For much of history giving birth to a child was one of the most dangerous threats to a woman's health as she would face during her life.

This excerpt from an article "Childbirth in Early America" provides some context.

During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, between 1 percent and 1.5 percent of all births ended in the mother's death as a result of exhaustion, dehydration, infection, hemorrhage, or convulsions. Since the typical mother gave birth to between five and eight children, her lifetime chances of dying in childbirth ran as high as 1 in 8. This meant that if a woman had eight female friends, it was likely that one might die in childbirth.

The risks to women improved dramatically when women began having birth in hospitals under close medical supervision attended by a physician.

However, the trend in births from home to hospital did not begin until the early 20th century.

In fact, Jimmy Carter (elected 1976) was the first U.S. President born in a hospital (1924).

His successor Ronald Reagan (elected 1980, born 1911) was not.

Reagan's sucessor, George H.W. Bush (also born in 1924) was also not born in a hospital. He was the last President to be born at home.

Of the 46 U.S. Presidents to date, only Carter, Clinton, George W. Bush, Obama, Trump and Biden have been born in a hospital---six in all.

In researching this topic I was also interested to find that health outcomes for mother and child did not necessarily improve at the outset when there were more births in hospital in the 1920's than at home.

In fact, mortality rates for birth injuries actually increased 40%-50% from 1915 and 1929 as hospital birth rates increased during that period.

At the same time, the maternal mortality rates for women who gave birth in the hospital did not begin declining until the 1930's when sulfa drugs were introduced to treat infections.

Why did birth mortality increase while there was no improvement in maternal mortality when women first starting going to the hospital from their homes for birth?

The answer appears to be that it was caused by operative INTERVENTION by physicians in the hospital.

While attempting to help during the birth process doctors unintentionally caused more harm to the mother, and especially to the baby, with forceps and cesarean deliveries, which increased the risks of birth injuries and infections.

Hospitals became safer places for birth in the 1930's and beyond as sulfa drugs could deal with infections and doctors learned to be more judicious in avoiding injuries to newborns in the birth process.

Why do I bring up this history?

I recently saw this headline.

Source: https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/maternal-deaths-surge-to-highest-rate-in-60-years-in-us-report-3871270

The United States experienced one of the highest rates of maternal death in its history in 2021, according to a recent report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The report also stated that black women experience more than twice as many maternal deaths as white women.

A total of 1,205 women died in the United States during pregnancy or shortly after giving birth in 2021, up from 861 in 2020 and 754 in 2019, the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) said.

Maternal deaths were 60% higher in 2021 than they were in 2019!

What caused that?

Most of the stories about this increase suggest Covid as the the direct or indirect cause for the surge in maternal deaths.

However, Covid was also present in 2020 when maternal deaths only increased modestly from 2019.

Maternal deaths in 2021 were up over 40% from what they were in 2020.

However, there were also a lot of vaccinations being administered to pregnant women in 2021 on the recommendation of the CDC.

Some question if this might be a factor.

87% of women of childbearing age received at least one dose on the Covid vaccine .

Over 70% of women that age received both doses.

Most of those doses were received by August, 2021.

Source: https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#vaccination-demographics-trends

I don't know what caused this spike in deaths.

However, shouldn't someone be looking into it and informing us?

What is frustrating to me is that the CDC should have the definitive data on all of this so there is no question about whether it is Covid , the vaccines or something else altogether.

The CDC should know exactly how many of those who died had Covid or who had it previously.

The CDC should know exactly how many of the women who died during childbirth had been vaccinated.

The fact that the CDC releases a report on a marked increase in maternal deaths in 2021 and ignores the elephant in the room speaks volumes in my mind.

What is going on?

You have to wonder if what reporter Matt Taibbi found in the Twitter files might be at play?

Taibbi reported last week that Twitter censored true content or facts as "misinformation" at the behest of government intermediaries because it might contribute to vaccine hesitancy.

In other words, let's be sure that people don't have all the facts for informed consent because they might make a decision that we don't like.

It is important to keep all of this in context.

Even with the increase in maternal morality in 2021, we are talking about a maternal death rate of 32.9 deaths per 100,000 live births. In the 1700's, that number was at least 1,000 per 100,000.

For further context, the death rate from Covid for a woman of child-bearing age in the United States since the beginning of the pandemic in 2020 has averaged about 14.6 per 100,000 per year during the three years of the pandemic. (26,203 Covid deaths for 18-44 year old women since 2020 out of 60 million women in total for that age group in the United States).

It all means that a young woman today has infinitely better odds of living a long life compared to that 18th century woman 

Finally, a Fox News story on the same CDC report on maternal maternity also presented another factoid that I found interesting about the health of pregnant women.

Only about 40% of U.S. women who gave birth in 2019 had favorable heart health before getting pregnant, according to a new report by the American Heart Association.

If only 40% of U.S. women who give birth have favorable heart health before getting pregnant, that means 60% of those who get pregnant do not have favorable heart health.

60%!!!

We are talking about women who are almost all 45 years of age or younger.

The CDC reported in 2016 that the average age 20-39 year old woman weighed 167.6 pounds.

That is about the same weight that a man of the same age weighed in the 1960's.

The average woman (and man) of today weigh 30 pounds more than they did then.

60% of women between the ages of 20-34 are considered overweight or obese.

68% of women 35-44 are in the same category according to the CDC.

Credit: https://www.healthline.com/health/womens-health/average-weight-for-women#average-weight-around-the-world

Increased weight (before pregnancy) may be the most important reason of all on why women have increased risks from childbirth, Covid or anything else today.

