Samples From L&T Books

American Prosperity Proposals

Adam Smith wrote “Money, says the proverb, makes money. When you have a little, it is often easier to get more. The great difficulty is to get that little.” (1) This quote embodies the root cause for inadequate opportunities for income: a person’s ability to make money largely depends on the amount of money they have. 

1: Adam Smith, 1776 “The Wealth of Nations” Book I, Chapter IX, pg.111 (I did not read the book, I came across the quote on a wikiquotes page years ago and remembered the quote for its accuracy in describing the main cause of economic inequality.


If you don’t have time because you’re working a job that only covers your expenses you also will never have money.  Which is why 2/3rd of people who begin poor stay poor.  The idea used to be that a person could work a job to accumulate money and then use that money to start a business.  I don’t know how true it may have been before my time, but in my lifetime there are few jobs that afford people an opportunity to make more than they spend.  If you don’t have time or money you are at the mercy of the labor market.  No matter how profitable a company is, it isn’t going to pay more than the going market rate for any particular job in any particular area.  People without jobs typically cannot survive, so unskilled workers are willing to work for wages that allow them to survive.  Many people in this country don’t even make wages fit for survival as evidenced by 79% of people who receive food stamps have at least one person working in the household, 22% have two people working in the household, and 8% have 3 people working in the household.(2)  It’s reminiscent of Oliver Ellsworth who was a delegate to the constitutional convention who argued  “As population increases, poor laborers will be so plentiful as to render slaves useless”.(3)  Those statistics support his claim in the sense that it is cheaper to pay someone to work full time than it is to take care of them.  

2:  The United States Census Bureau, 7/21/2020 “About a Third of People Who Received Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Had 2 or More People Working”. 

3:  2010 Slavery and Sectional Strife in the Early American Repbulic, 1776-1821.  Gary John Kornblith


 The individual income for 2021 among those who are employed is $50,983.(9)  Half of people working in the United States earn 50k per year individually, and half of people in the United States earn less than 50k per year.  This is misleading because it doesn’t represent everyone in the United States, it only represents formally employed people. This means if people in low paying jobs leave the workforce the median income can go up without anyone making any more money.(10)  How can the median individual income be 50k per year but the household median income is 70,821 and there 3.13 people per household?  22% of the 3.3 person household are people under 18.  Household size of adults is 2.44 people.  Dividing the median household income by the number of adults in the household we discover the actual median income for all adults including retirees is $29,025.  Half the adults in this country have an income of less than $29,025.

9: Jessica Semega and Melissa Kollar, U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Reports, P60-276, Income in the United States: 2021, U.S. Government Publishing Office, Washington, DC, September 2022 Page 8 Figure 4.  

10: For Example, lets say the workforce consists of 3 people, 1 earns 20 the other earns $40, and the other earns $60.  The median income is $40.  If the following year the person who was earning $20 loses his job and doesn’t find another, the median income is $50 as you have 1 person who earns more than $50 and one person who earns less than $50.  


Liberty the Definitive Moral Truth

Prohibitive moral feelings are distinct from fear of consequence for two reasons.  First, a prohibitive moral feeling occurs when there is no consequence.  Second, morality is intertwined with our self worth. Most people do things because they believe them to be right or good, therefore going against what a person believes to be good forces them to acknowledge they have been a bad person for having committed a bad act.

At the point a person intends to commit what is perceived to be an immoral act the person will experience a negative feeling. This negative feeling is imposed to protect self worth by preventing the person from committing the act. Should the individual proceed with an act they believe to be immoral at some point after the act they will feel bad as a result of a loss in self worth.

Self-worth is restored through the passage of time(1), justification, atonement, or through the changing of a person’s morality. The changing of morality is different from justification in that justification is the process of justifying the action through the interpretation of the circumstances that precipitated the act; whereas changing morality is deciding that the act is no longer wrong.

1:Passage of time is like a snake shedding the skin, where perceived growth disconnects the person they are presently from the person who committed the act.  Where if the person would no longer make the same decision they are different from the person who committed the wrong act.  


The human constant is that all people want to do what they want to do in all settings. This is never untrue.  When the liberty of each individual is not exercised to impose on the liberty of anyone else, all people can do as they please.  Liberty exists in the absence of imposition, where each person is free to do as they please so long as what they do does not interfere (impose on) with others doing as they please. 


What is it that god cannot do? God cannot go against his morality. The nature of god, the creator’s morality, is liberty.  Evidenced by the absence of his presence within his creation, where all the results that exist on this planet are the product of the physical laws of the universe and general motion of objects, and the free will of the creatures on this planet; most significantly human beings.  A tyrant god would impose often and arbitrarily on his creation having created it for those purposes.   The creator cannot impose on that which does not impose.  The fate of those who apply liberty is eternal liberty.  As beings who understand and practice liberty they are capable of existing in a space with other beings who practice liberty without imposing on their liberty.  And god cannot impose because unprovoked imposition would violate his nature or morality.


