interests of the wealthy? If the prices of appliances related to energy priced reasonably, those who want to save money could do so without government making additional incentives. Certainly the extra incentives would speed up the process and if new products in their inception are highly priced until which time there is greater competition which makes incentives early on especially useful, however we are talking just a shift in time and if market conditions work smoothly, these incentives simply create an additional burden in life.

5 Tipping. I've gone over this many times in various locations of my writing. I know some feel so adamant to have the tipping system remain in its present state. The unfairness is so apparent that I do not see how tipping should be allowed. If a waitress brings over a $10 plate of food, was there less work performed than if the plate of food costs $30? Why is there a relationship with the item prices? Why must the government get involved with the tips and tying in item prices with food? Some say tips are necessary because of what government does. But how about first undoing what government does? And how about the three states of the union where the pay for servers in restaurants has the same minimum wage as applied to all other jobs? Why must in the several outlying states servers still get a whopping increase in their salary making them even more overpaid relative to the servers in the rest of the states where the minimum wage is less than for most other jobs? Just make the minimum wages for the large number of states the same for servers as in the several states that do right this moment and say good-bye to the out-dated tipping process. It makes for undue psychological pressure on those who go to restaurants - how much to pay? how much to hold back because of bad service? how much to tip based on how lousy the food is (despite the food is different than the server)? If poor and simply want one meal in a restaurant, why help make a server far more wealthy than one's self beyond what the server gets from the usual course of business? Why have to pay more than the prices states to begin with? Why have to play some additional human game of unspoken/insidious rules? Just end it and be through with the charade.

6. The price for molasses. Go to a store and you will see molasses priced around 5X higher than that of sugar. Sugar is refined, molasses is relatively unrefined. So why should a food item going through an extensive refining process end up costing less than a product that doesn't go through the refining process? Bewildering. And no, the demand for one over the other shouldn't make that big of a difference to cause molasses to be so much more expensive than refined sugar. Please manufacturers, be fair to the consumer!

7. Mouthwash and similar type that claims to strengthen teeth: Why is it all or practically all contain saccharin or some other artificial sugar? Do I have to push the idea to use glycerol, xylitol, or erythritol? Guess if I had the right connections, I could be wealthy from this or one of my other hundred plus ideas. It's like there was a formula made and every manufacturer decided to copy it or make minor changes, OR it's all made by one master company with slabbed labels suggesting there is a difference when there really isn't [much].

8. Toothpaste: come on now, it's been known for decades that fluoride ion is a poison. So why is fluoride still put into toothpaste? All for the fraudulent study suggesting fluoride cuts down on cavities as a cover-up for a massive fluoride dumping into the environment in nuclear bomb processing? Let there be a real choice! The few toothpastes without fluoride costs way too much. You'd think removing the fluoride would make the product cheaper but logic is thwarted yet again. The non-wealthy keep losing.

9. Government employee salaries so high compared to non-government salaries. Probably everyone has noticed the usual pow-wows of 6 government employees standing outside while one works at half-pace. I worked on a temporary basis in government and saw much in my short stints. Sure, I'd love to get on the gravy train, but for a limited time only in order to partially make up for how this government worked against me in poor policy making. Getting a government job these days is like winning the lottery - work 2 hours and goof off for the other 6 hours and laugh your way to the bank. I talked personally with many government employees - some said they are told to just drive away from the shop/office and disappear for which they may go back home or sleep in their vehicle. Over 15 years ago, the low-level job of a meter maid would pay more than $25/hour! To think I was a prolific innovator as a pharmaceutical scientist and never made as much as $20/hour. I was applying for low-level chemistry technician jobs in government that paid much more. Strangely, no matter how well qualified I was, I had to be passed up to make certain non-citizens or otherwise affirmative action candidates get the jobs. For over 25 years I was monitoring the escalation of government salaries. It all started with teachers complaining in the late 1970's then cops and firemen used the same tactics to convince the public how underpaid they are, not to mention how government is getting more closed to the public by making it difficult to find the salaries of government employees. Not long ago, hearing of half the firemen in a city in California making over $300K per year shows how out of control salaries are. Anyone around in the mid-190's and hearing of Monica Lewinsky's friend who worked as a secretary in the Pentagon making $90K/year way back then should have been given a jolt. Well, for this and many other maladies with our country/government, I propose real solutions: http://proposedsolutions.blogspot.com/. We could be saving a trillion dollars per year by simply cutting 20% of the under-worked, overpaid, bad attitude loafers and paying the remainder at 15% below that of the private sector.



More to come when the stock market falls to fair value for this masked depression.