Climate Change

Credit: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/greta-thunberg-time-s-2019-person-year-n1099396

Source: https://nypost.com/2023/03/15/greta-thunberg-reportedly-deletes-grim-2018-tweet-about-climate-change/?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_medium=SocialFlow&utm_source=NYPTwitter

Source: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2425775/Climate-scientists-told-cover-fact-Earths-temperature-risen-15-years.html

Credit: https://twitter.com/TonyClimate/status/1636138937575149568

How come it was much warmer in the 1930's and 1940's than today when there were much fewer fossil fuels used at that time?

Source: https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/us-studies-how-guarantee-all-18-trillion-us-bank-deposits

Source: https://www.cnbc.com/quotes/US6M

Source: https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/us-studies-how-guarantee-all-18-trillion-us-bank-deposits

That is a pretty sweet deal for Chase.

The problem for the banks is that more and more depositors are figuring out the game that is being played as interest rates have risen.

Does anyone believe this will end well when those are the underlying economics in all of this?

Hmmmmm.

Excess Deaths in Germany

Credit: https://twitter.com/goddeketal/status/1636121394009309186

Draw your own conclusions on this data.

However, has there ever been a pandemic in human history where deaths went up a year into the pandemic after the introduction of new treatments and vaccines targeted at the disease? Then overall deaths went up more in the second year?

Hmmmm.

Electric Vehicles in Quebec

The province of Quebec in Canada passed legislation in 2018 that phases out the sale of all new fossil fuel vehicles there by 2030.

Volkswagen was looking for a site in Canada to manufacture electric car batteries.

It recently rejected Quebec as a possible location for the plant due to concerns by VW about the province's  about tp provide a consistent supply of electricity to power the new plant.

If you don't have enough electricity to power an electric battery plant how are you going to have enough electricity to power all of those electric cars?

No worries.

Those progressive liberals have seven years to figure out how this is going to work.

Hmmmm.

Bachelorette Parties

This article made me go Hmmmm twice.

Source: https://www.thebach.com/blog/bach-app-special-report

Nashville and Scottsdale are both more popular venues than Las Vegas for bachelorette parties?

In fact, there are twice as many bachelorette parties in Nashville as Las Vegas.

The average cost of a bachelorette party is $10,800.

$1,200 per person spent on airfare, lodging, entertainment and food times an average of 9 girls attending.

We have come a long ways from my experience where the bridal party split up after the rehearsal party at separate bars and had a few drinks with the future bride and groom.

Bear in mind these are many of the same people today who claim they cannot afford to pay their student loan debt.

Triple Hmmmm!

Credit: https://www.thebach.com/blog/bach-app-special-report

If you want to see where the seeds of inflation were planted, as well as the conditions that set the stage for the bank troubles we are seeing today, look at this graph of deposits at U.S. commercial banks.

These seeds were planted by the Covid relief payments by the U.S. government and Biden's $1.9 trillion stimulus package in early 2021, which were made possible by the Federal Reserve's monetary policy, that accommodated the spending.

Banks were flooded with cash as government Covid payments were made to businesses and individuals in 2020 and 2021.

Between the beginning of 2020 and the end of 2021, bank deposits increased from $13.3 trillion to $18 trillion---$4.7 trillion in additional cash deposits.

How much were the Covid relief and stimulus payments approved by Congress and signed into law in that time?

$4.5 trillion.

Funny how that works.

Of course, that much additional money in the system meant there was a lot of money chasing after stocks, real estate and general goods and services.

Inflation was the result. Too much money chasing too few assets, goods and services.

Most of the deposits in the banks were earning little interest for the depositors.

As inflation because entrenched, the Federal Reserve began increasing interest rates to try to slow the economy.

As treasury rates started to increase in the second half of 2022, more and more depositors started withdrawing their bank deposits to invest in treasury securities that were earning higher yields.

When is the last time we have seen net bank deposit outflows before?  1948.

As bank depositors withdraw cash from the bank it is necessary to have the liquidity to satisfy the demands.

However, in a fractional banking system ready cash is in short supply as most bank assets are invested in loans, mortgages or investment securities that are not liquid.

It also doesn't take much for a trickle to turn into a flood when the confidence of depositors in a bank's safety is shaken.

That is what happened at Silicon Valley Bank.

That concern has spread to other banks.

Banks often use the Federal Reserve's Discount Window to address temporary funding shortfalls. It allows banks to access funds quickly, often the same day.

Borrowing from the window is usually considered a last resort. It can signal that a bank is having financial difficulties.

You can see what has transpired recently at the Discount Window.

Source: https://twitter.com/Malone_Wealth/status/1636736907605336066

Compare what was happening to the stock market at the same time that banks were hitting the discount window in the past.

Late 2008-Early 2009 S&P 500 performance.

Spring 2020 S&P 500 Performance

Credit: https://twitter.com/charliebilello/status/1446858352638763019?lang=en

Do you remember what you were doing three years ago today?

I do.

I was writing the blog post below.

The underlying question I asked in that post was whether our policy experts were making decisions really knowing what they were doing?

We were living in a surreal world where the entire economy was effectively shutdown.

Was the cure worse than disease?

Did we really have the data to know that we were making the right decisions?

Ron DeSantis, in his new book "The Courage To Be Free", said he asked Dr. Deborah Birx during the lockdowns to cite the data and historical record to support why they were recommending the lockdowns.

She told him it was "kind of our own science experiment."

Source: https://dailycaller.com/2023/03/14/desantis-deborah-birx-covid-19-lockdowns-science-experiment/

“I said, ‘Deborah, just tell me. When in American history has this been done and what were the results because I kind of feel like we’re flying blind here and we may be doing things that are gonna be damaging.’ And she said, ‘You know, it’s kind of our own science experiment that we’re doing in real time.’ That didn’t sit well with me, you’re a citizen of a republic, not a guinea pig.”