The gospels were not written until after Jesus and his disciples were all dead. There is no mention of Jesus’ miracles in any of Paul’s letters.  Paul’s letters predate the gospels and likely any source material used by the anonymous  gospel authors.  If any of the stories of these miracles existed or were in circulation during Paul’s life, when he was creating his theology based on the forgiveness of sin through the sacrifice of Jesus, he would have undoubtedly reminded people of these miracles.  The point being, it isn’t difficult to attribute supernatural powers to someone after both the person and their inner circle is gone.


Christianity claims that god has created man to take part in a game where they are rewarded with eternal bliss in servitude to him if they believe in him, or they are punished with eternal hell if they don’t believe in him.  As mentioned, god tells you to love your neighbor as you love yourself.  Would god want to be put in a situation where his options are eternal servitude to another being or eternal punishment?  Of course not.  So, if god tells you to love your neighbor as you love yourself but creates you with options that he would not want for himself your god is a hypocrite.  How fitting since your deity calls people hypocrites saying first remove the plank from your own eye and then you can see to remove the speck in your brother’s, and then saying by the same measure that you judge others you will be judged.  


For those of you who are interested in the creator there are two things to know about a creator.  The first is that the creator is irrelevant.  Irrelevant in the sense that 1: he is unknowable because no being with a beginning will ever know if they are in the presence of the creator.  2: the creator does not help you in life on earth, and 3: in the presumption of the survival of consciousness after death, morality determines your appropriate space and the creator does not help you there either.  

The second thing to know about the creator is that the nature of the creator including the morality of the creator is liberty.  Having freely created the universe and potentially what lies beyond.  The creator doesn’t impose because to do so would lower his self worth and produce a negative feeling.  This also means the creator cannot create life for purposes that he would not want to exist for.  This means he cannot create life for the purposes of serving him.  He can only create life to have the same existence that he has.  Which means god can only reproduce.  Separate spaces for liberty and tyranny are necessitated by the choices of individuals, and those who choose tyranny should be free to exist within the space of their choosing. 

Understanding Political Function Through Recent Political History 2019-2020

Wars were fought for the interests of wealth by the underclasses the same then as it has been in modern times.  After the first six months of the revolutionary war, the patriots who fought part time and went home could no longer sustain the war effort.  The founders and their affiliates addressed the lack of commitment to the revolution by raising a mercenary force from the most desperate members of the population.  Historians wouldn’t call it a mercenary force, historians would contend that Washington made appeals to the wealth behind the independence movement to pay the military, but this is less accurate.  The historical narrative implies soldiers of the continental army enlisted for the cause of independence and were paid.  When in fact, an army couldn’t be maintained to fight in the interest of independence without the promise of payment.  Meaning the primary motivation for a soldier to participate in the American Revolution was money, not independence.  A revolutionary fights for liberation and ideals, whereas a mercenary fights for money.(1)  By definition, the American Revolution was won by a mercenary force. 

1: Justin Ewers, 6/27/2008, “Why the Patriots Really Fought”.  US News.


The democrats hold the carrot in front of the hungry donkey, but the donkey never reaches the carrot.  In other words, the poor follow the words of hope and change but never realize the prosperity they’re promised.  Specific issues will be addressed as we proceed.  The democrats waste money on programs that do not benefit the public but benefit their donors, they promote divide through false assertions of race, gender, and sexuality discrimination, they cherry pick experts and studies to deceive those who demand their deception, and they view the public as incapable of making decisions for themselves and want to legislate personal decision making and risk taking.

…Republicans are typically conservative, this includes the representatives as well as the rank and file republicans for the most part.  What conservative means is you don’t want things to change and believe they are generally satisfactory.  This is true for most conservatives and republicans because in their personal circumstances things are pretty good.  If something is working well for you you do not require much change.  This is actually why the republicans are the lesser of the two evils despite being equally loyal to industry in the execution of public policy.  If one party wants to create harmful changes and the other party is not creating harmful changes then the party who isn’t trying to create harm is causing less harm even if they’re not trying to create any help.