Lean back and take yourself back three years in time.

Was BeeLine asking the right questions?

Why were so few others doing the same?

You might also ask why we got to the point that anyone who asked questions about what we were doing over the next three was deemed a purveyor of misinformation?

How would things be different if we could turn the clock back three years?

Surreal Is Our New Reality (originally published March 19, 2020)

I could call it surreal.

However, it is our new reality.

It is stunning the extent that which our lives have been transformed in the last 10 days.

Surreal is our new reality. All sporting events cancelled. Schools closed. Cruise lines shut down. Air travel at a near standstill. Restaurants and bars shut down. Shopping malls closed. Millions trying to work from home. Millions of others suddenly out of work.

I wrote this on January 31 when we were barely a week past the first coronavirus case being reported in the United States.

We often don't realize the precarious perch that our lives are built on. A lot of that is based on the confidence that underlies our economic system. It doesn't take much to disrupt that equilibrium and the confidence that goes with it. When people don't have the confidence to do business, shop, travel and interact, the economy quickly tanks.

People are now realizing what I was talking about. I wish it were not true.

I have to believe that we will soon experience unemployment rates that will exceed anything that most of us have seen in our lifetimes.

If the current surreal reality continues for several months we may challenge some of the numbers seen in the Great Depression.

Jobless claims soared to 281,000 last week and that was before most of the restaurant, bar, store and theater closings that went into effect this week. We will soon these numbers in the millions.

Of course, I don't need to say anything about the stock market.

Over $12 trillion of value has been wiped out in less than a month in the United States alone. Global values have taken somewhere near a $25 trillion hit.

That value evaporated faster than in any stock market sell-off in history.

Washington is talking about a $1 trillion economic aid package. That seems like a lot until you put it into a broader perspective.

I have not heard many talk about it but we are surely blessed in all of this that we are taking this economic hit at a time when we were at an economic high. Stocks were at all-time highs. Unemployment was the lowest in almost half a century. It would be far, far worse having to deal with a poor economy and struggling stock market before we were hit with this pandemic.

For some context, here is the Dow over the last five years. Yes, it is bad, but imagine having to confront this in 2016. Or 2009?

There is a reason that pilots attempt to climb if they run into a problem in the air. It always helps to have as much altitude as you can when you are flying an airplane. The more altitude you have, the greater margin you have to overcome any issue, and the better chance you will have to land the aircraft safely. The strong economy over the last three years is a significant advantage for us compared to where we could be.

It is hard not to ask the question whether all of this surreal reality is worth it?

We will likely never know. Once a course is taken it is often impossible to consider the alternative. Whatever decision is made is quickly affected by other choices and actions that compound and don't permit one to easily determine if the "road not taken" might have actually been a better path. Mind you, I did not say easier. There are no easy roads whichever way we go right now.

I have no doubt that the public health professionals are making the best recommendations and decisions they can based on what data they have. However, the problem is that we are dealing with so many unknowns with this virus.

John P.A. Ioannidis is professor of medicine, of epidemiology and population health, of biomedical data science, and of statistics at Stanford University and co-director of Stanford’s Meta-Research Innovation Center. In other words, he is someone that knows a whole lot more about this than I do.

In a recent opinion column Dr. Ioannidis questions whether we are dealing with a once-in-a century pandemic or a once-in-a century evidence fiasco due to the fact that big decisions are being made without reliable data.

At a time when everyone needs better information, from disease modelers and governments to people quarantined or just social distancing, we lack reliable evidence on how many people have been infected with SARS-CoV-2 or who continue to become infected. Better information is needed to guide decisions and actions of monumental significance and to monitor their impact.

Draconian countermeasures have been adopted in many countries. If the pandemic dissipates — either on its own or because of these measures — short-term extreme social distancing and lockdowns may be bearable. How long, though, should measures like these be continued if the pandemic churns across the globe unabated? How can policymakers tell if they are doing more good than harm?

I am persuaded that the current path we are on for this two week period makes the most sense right now since it is better to err on the side of caution.

However, how long can this be sustained and at what cost?

Even more than new therapeutics and vaccines, what we need most right now is better data to assess the threat and danger to society of the virus together with the ultimate economic cost that we may have to pay to combat it. Rationale minds need to then balance those two important factors as it relates to our society.

At one point is the cure worse than the disease?

How bad is Covid-19? We just don't know right now. It is still playing out.

However, the Visual Capitalist put together this excellent graphic to show the history of the world's greatest pandemics.

There truly is nothing new under the sun. Mankind has been challenged before and come out better on the other side. We will once again.

However, the human costs of most of these pandemics have been extraordinarily high in lives lost.

May we get the best data available as soon as possible to make sure that we are making the best decisions to limit the human costs, first and foremost. That is not necessarily easy as Dr, Ioannidis points out.

One of the bottom lines is that we don’t know how long social distancing measures and lockdowns can be maintained without major consequences to the economy, society, and mental health. Unpredictable evolutions may ensue, including financial crisis, unrest, civil strife, war, and a meltdown of the social fabric. At a minimum, we need unbiased prevalence and incidence data for the evolving infectious load to guide decision-making.

Surreal only works for so long. Every click of the clock the human cost will compound one direction or the other as relentlessly as the virus spreads in communities in the United States and the world.

We need better data if we are going to make better decisions.

The sooner the better. That is the real reality.

There is no more concerning trend in the United States than the increasing rate of depression, anxiety and mental illness in young people.

This received a lot of attention during the Covid lockdowns but this trend had been underway for most of the decade before we ever confronted the pandemic.

To provide some perspective on the dimensions of the problem, consider the death rates for those age 15-24 from Covid-19, drug overdoses and suicides for the year ending March 31, 2022.

Almost 16 times the number of young people died of suicides and drug overdoses in that one year period as died from Covid!

The Covid lockdowns did nothing to help the mental health situation of young people. It exacerbated the trend that was already in place.

For example, this is a graph that shows depression scores for 12th graders from 2005 to 2018.

Levels of depression for 12th graders began to increase rather dramatically in the early 2010's.

This applied to both males and females and those with both liberals and conservative political outlooks.

However, as has been seen in most studies, there is a higher level of depression/mental health issues with women than men and with liberals compared to conservatives.

Source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666560321000438

You can see the same trend in 12th graders in their  "self-derogation" scores. This is when someone answers "they don't have much to be proud of" or believe "they can't do anything right".

Again, this trend began in 2010-2011.

Credit: https://twitter.com/monitoringbias/status/1634218771643506688

You can see the male/female and liberal/ conservative differences in mental health in the broader data set for the population at large below.

The data is rather striking.

The more liberal you are the greater chance there is a mental health issue. The more conservative your are, the less likely that is the case.

Credit: https://twitter.com/monitoringbias/status/1630954493759090691

What is going on here?

Why the rise in mental health issues in the young?

A number of observers believe the increased use of social media and the rollout of the iPhone is responsible in some way. It is even argued that children with liberal parents were more likely to be early adopters and provided iPhones to their teenagers earlier than conservative parents. This would explain why the increasing effects of depression began earlier with liberal teens.

It is an interesting theory. We do know that being isolated and feeling disconnected from others leads to depression. A life centered around a phone, apps and texts and devoid of human interactions is not the best prescription for sound mental health.

The chart below is also very interesting.

Pew Research asked the question whether a doctor or healthcare had EVER told you that you had a mental health condition.

You would think, just based on age alone, it would be much more likely that older people would answer this in the affirmative than young people. After all, they have been around much longer and faced many more challenges and problems in their lives.

However, the exact opposite was true.

The younger you were the more likely you were to have a mental health condition at some point in your life.

This was true of men, women, liberals and conservatives.

Credit: https://twitter.com/monitoringbias/status/1634194897875116032

However, we again see the divide on the issue between men and women and liberals and conservatives, particularly in the 18-29 age cohort.

It is almost behind comprehension that over 50% of young, liberal women say they have been told they have a mental health condition.

This is the group we are relying on to birth and nurture the future generations of Americans?

This is also a large demographic that is voting overwhelmingly for liberal Democrats. 

God help us! 

I wish I had a good answer for why there seems to be more mental health issues with those who identify as liberals than there are with conservatives.

Is it simply because liberals are more honest and transparent? Possibly.

Could it be due to a victimization mindset that has become even more amplified in the social media age we live in today?

Jill Filopovic wrote this in a recent Substack that might provide some perspective on this point.

Just about everything researchers understand about resilience and mental well-being suggests that people who feel like they are the chief architects of their own life — to mix metaphors, that they captain their own ship, not that they are simply being tossed around by an uncontrollable ocean — are vastly better off than people whose default position is victimization, hurt, and a sense that life simply happens to them and they have no control over their response. 

Depression, anxiety and many others mental health conditions result when one feels overwhelmed and becomes unduly pessimistic about the possibility of anything changing in their life.

At the core, they do not believe change is possible or within their control.

Instead of being the architect of their own life and changing the things they can change individually, they focus and dwell on victimhood or any number of external issues.

The problem today is that there are plenty of things social media and the mainstream media do to fuel these thoughts.

"The world is going to end in 10 years due to climate change."

"White privilege".

"Male privilege".

"Systemic racism".

The list could go on and on.

Another fact in all of this is that white liberals are much more likely to live in an echo chamber than white conservatives despite the popular narrative being the opposite.

Credit: https://twitter.com/monitoringbias/status/1631042799788335110

When all you hear is one point of view and it is a pessimistic one at that, you are probably not going to be in the best mental state.

The default answer not many liberals is to rely on government to fix their problem.

However, as we know, it is not really in the interests of the politicians they vote for to fix the problem, even if it is possible.

A big factor in positive mental health is having a strong self-identity, Understanding who you are and being proud of what you are and what you can be.

Another interesting data point on this is that White Liberals are the only group to think more highly of other racial groups than their own.

They may think this is virtuous but you have to wonder whether this is the sign of a healthy mental state?

Finally, we have the interesting change have seen in recent years in the percentage of those who identify as LBGT.

How do we explain this?

1.7% of those born before 1946 identify as LBGT and 2.7% of Baby Boomers but 20% of Gen Z so identify?

Has something been introduced into the environment?

Did the hard wiring of our genetics change in the span of a decade or two?

Is it something else?

Why is this an important in evaluating these mental health issues?

Source: https://adaa.org/find-help/by-demographics/lgbtq

If you consider that 20% of Gen Z identifies as LBGT, and that group alone is six times more likely to experience depression, this issue alone goes a long way to explaining the overall trend changes we are seeing in the mental health status of young people.

Do we have a big problem with mental health in the United States?

How much was spent on preventing Covid in this age group?

How much focus is going to prevent the root causes of this mental health pandemic?

It appears that our priorities might be misplaced. 

I would wager that very few Americans had heard of Silicon Valley Bank before last week.

That changed as the 16th largest bank in the United States was declared insolvent and taken over by the FDIC on Friday.

It became the second largest bank to ever fail in the United States (after Washington Mutual in 2008).

What happened?

The same thing that happens to all banks who fail in a fractional banking system.

What happened to SVB was no different than what happened to the Bailey Building and Loan in the movie "It's a Wonderful Life".