Since presidential candidates rely on donations of $10,000 for most itemized campaign funds, without these donors, the candidate is not going to be a serious contender. How many Americans can afford $10,000 to have a political voice?  The median household balance of checking accounts is $3400 and over half the population reports not having $500 in savings.  Small donations are not altogether insignificant as a total when compared to overall money raised, (Obama (37%) 2012 and Trump (38%) 2016 campaign raised over a third of overall funding from donations smaller than 200 dollars) but small contributions are insignificant in terms of carrying an interest.  It is unorganized money, essentially anonymous donations, the result of rhetoric that people mistakenly associate with their own interests. No one is going to the white house with a 50-dollar receipt and using it as leverage for policies by tactfully implying next year they’re going to let that 50 ride on the other guy.  Or they have 50 dollars just like it they’re going to use it to persuade the rest of congress.  


Aren’t corporations and wealth simply supporting the candidate or party who will best represent their interest?  If principally, the parties are different, why would the same firm support both parties, and especially in presidential elections both candidates? They both cannot be equally representing your interest, otherwise they cease to be different, and then even worse where is the choice? And if they are the same, it would make much more sense not to fund either, since whichever candidate is elected will be representing your interest. It is an investment in legislative and policy outcomes. Most legislators do very little legislating, most are pitch men with votes for sale. Somehow there is still a debate about whether money in politics is ruining our democracy?  Which is strange because how can you ruin something you never had?


The point is, doctors didn’t prescribe OxyContin and oxycodone because the manufacturer caused them to believe it wasn’t a highly addictive and dangerous substance. Doctors prescribed these drugs because of market demand from the public. The demand already existed and the percentage of people in the United States who will develop a dependency is determined by factors unrelated to supply.

There was a greater ease of procurement of these drugs but it was caused by the willingness of doctors to prescribe it FOR PROFIT. If you are a doctor with a private practice you can conservatively see up to 4 patients an hour. That’s $600 an hour which reflects the market rate of the referenced period, based on 4 different doctors who all charged $150 per visit. Working an 8-hour day, 4 patients per hour, at $150 per patient, is nearly $5000 per day in sales. 100,000 a month on a 5-day work week. $1.2 million per year.

When someone comes to see you about pain management and they’re asking for specific medication by telling you it is what they were prescribed and it worked for their pain; are you going to prescribe hydrocodone and muscle relaxers or are you going to give them what they want? If you choose the conservative course of action that patient will never return. There is going to be no referral from that patient and chances are your practice is going to struggle and may fail. Option two. You give the patient what they want. This patient tells everyone they know they found a new doctor and refers people to your practice. Within a month or two you have to stop accepting new patients because your schedule is full, and in a year,  you’ve made close to a million dollars or more. What would you do?


In Australia, in the 20 years prior to the 1996 mass shooting there were a total of 95 people killed in mass murder events. In the 20 years after 1996 there were 96 people killed. Meaning gun control has not prevented the amount of deaths resulting from mass murder. Peters disingenuously states that because of the gun control measures Australia has never seen another mass murder event like what was experienced in 1996. It is disingenuous because with the exception of the Coniston Massacre in 1928, which was a murder of indigenous people much different than mass murder in the modern context, Australia has never seen anything like what happened in 1996 in the volume of casualties prior to 1996.  In all the years the gun control measure was not in place, no one ever killed that many people.

She attempts to minimize post 96 attacks by claiming there have been some, but it was a person murdering their family. In the 17 incidents in the 20 years prior to 96, 3 were familicides. In the 19 mass murder incidents that occurred in the 20 years after 1996, 4 were familicide. In respect to volume, the highest concentration of victims from a mass murder event from 1928 to 1996 was 15 people dying in a nightclub in 1973. After 1996 there was an attack in 2000 that killed 15 people. Both incidents were caused by arson. Mass murder events post 96 were not exclusively familicide as Peters suggests in the interview, with the incidents of familicide being consistent with the nation’s history of familicide prior to gun control. The Australian example is prime evidence that gun control does not reduce the frequency of mass murder or the casualties of mass murder.(1)

1: Each incident is cited with a news citation in the wiki article. 


The report consists of two politicians fundraising by accusing Illan Omar of anti-Semitism for stating the Israeli lobby influences US policy on Israel/Palestine.   

1st Comment Orion Simerl The media is more at fault for these false accusations of anti-Semitism against Omar than the individuals making them. In all the interviews and press conferences I saw there has not been one reporter who asked how the assertion that lobbying money influences political will is anti-Semitic? Politicians and other critics alike are free to make vague allegations without speaking to the substance they base these allegations on. A non biased media would address the substance instead of providing attention to these baseless allegations. 

Omar’s biggest mistake was her apology because it implies she did something wrong or made a mistake which she did not.(1) Unfortunately, the allegiance of the US government to Israel is not actually an allegiance, and it is not only all about money. Israel is important for strategic purposes in a region of importance to the United States. There is also a great deal of investment from US companies in Israel. The money from AIPAC and other pro-Israeli interests is important to ensure congress is always populated with enough pro-Israel representatives and senators for Israel to remain protected from international law, and the implementation of a two-state settlement. What these congressmen are doing by attacking Omar is actually just fundraising.

1: More than a public relations mistake in apologizing is that is shows she is willing to compromise her integrity to preserve her political career.  She didn’t apologize on her own will, we she was probably encouraged to do so by the party who likely told her the repercussions of not apologizing would be akin to political suicide.  


I’m presuming the average per decade increase from the last 50 years will be the average per decade increase perpetually.  By adding the increase of the CO2 concentration to the annual average 5 decades (.43+.33-.11+.47+.43 = 1.55) and dividing by 5, this provides us with the average increase per year of .31 ppm for the next decade.  2010 to 2019 the average annual increase of CO2 in the atmosphere was 2.4ppm, so 2020 to 2029 should be an average annual increase of 2.71ppm.  There may be a hiccup for 2020 since the forced shut down of the world will lead to a reduction in the increase of the concentration, but probably will not disturb the overall decade trend by much. December 2019 the concentration of CO2 is 415.4 ppm.     

Decade /Per year average +.31 increase per decade./ Decade total Emissions./  Total

2020 to 2029/ CO2 increases by an average of 2.71 ppm per year./ 27.1ppm /+ 415.4 = 442.5                 

2030 to 2039/ CO2 increases by an average of 3.02 ppm per year/  30.2ppm/ +442.5 = 472.7

2040 to 2049/ CO2 increases by an average of 3.33 ppm per year/ 33.3ppm/ + 472.7 = 506

2050 to 2059/ CO2 increases by an average of 3.64 ppm per year/  36.4ppm/ + 506 = 542.4

2060 to 2069/ CO2 increases by an average of 3.95ppm per year/  39.5/ + 542.4 =581.9

2070 to 2079/ CO2 increases by an average of 4.26 ppm per year/  42.6ppm/ + 581.9 = 624.5

2080 to 2089/ CO2 Increases by an average of 4.57 ppm per year/ 45.7ppm/ + 624.5 = 670.2

2090 to 2099/ CO2 Increases by an average of 4.88 ppm per year/ 48.8ppm/ + 670.2 = 719

If the concentration of CO2 increases at the same rate we should reach 719ppm by the end of the century which corresponds to about 3 degree C increase, without taking into consideration the potential for an accelerated increase in CO2 concentration from a reduction in vegetation, permafrost melt, or warming oceans absorbing less CO2 towards the end of the century. 

Beneath the permafrost is ancient plant and animal material frozen in the soil which prevents it from decomposing.  Plants and animals release CO2 and methane during decomposition.  If the permafrost melts this buried organic material will decompose and release CO2 and methane into the atmosphere.  How much?  “1460 to 1600 billion tons of organic carbon.” Which means what?  That amount of carbon represents “nearly twice as much carbon stored in the atmosphere”.  Presently there are about 400 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere, so the permafrost contains the equivalent of 800 ppm of carbon (minus ocean scrubbing 30%).(1)

1: Andrew Freedman, 12/09/2019, “The Artic May have Crossed Key Threshhold, Emitting Billions of Tons of Carbon into the Air, in a Long Dreaded Climate Feedback”.  Washington Post

How much permafrost is expected to melt between now and the end of the century?  The IPCC estimates that by mid-century 20 to 35 percent of permafrost will melt, and by 2080, as much as 50%.  This is an additional 160 to 280ppm of CO2 by midcentury, meaning in 30 years, the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere could nearly double, and we could reach 700ppm by midcentury.  280ppm worth of CO2 from permafrost melt minus 30% ocean absorption =196 ppm.  2050 total 506ppm, 506 + 196ppm (35% permafrost melt) =702.  By 2080, if 50% of the permafrost melts, we should see a carbon concentration reaching 900ppm: 400ppm CO2 from 50% permafrost melt minus 30% ocean absorption = 280ppm.  624.5ppm plus 280ppm= 900.5ppm by 2080.  


A 4-degree warmer world is a world where the entire United States is incapable of growing food, consisting of deserts and areas uninhabitable due to extreme weather and flooding. There will be very few people living here. Not the United States only, but everything between the latitude of the northern United States to the southern tip of South America will be uninhabitable. Nearly everything in the eastern hemisphere will mirror the western hemisphere in that range. There are a few exceptions, a strip in Africa and two small portions of Australia, Southeast Asia, Europe below the UK, most of China, India, will be desert or uninhabitable due to extreme weather. Habitable areas will exist where food can grow in Canada, the UK, Russia, and western Antarctica.