George Bailey (Jimmy Stewart) tries to calm anxious and angry depositors  "It's A Wonderful Life" (1946)

Bank depositors lose confidence in the safety of their deposits in the bank and seek withdrawals. The bank only has a fraction of the deposits available in current liquidity to meet the withdrawal requests.

George Bailey was able to halt the run on his bank because he and his new bride Mary used their  honeymoon money to meet some of the demands and convince the remaining depositors to keep their deposits with the bank.

Mary Bailey (Donna Reed) offers the Bailey Honeymoon funds to stop the bank run "It's A Wonderful Life" (1946)

Silicon Valley Bank attempted to raise additional equity to boost its balance sheet and depositor confidence but it failed.

The bank's failure was clearly a surprise to Forbes.

It had recently named Silicon Valley Bank one of America's Best Banks.

Here is SVB promoting that recognition in a tweet four days before it went under.

Banks have historically failed because they made too many bad loans. 

However, banks also put money into investment securities. The 2008 banking crisis was precipitated not only by bad mortgage loans but investments in mortgage backed securities that went bad.

A popular alternative is for banks to invest in treasury securities. It is supposedly a safe investment in which it can earn a spread between what the treasury bill or note yields and the interest the bank has to pay  its depositors.

That strategy works well when the yield on the treasury security is stable or falling while the bank is paying almost no interest to its depositors. It does not work well when treasury rates begin to rise.

As interest rates rise, the value of the underlying treasury security falls. It is like having a bad loan.

In addition, as treasury yields rise there is more and more incentive for a depositor to withdraw their funds from the bank (if it does not increase bank deposit rates) and put their money into treasuries.

Two years ago the yield on a 2-year Treasury was 0.14%. It was 5.05% right before SVB failed.

The yield almost immediately dropped to 4.60% on Friday as demand surged in a flight to safety as depositors in other banks undoubtedly moved money to Treasuries.

Simply stated, SVB failed because of the rapid increase in interest rates on treasury securities.

The higher yields created losses in its investment portfolio reducing its equity base.

The higher yields created an incentive for depositors to withdraw money to benefit from the higher rates as SVB did not adjust depositor rates accordingly.

SVB lost on both dimensions. It was caught in a squeeze.

Of course, SVB got into this position by having a disproportionate amount of its assets in investments rather than in loans.

57% of SVB's assets were investments. Only 35% were in loans. By comparison, San Francisco-based First Republic Bank, which is comparable in size to SVB, has 78% of its assets in loans and only 15% in investments. 

SVB also apparently did a poor job of anticipating these rate hikes and hedging that exposure.

The big question now is what will the fallout be from this?

The shareholders of SVB will most likely lose everything.

This is a stock that carried a market cap value of about $9 billion a month ago.

The depositors will most likely get access to all of their money depending on how the FDIC puts together a salvation plan for the bank. That goes without saying for deposits with less than $250,000 in bank deposits. 

However, 97% of SVB's deposits are above the FDIC's $250,000 insurance limit.

There are a lot of Silicon Valley tech names who use SVB as their primary bank.

Crypto company Circle has $3.3 billion on deposit with SVB.

Roku has almost $500 million.

Unless there is a quick resolution how do these companies meet payroll, pay vendors and continue as going concerns themselves?

There are a lot of concerning after-effects to any bank failure.

That is why it is easy to criticize actions by the FDIC, the Treasury Department or the Federal Reserve to bail out these banks. However, the reality is that it is the little guy that quickly gets hurt in the after-effects of these failures.

In this situation you also have to realize that it is tech companies in California that have the most to lose in the SVB failure. 

Is there a more influential group for the Democrats in power in Washington?

There is a lot of money and votes provided to Democrats from tech companies in California.

It is hard to see where they are not going to protect them in the end.

(Update-After I finished writing this blog post, as I predicted, the FDIC, Treasury Department and Federal Reserve, announced that it was going to insure that all depositors, both insured and uninsured, would be paid in full currently. It also extended the same protections to depositors of Signature Bank in New York which was taken over by state regulators over the weekend. 

Banks in California and New York are bailed out that cater to tech and crypto companies. However, if the same thing happened to a bank in Wyoming that had mostly farmers as depositors, would they receive the same treatment?

The question that also hangs over the market and the economy is whether other banks have the same type of exposure?

There is no question that there are a lot of banks that have the same problem.

For example, this graph shows the unrealized gains (losses) of banks holding investment securities at the end fo 2022.

As has often been said, "what goes up eventually comes down".

This is a graphic representation of that principle.

Credit: https://twitter.com/balajis/status/1634543503958212610

However, SVB seemed to have much more exposure in its investment portfolio than other banks.

For example, Bank of America has less than half of the exposure that SVB had to unrealized investment losses as a percent of equity.

SVB's losses were equal to its entire equity.

Credit: https://twitter.com/Mayhem4Markets/status/1634347023003529216

One thing is clear.

Banks in general are going to have to raise the interest rate on their deposits to compete with treasury rates or we will see more bank outflows. Money will always go where it is treated best.

Of course, this will reduce banks margins which is something the bankers do not want to do. That is especially true when they are looking at losses on their investment portfolio. However, they really don't have a choice.

Finally, what does all this mean for the Federal Reserve?

Do they continue raising interest rates now that something has broken due to its policy decisions?

The market is already betting that the Fed is going to back off.

Last week market futures were forecasting there was an 80% chance the Fed would raise rates another .50% at its March meeting. Those odds have now dropped to 40%.

You should now have a better idea of what happened to Silicon Valley Bank.

The big question now is what happens next?

We could be in for a very interesting week in the financial markets.

Fasten your seat belts if the contagion spreads.