Racial Perceptions

The four incidents that are the subject of this section serve as 2020s most widely promoted examples of systemic problems in policing.  Even if these examples were examples of excessive force, police misconduct, or were motivated by race, this still wouldn’t represent a systemic problem with policing.  There are 55 million police contacts per year and there are perhaps a dozen controversial examples of excessive force by police.(1)  Even if these examples were non-controversial examples of excessive force by police, it is not representative of normal policing considering the volume of interaction that takes place between the police and the public; therefore there is no systemic problem with policing.  Furthermore, when there is probable cause that an officer violated the law in the application of force the officers are prosecuted.  There is not a system that produces these incidents because the number of pure examples are too few, nearly non-existent(2). 

1: Elizabeth Davis, Anthony Whyde, BJS Statisticians, Lynn Langton Ph.D., former BJS Statistician, 10/11/2018 “Contact Between the Police and Public, 2015”.  Bureau of Justice Statistics. 

2: By Non-existent I’m referring to pure examples, free of controversy, that a suspect was treated based on race and not behavior, or that an officer acted maliciously and beyond what could be explained by trying to fulfill his duties to the public.     

The assertion of racism requires one of two elements to be valid.  

A: Something in the interaction must show that an officer’s treatment of a suspect was motivated by the suspect’s race and not by the suspect’s behavior.  

B: An assertion of police racism requires an example of how black suspects are treated differently than white suspects when the behavior is the same.  There is no example of a black suspect being treated in a way in which a white suspect has not been treated under similar circumstances.  


 Racial discrimination in employment is undermined by the general unemployment trend between black and white people in the workforce.  If there is a racial bias for white employees, when there is an economic downturn that causes unemployment rates to rise, the unemployment rate of black people would rise while the unemployment rate of white people would lag behind and rise much slower.  The function would be that downsizing companies retain their white employees and fire their black employees first.  Secondly, when there is growth and recovery and unemployment rates begin to fall, the black unemployment rate would fall much slower.  During recovery the availability of white job seekers would allow employers to hire white people at an advantageous rate.  The trends do not show a significant difference in the rise and fall of unemployment rates between white people and black people.  The trends show that during economic contraction, the unemployment rates for black and white people increase at about the same rate, and during expansion the unemployment rates decline at a similar rate.  The unemployment rates of black and white people rise and fall together, meaning there is no racial preference for employees.

William M. Rodgers III Race in the Labor Market: The Role of Equal Employment Opportunity and Other Policies, The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences December 2019, 5 (5) 198-220; DOI: I skimmed this article and I’m citing it because I’m using the authors graph.  The author asserts the key finding is higher unemployment rates for minority groups that he implies is evidence of racial disparities, whereas the key finding to me is that the rates rise and fall at the same rate which shows there is no discrimination in employment opportunities.  Furthermore, the higher unemployment rates for minority groups is a product of economic causation where poor people tend to stay unemployed because the opportunities that exist for poor people are low quality.  If the rates of unemployment were controlled for by class, poor white people would have unemployment rates similar to those observed by minorities which is explained in the body.

The unemployment rate of black people is higher than the unemployment rate of white people and this has been a consistent trend for decades.  Again this isn’t about race, it is about class, where the opportunities available to poor people are inadequate and discourage poor people from seeking employment.  If the unemployment rate between black people and white people is considered based on income and wealth distribution levels, I surmise that as is the case with most other race based assertions the discrepancy will disappear.  People with poor income opportunities cycle between working, becoming unemployed, and leaving the workforce. 


Since I am not black, I know none of the events that took place were racially motivated. As I drove, I became acutely aware of how a handful of events can serve as the basis for the formation of stereotypes and prejudice.  My thoughts were related to all the negative experiences I’ve had in the region, those mentioned as well as others I did not mention, and my anger was directed at all the people of the region itself.  I quickly recognized that these interactions were not representative of the values and attitudes of millions of people in the region, but many people are not as privy to the formation of their views as I am.  Again, if I were black, every one of these incidents may have seemed racially motivated: 

1:Being pulled over and having charges exaggerated against me.

2:Having a public defender who was committing egregious acts of misconduct and failing to provide me effective representation.

3:A judge who seemed to have prejudice against me and was indifferent to the misconduct of my public defender.

4:Being pulled over for speeding when there was a car in front of me going faster.

5:Being pulled over based on the pretext that my tag didn’t come back when the deputy could have tried to run what he thought was the number zero as the letter O.

6:Receiving poor service and collectively bad treatment at a fast food establishment in a rural and predominantly white area.  