What is most troubling is the same people who got us into this problem (ultra low interest rates, money printing and excess government spending which led to inflation which the same people said was transitory) are now telling us they have the solutions.

Fasten your seatbelts, indeed!

A few random observations, charts and factoids to provide some context on what is going on in the world.

Mortgage Rates

30-year mortgage rates are now about 7%

Two years ago, when Joe Biden took office, they were below 3%.

It has been over 20 years since we last saw a 7% mortgage rate.

In fact, 99% of all borrowers have mortgage rates below current market rates.

Over 70% have mortgage rates below 4%.

The reality is that very few current homeowners are going to want to abandon a 3%-4%mortgage by selling their home to buy another at a 7% rate.

My concern is that the real estate market may lock up.

Those wanting to buy a new home are also priced out of the market with the higher rates.

Those thinking about moving up to another home will stay put.

How many are willing to take this on?

It still continues to amaze me that hospital admissions with Covid-19 among the age 70+ age group (the most vulnerable and the most vaccinated age group--93%+ fully vaccinated, 67%+ boosted) are higher today (9.2/100,000)  than they were at the same time last year. (8.7/100,000).

Of course, this is something that you never hear on the news.

This is the case despite the fact that hospitals are less likely to report admissions with Covid in 2023 (an incidental Covid positive test when admitted for something else) than they were in 2022.

The fact that other age groups are down slightly may be evidence of that.

Covid admissions in 2023 are much more likely to be for Covid.

How Strong is the Economy for Workers?

Joe Biden has been complaining for the last several several months that the economy is growing and employment is strong but he is not getting credit for it.

Source: https://thehill.com/business/3845925-biden-wants-credit-for-a-strong-economy-americans-arent-buying-it/

Perhaps the reason that Biden is not getting any credit is that since he has been in office any wage growth has been obliterated by inflation.

This graphic shows how bad it has been for private sector workers.

Credit: https://twitter.com/LHSummers/status/1630619332999888897

Tooth Fairy

If the cost squeeze is not bad enough on American workers, consider the payout that the Tooth Fairy is making these days.

$6.23 per tooth!

I was thinking that $2 would be a lot.

Boy, am I out of touch. 

Credit: https://twitter.com/HoneyBeeGeek/status/1631461211551469569

Different Views on Threats to Public Health

How can political attitudes cause such differing views when the data is the data?

For example, there were 107,477 drug overdose deaths in the 12 months ending August, 2022 in the United States.

Over the same period, there were 44,000 Americans killed by guns but more than half of that total were suicides.

280,000 deaths are attributed to obesity each year.

There are over 500,000 cancer deaths each year.

Democrats believe that guns are a much greater threat to public health than opioids, obesity or cancer when deaths and hospitalizations are a mere fraction of the other risks?

Credit: https://twitter.com/SouthernKeeks/status/1628780046243569664

Better To Be A Rioter Than A Business Owner

Speaking of public health, Black Lives Matter rioters in New York City in 2020 are going to get a payment of up to $6 million because some NYC police officers did not wear face masks as they attempted to stop the looting, vandalization and destruction of property that accompanied the protests that summer.

Each of the "protestors" is eligible for a $21,500 payment.

Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/blm-rioters-get-6m-because-cops-didnt-wear-face-masks/

Of course, the owners of the small businesses that were looted and ransacked in the riots were only provided with a maximum payment from the city of $10,000.

Credit: https://www.wsj.com/articles/hundreds-of-new-york-city-businesses-were-damaged-looted-in-recent-unrest-11591993138

Is there a better example that we have lost all common sense?

We hear a lot about racism and race relations today.

You hear some say that it has never been worse.

Is that true? 

Many people apparently believe it.

That group obviously includes younger people who did not see what I did in the 1950's and 1960's.

For example, consider this Gallup survey on race relations.

It does suggest that both White and Black people say race relations have deteriorated over the last decade.

Is there any factual basis that racism has never been worse?

Let's start with a few contrasting numbers.

60 and 2.2. 

Is it just a coincidence that both Whites and Blacks began to believe that race relations were poor at the same time that major media outlets repeated the message more and more?

Source: https://twitter.com/TheRabbitHole84/status/1629797419616698369/photo/1

Is it just a coincidence that shift began in 2013 during the second term of an African American President who was elected using a unifying message but who more often than not governed by highlighting divisions?

In the last decade we have heard how white privilege is responsible for so many problems in the country.

We have heard that white supremacy is the underlying principle behind almost every Republican party policy.

However, considering those narratives, I found this data interesting on how racial groups rate each other.

Credit: https://twitter.com/monitoringbias/status/1629553795242835970

This study suggests that Whites are the least racist group in America.

The study also shows that Whites rate each other lower than any other racial group rates their cohorts---BY FAR.

Whites rate other Whites higher than other racial groups but the difference is miniscule compared to what we see with other racial groups.

It is understandable that Whites would be rated lower by all other minority racial groups since it is the majority race in the United States. All minority groups have undoubtedly experienced some form of racism at some point in their lives. 

However, when you see the next data point is it not logical to wonder if some racism that is perceived by minorities is related to the fact that each minority racial group sees their race or ethnicity as much more central to their identity compared to Whites?

This is particularly true for African Americans.

When a person's identity is tied this strongly to their race or ethnicity it is going to be much more difficult to not see every slight, snub or failure as being the result of racism when that might not be the case at all.

" I didn't get the job because I am Hispanic."

" I got a poor score on the SAT because I am Black."

"That guy would not date me because I am Asian".

As an example, look no further than the comments of Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot after she was defeated in her reelection bid this week.

Source: https://www.nationalreview.com/news/im-a-black-woman-in-america-chicago-mayor-lori-lightfoot-blames-election-loss-on-racism-sexism/

Lightfoot seems incapable of accepting that she was rejected by the voters not because she was a Black woman but because crime is out of control in Chicago and she has done a poor job in managing the city.