There are two notable facts to consider, the first is more solid than the second, but the second is just as valid to people who are not promoting a race-based agenda. First, how do we define poor? I define poor as anyone in the bottom 40% of the wealth distribution.(1) The reason being is the bottom 40% of the wealth distribution has negative wealth which means two things. First, the obvious, they have more debt than they have assets.  If people are without wealth or have negative wealth, this usually means their income isn’t enough to meet their expenses. Which should be an objective way to determine if someone is poor.  Those in the bottom 40% of the income distribution are usually the same as those in the bottom of 40% of the wealth distribution.  There are some exceptions where a person is possessed of a great deal of assets but has more debt than they have assets, but this is the exception and not the norm.  

1: Wealth Distribution 2016 ( 

It has proven notoriously difficult to find statistics on the racial breakdown of the bottom 40% of the wealth distribution. There is an abundance of data on the overall difference between income, wealth, and financial wealth between races, but nothing I’ve found that shows the percentage of people by race by quintile. However, it is easy to draw a few conclusions based on general population statistics. The population is 6% Asian, 13% black, 18% Hispanic, and 60% white.(2)

2: US Census Bureau, (

The median wealth of black people is a little over $13,000.(3) Which means what? Which means less than half of all black people are in the bottom 40% of the wealth distribution. This means black people as 13% of the total population comprise less than 6 and probably in the neighborhood of 3 to 4 % of people considered poor in the United States according to wealth. We’ll speculate with a figure like 5% of people in the bottom 40% are black. It is difficult to know at what point below the half of black people who have $13,000 in wealth have no and negative wealth.

3: Forbes, 2/14/2019, “African American’s, Wealth a Fraction that of Whites Due to Systemic Inequality”. Christian Weller. (

The median wealth of Hispanics is 6,300 dollars.(4) Meaning at least 50% of Hispanics are not in the bottom 40% of the wealth distribution. Hispanics are 18% of the population, and we will give generous representation and estimate that 7% are in the bottom 40%.

4: Prosperity Now, 10/16/2018 “Racial Wealth Snapshot: Latino Americans” Jose Macias. (

Asians represent 6% of the total population with a median wealth amount of $93,000.(5) The gradient to the bottom 40% is likely more prolonged and I will represent Asians as 2% which is still probably generous.

5: Prosperity Now, 5/10/2018 “Racial Wealth Snapshot: Asian Americans” Sammi Chen (

I’m not mentioning natives because natives comprise only 1.3% of the population. Despite natives probably representing the greatest group proportion of people in the bottom 40% of the wealth distribution, I do not want to include fractional percentages in this illustration.

Black people represent at most 5%, Hispanics represent at most 7%, and Asians represent at most 2% of the bottom 40% of the wealth distribution. That is 14% represented by these minority groups. Who comprises the remaining 26%? White people.(6) Which means not only do white people know what it’s like to be poor, they are the majority of poor people in this country.

6: White, Black, Asian, and Hispanics represent 97% of the country, there is 3% other, so white people represent between 23% if all 3% of others had no wealth, to 26% of people in the bottom 40% of the wealth distribution.


Assignment, Sequencing, and Comparison

There are 4 elements of the decision making process: Value, Energy, Consequence, and Morality.  


If I give you the option to take a $1 bill, a $5 bill, or a $10 bill, which one would you choose?

A Person will typically choose the $10 bill because it has more value than the 5 dollar bill, or the $1 bill (1)

1: I say typically because there are circumstances that could make the 5 dollar bill more valuable.  For example, if we were by a vending machine that only accepted 5 dollar bills and a person wanted something from the vending machine the 5 dollar bill could be more valuable in consideration of those circumstances.  Either in a situation where one is unable to get change or where the person considers the time and energy required to get change is more valuable than 5 dollars.    

This is the conscious representation of the subconscious process of value. 

We perceive our environment through valued opportunity.  Subconsciously, value is the anticipated feelings an act will produce.  Money is the facilitator of objectives and a person will take the $10 bill because $10 has a greater capacity to produce good feelings than the $5 or the $1.    

The first component of the decision making process is the highest valued objective furnished by your immediate setting.  You do what feels the best based on the opportunities to feel good in your immediate setting.    


The positive feelings produced by the act is weighed against the energy required to complete the act.  Is it worth the effort?  

For example, you’re driving down the street and you noticed a car has stalled in the middle of an intersection.  What determines whether you will stop to help push the car across the intersection?  Ideas you have with helping the person will supply value to the act.  Although there is no expectation for compensation for performing the act, you may pull over and help because you will feel good for having helped this person.  The value (good feelings) supplied by the act is greater than the energy required to complete the act.  

However, the positive feeling motivating the act may be the avoidance of a negative feeling.  Where a person has ideas concerning their responsibility to help that will produce negative feelings if they do not help.  They help because the energy required is less than the negative feelings they will experience if they do not help, and the positive feeling motivating the act is the avoidance of a negative feeling.