Do not think that Whites cannot or have not been deeply committed to ethnicity identity as well.

The Italians, the Irish, the Poles, the Jews and Catholics have all been there before as well. They all were subjected to various forms of discrimination at different times as did many others.

It seems to emanate from the tribal nature that dominated much of human life for centuries and still does in many places around the world.

Our Founders set out "to form a more perfect union" when the nation was conceived. It was not perfect then. It was not perfect in the Civil War era or a hundred years after that. It is not perfect now. However, part of the American experience has been to continue to strive and work everyday to form an even more perfect union.

An objective look at our history suggests that much progress has been made toward a more perfect union over the years.

We might never get to "perfect" but if we can make it more so with each passing generation we will have accomplished more than any other nation in the world has.

When will American become the central identifier of everyone? 

The question that the American people need to answer is whether we believe that this is better achieved by tearing things down and casting blame on others or building on the positives, working cooperatively to fix the negatives and all of us spending more time looking inwards on what we can do to improve the lives of everyone.

Those things are not easily done nor is ignoring the media narratives that feed a lot of the divisions we see in our society today.

If we are to truly be "one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all" we must value those things that unite us and reject those who seek to divide us.

It is the only way forward.

While a lot of people are hoping that Governor Ron DeSantis will seek the Republican nomination for President against Donald Trump, I have found it interesting that among the first to actually announce they are in the race are two Indian Americans.

Former Governor Nikki Haley of South Carolina announced a month ago.

Last week Vivek Ramaswamy, a 37 year-old Harvard and Yale educated entrepreneur, announced he was also running for President.

Both Haley and Ramaswamy are first-generation children of immigrants from India.

It should not be surprising that Indian Americans are challenging for the highest political office in the land since they have long been the ethnic group with the highest annual household income per the American Community Survey completed by the U.S. Census Bureau (2013-2015).

Indian Americans had median incomes that are 79% higher than the average American and 67% more than White Americans.

In the 2019 Survey (the most recent), Indian Americans had increased their median household income to $126,700 compared to the overall population median of $65,700%---93% more.

Source: https://usafacts.org/articles/the-diverse-demographics-of-asian-americans/

Why are Indian Americans doing so well in an American society that we are told is stacked against people of color and immigrants?

70% of Indian American adults are college graduates compared to 28% for the overall population.

Many of those degrees are in higher paying STEM fields.

Nikki Haley's father has a PhD and was a college professor. Her mother earned a law degree in India and a Master's in the United States and was a public school teacher and later owned a local clothing store.

Vivek's father was an engineer for General Electric and his mother was a geriatric psychiatrist in Cincinnati, Ohio where Vivek was born and raised.

Indian Americans are hard working and industrious.

Those who are not in professional positions are often found in entrepreneurial endeavors where these attributes are valued.

For example, 60% of the hotels and motels in the United States are owned by Indian Americans.

Indian Americans are also significant owners of convenience stores and gas stations in the United States.

In many respects, these immigrants personify the American Dream.

Their children are taking the next step in pursuing political power.

Most people have heard of Nikki Haley who was the former Governor of South Carolina and Ambassador to the U.N. in the Trump administration.

Very few have heard of Vivek Ramaswamy.

He is running as a self-described "anti-woke" candidate.

Here is an example of Vivek's positions on some major issues.

Both Haley and Ramaswamy would have to be described as long shots at this point.

However, they both could fill unique niches in the race.

Haley could very well end up being the only female seeking the nomination unless Kristi Noem or Kari Lake decide to enter the race.

My guess is that Haley is positioning herself for a possible VP slot with this run.

Vivek's youth could introduce an interesting contrast to the older candidates.

Could Vivek find a way to connect with the under-40 voter who have heavily voted Democrat for the last 30 years?

Of course, I don't think many people realize that Ron DeSantis is only seven years older than Vivek and he has already been a Governor for four years and a member of the U.S. House of Representatives for almost six years.

It appears to me that Vivek is running for President to enhance his personal brand and to better position himself for a future run for the Senate or Governor in Ohio.

Can Haley and Ramaswamy survive through the early debates and make it to the first primaries in 2024?

That is going to take money which might be difficult to raise running against Trump and DeSantis. Most of the traditional sources are going to be hard to tap.

However, the substantial wealth of the Indian American community (population of 4.5 million) may be able to sustain their efforts better than other candidates who face long odds in this race.

Of course, speaking of long odds, where else in the world would we see children of immigrants in the running to lead their nation?

I am happy to see both Haley and Ramaswamy in the race and how much it says in reaffirming that the American Dream is still very much alive today.

The U.S. Supreme Court held oral arguments on two cases involving the legality of affirmative action in college admissions in October.

A decision is expected in June.

The two cases challenge the affirmative action admissions policies of Harvard University and the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill in providing preferences to Black and Hispanic applicants such that the equal protection rights of Asian American and White applicants were violated in the process.

You can gain some perspective about the plaintiff's argument when you look at the significant disparities in acceptance between Asian and Black applicants at Harvard.

The chart below prepared by the plaintiff's shows the wide disparities in admission rates between similarly qualified applicants by race/ethnicity.

For example, 56% of African Americans in the top decile in its "academic index" were accepted to Harvard compared to just 13% for Asians and 15% for Whites.

Credit: https://twitter.com/TheRabbitHole84/status/1603422765872054273

Another study of the admission policies of seven elite universities quantified the extent to which race impacted SAT scores by calculating what chances of admission would look like with all things being equal..