Altruism or selfless acts do not actually exist.  The feeling the act generates is greater than the feeling the individual can achieve through the substance sacrificed.  If you give a homeless person $1, the feeling gained through that sacrifice is greater than the feeling the person can experience by applying that $1 to other purposes in that moment.  

The decision making process begins with the highest valued opportunity furnished by your immediate setting in consideration of the energy required to complete the act.  In consideration of the 1st component and the example provided in this component of a stalled motorist, how about if the person who sees the stalled motorist is on their way to work and thinks they don’t have time to stop?  Time both is and is not an object of value.  In this scenario, a person thinking they don’t have time to stop because they have to get to work is actually expressing a subconscious value determination, which is being to work on time will produce a better feeling than helping the stalled motorist and being late.  Or it’s a value comparison based on consequence, where the comparison is between the good feeling that comes from stopping to help and the value of the objective that being late to work has a consequence for.    

Time is a valued object but in general terms that are not represented in the decision making process.  I know this seems at odds with itself but the essence of it is anytime you don’t have time for something this represents a value comparison between objectives.  It isn’t that you don’t have time for something, it’s that there is something you’d rather do more than the thing you believe you do not have time for.  Sometimes the comparisons are between things that are the same thing.  For example, a person may not have time to spend with their children because they’re working.  This isn’t a value comparison between work and the child, this is a value comparison between the child and the child, where work provides the means to support the child.         

A visual representation of energy as a component of the decision making process would be to consider there is a $100 bill, a $50 bill, and a $20 bill in your immediate environment.  These dollar amounts represent the value of feelings an act will produce.  To procure the $100 feeling requires energy that represents $90 of the feeling, and the $50 bill $35 of the feeling, but $20 feeling only requires $1 of the feeling in the energy required to procure it.  The highest valued object in consideration of energy required is the $20 feeling.  

A scenario based representation of the illustration in the previous paragraph would be to consider the $100 feeling is going fishing, the $50 feeling is going to an amusement park, and the $20 feeling is watching a movie at home.  

You may like fishing more than the other two activities but it requires gathering your equipment, attaching your boat to your truck, getting fuel, maybe going to the bait shop, driving to the lake, launching the boat, then pulling the boat back on the trailer, driving home, unhitching your boat, and putting your equipment back.  If you’re thinking about going fishing, you may think about some or all these components and the feelings generated by these ideas may cause you to choose not to go fishing.  You’re not consciously thinking it isn’t worth the effort, but you’ll think about the parts that require effort and these thoughts are evidence of this process.  Additionally, as you’re thinking about what you have to do you’ll also subtely experience the feelings of performing these tasks.  In the process you may also think about fishing, catching fish, and other things you enjoy about fishing, and subtely experience positive feelings.  As you think about these things and feel these things these are evidence of these subconscious processes.  This is what I mean by a $100 feeling that requires $90 in energy.  

Going to the amusement park consists of similar effort, driving to the amusement park, parking, walking around, waiting in line, and perhaps the temperature that day may increase the amount of perceived effort required to enjoy the rides.  Temperature can generally be thought about as an element of energy.  Someone may plan on going to the amusement park and when asked by someone who thought they were going why they didn’t go, they may respond, I didn’t feel like walking around all day.  This is what I mean by a $50 feeling requiring $35 in energy.  

Lastly, the $20 feeling that requires $1 in energy might be watching a movie on the couch.  

I was going to go fishing, then I thought about going to the amusement park, but instead I just relaxed and watched a movie.  

Cost monetarily, can be viewed through a few different lenses, but sometimes spending money is a comparison between the energy required to get the money one intends to spend versus the feeling derived from what the money is being spent on.  Most often it is a value comparison between objects, where a person chooses not to spend money on something because the value (anticipated feeling) of the object is less than some other object they would rather spend the money on.         

The value of the act versus the energy required is the second component of the decision making process.  


If I asked you to rob a bank with me you would likely say no.  Some would say no even if they didn’t believe there was a high probability of being caught and this is a moral objection that is distinct from an objection of consequence.  

The answer would probably be “no I don’t want to go to jail”.  The consequence is jail but this consequence is only relevant because jail is an obstruction to all other objectives.  Long term objectives or those things possessed of great value to an individual I called anchoring objectives.  Anchoring objectives are long term or recurring sources of great pleasure, like  family, career, and other recurring and long term goals.  The consequence of going to jail is only relevant because it obstructs service to other higher valued objectives, like the individual’s career, providing for one’s family, spending time with one’s family, and other objectives along those lines.  

If the probability of the consequence is high, and the consequence severely obstructs the individual’s ability to fulfill anchoring objectives, the act becomes a question of the value of the act versus the value of anchoring objectives.  

If you were seriously considering robbing a bank, you would probably have thoughts about how you were going to do it and these thoughts would serve the purposes of establishing the probability of being caught.  You would probably have thoughts about being in jail, being away from your family, losing your job among other things.  You would also have thoughts about having the money and what you would do with the money.  As you imagined these things there would be feelings attached to these ideas.  These thoughts represent the consideration of consequence, in the probability of the outcome, and the severity of the outcome, leading to the value of the act versus the value of anchoring objectives or any other objective that involves a consequence to the act.    

Picture the consequence portion of the decision making process as standing on one side of a canyon and the act is to cross to the otherside of the canyon.  The severity is the depth of the canyon and the probability of the outcome is how wide the canyon is.  If the canyon is 1000 feet deep this is a severe consequence should you fail to cross the canyon.  However, if the canyon is only 1 foot wide the severity is irrelevant since the probability of failing to cross the canyon is perceived as being 0.  

When someone’s partner finds out they’ve been cheated on, their perception of the incident is usually that they believe the person who their partner cheated with is of greater value to their partner than they are.  There’s often thoughts and comments that she’s more important to you than me, or more important to you than your family and this usually wasn’t the element of the decision making process that caused the individual to proceed with the act of infidelity.  The individual just thought the probability of being caught was too low to have to consider the severity of the consequence.  If probability is low we do not give weight to severity.  

The decision making process begins with the highest valued objective (Value).  Then the energy required for the act versus the value of the act(Energy).  If there is a consequence to anchoring objectives, the probability of that consequence is considered.  If the probability is high that the consequence will occur then severity is considered.  If the probability and the severity are both high, the value of the immediate objective is considered versus the value of anchoring objectives that are likely to be obstructed by the immediate act.    


For some of you, if I asked you to rob a bank with me and it was a sure thing that we wouldn’t be caught, despite the value of the money, some of you still would not rob the bank because you believe the act of stealing is wrong.  In the decision making process, at the point of intention there is a negative feeling imposed when a person intends to commit a morally wrong act.  This feeling is imposed to prevent the person from committing an act that will reduce his or her self worth.  If you believe the act is wrong and you commit the act you see yourself as being wrong and you feel bad about it. 

This is different from the negative feeling of committing an act where there are consequences to anchoring values.  That feeling is fear, the uncertainty of not knowing if your interests will be harmed by the act you are about to commit.  If you don’t experience the negative consequences, then there is no negative feeling.  Whereas committing an act you believe to be immoral will lead to negative feelings, typically guilt, until 1: you’re able to justify the act to yourself, 2: enough time passes where you no longer associate yourself with that version of you who committed the act, or 3: until you change your morality and no longer see the act as morally wrong.

Simple Decision Example

The decision making process is highest valued objective furnished by your immediate circumstances(2) versus, energy, consequence, and morality.  Where there are no consequences or violations of morality, there are no thoughts related to it. 

2: This includes opportunities outside your immediate setting where the first decision that may be made is leaving your immediate setting to reach a valued objective. 

For example, if a person is lying on the couch and they want a glass of orange juice, the decision to complete the act is the value of the orange juice versus the energy of procuring the orange juice.  The thought signatures may be imagery of the juice and anticipating the experience with the juice based on past impressions from the juice.  This may be followed by images of the process of getting the juice.  Getting up, walking to the kitchen, opening the cupboard, retrieving a cup, opening the fridge, retrieving the juice, pouring the juice in the cup, returning the juice, closing the fridge, and then walking back to resume comfort increased by the presence of the juice.  The thought isn’t likely to include all those points but some of those points may appear as images in the mind while a person considers the value versus effort.  There are no thoughts related to the consequence of getting the juice because there are no consequences of the act that obstruct the procurement of higher value objects. 

Unless there isn’t much juice left and the individual is without the immediate means to purchase more juice.  A thought of consequence would consist of the value of the juice now, versus the value of the juice at a later time.  The thoughts would likely consist of images of the present circumstances and future circumstances, and probably an internal monologue to consciously establish the value of consuming the juice now versus consuming the juice later.  Thoughts of drinking the juice now, contrasted with eating breakfast in the morning and imagining how the juice would compliment the flavors of your breakfast.   

No morality is considered because the act is not imposing. Unless of course the juice in the fridge belongs to a roommate.  Then morality will need to be overcome.  The moral signature will be either a thought to contact the roommate to ask if it is okay to drink the juice, or more likely some justification like he or she won’t care, won’t notice, or the taker will replace the juice.  Why would a person think these things?  Because most people believe that taking something that doesn’t belong to them is morally wrong, so to proceed with the objective the person has to make the wrong act right.  Permission is what is required for the act to be morally right, but justifications for small moral infractions typically suffice.