The study found that Blacks were effectively given a 310 point SAT bonus and Hispanics a 130 point bonus compared to Whites but that Asians were given a 140 point penalty in the admission process.

Credit: https://therabbithole84.substack.com/p/systemic-racism-in-college-campuses

The fundamental question in the affirmative action cases is whether the 14th Amendment which guarantees "any person" ... "equal protection under the laws" applies to everyone or was it just intended primarily to benefit Blacks since it was passed in the aftermath of the Civil War when the focus was clearly to remedy the wrongs of slavery in the southern states.

This is the third time the Supreme Court has considered the question of affirmative action in college admissions.

The first challenge was in the Bakke case that was decided almost 50 years ago ( in 1978) in which the Supreme Court ruled that racial quotas were in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. However, it ruled that universities could use race as a factor in furtherance of a more diverse university community.

25 years later (2003) the Supreme Court revisited the affirmative action question involving the affirmative action policies of the University of Michigan in Grutter v. Bollinger and ruled that an individualized policy that granted preference to candidates based on race that contributed to a racially diverse student body was lawful.

Interestingly, the majority opinion in that case written by Sandra Day O'Conner 20 years ago suggested that the Court did not expect racial preferences to be necessary in another 25 years.

"The Court takes the Law School at its word that it would like nothing better than to find a race-neutral admissions formula and will terminate its use of racial preferences as soon as practicable. The Court expects that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today." 

The Grutter opinion was not satisfactory to many in Michigan and in 2006 an election referendum was passed by the people of the state 58%-42% amending the Michigan Constitution to ban any consideration of race or gender in college and university admissions. 

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld that state ban in a ruling in 2014.

Based on the oral arguments in the recent affirmative action cases held in October, most observers expect that affirmative action admissions policies based on race will be ruled unconstitutional.

What will be most interesting will be seeing what policies (other than race) will the Court potentially suggest are allowable if a university seeks a more diverse student body?

Will socioeconomic factors become most important?

Will universities have to limit legacy admissions to meet diversity objectives?

What effect will all of this have on the overall selectivity and quality of the student body?

You begin to understand the challenge that elite universities have in achieving a diverse student body that reflects our overall society when you look at SAT scores.

The state of Michigan requires all high school seniors to take the SAT exam. Therefore, it provides an unusually representative score sample across a large population base.

The results for the 2022 graduation class are quite interesting.

Here is the breakdown of the scores by race and gender for 2022.

Some observations.

1. An astounding 25% of Asian students who took the test scored at least 1400 on the SAT. This would generally be those students who would have a legitimate chance at being admitted to an elite university based on academic merit.

2. On the other hand, NOT ONE African American in the entire state of Michigan scored at least 1400 on the SAT.

3. Only 1% of Hispanics scored 1400 or better on the SAT.

4. 39% of Blacks scored 790 or below on the SAT compared to 24% of Hispanics, 11% of Whites and just 7% of Asians.

5. 5% of males scored 1400 or better compared to only 3% of females. (See my last blog post "Can We Fool Mother Nature?" for more on the IQ differences between males and females).

This difference in SAT performance is not just isolated to Michigan.

You can see the same overall disparities in data in looking at national 2022 SAT scores.

Despite having a smaller share of the population (there are twice as many Blacks as Asians in the U,S. population), 23x the number of Asian students scored 1400 or higher on the SAT exam than did Black students.

Credit: https://twitter.com/monitoringbias/status/1615772792737202176

These facts are undeniable.

The question is what is the reason for these large difference in SAT scores?

Some argue that standardized tests are inherently biased. They are somehow racially or culturally biased.

However, if that is the case, how is it that Asians and Hispanics (many of who come from immigrant families in which English is not even the primary language) perform better than Blacks?

Is it related to the lack of two-parent households?

Is it the result of socio-economic factors?

Is it due to inferior primary and secondary schools?

What is also undeniable is that the disparity in SAT scores has not really changed in decades despite a lot of talk and billions of dollars being spent to narrow the gap.

For example, the Democrat party platform in 2000 (23 years ago) pledged that by 2004 the achievement gap between students of color and the rest of America's students should be eliminated.

Credit: https://twitter.com/monitoringbias/status/1621714167030857728

The reality is that there has been no real change over the last several decades. The only real difference is the disparity between Asian students and everybody else has just gotten larger.

Credit: https://twitter.com/monitoringbias/status/1621714169723756546

Are there any good answers to fix the achievement gap as the Democrats stated they were going to do 20 years ago?

No.

Today the only answer seems to be to ignore SAT/ACT scores altogether.

I guess the truths in the scores are too inconvenient for college administrators to have to deal with.

A recent survey indicates that 80% of U.S. bachelor-degree granting institutions will not require applicants to submit ACT or SAT exams scores in the admissions process this year.

Source: Forbes.com

Isn't that convenient?

If you have no objective measure to compare applicants it is harder for anyone to question your admission decisions.

It is also ironic in that the SAT was originally developed by Harvard to identify academically gifted boys who did not attend the Eastern boarding schools which were the traditional pipeline to the Ivy League. Harvard wanted to reach out for overlooked talent who did not have the advantages of the well-heeled prepsters but who had the raw academic potential to compete at Harvard even though they might not have had access to first-class high school education.

Of course, the only reason the SAT (or any other standardized test) should be given consideration is if it  can assist in separating the wheat from the chaff.  How do I determine which student is better prepared for college and beyond-the "A" student from the Choate School, Chillicothe, Ohio or South Central LA?  Can it reliably predict college success?

Most studies still indicate the SAT (or ACT) is the best predictive tool we have (even adjusting for socioeconomic status) for academic success in college.

It makes you wonder how disregarding these tests is going to allow colleges to better allocate admission slots for deserving students in under represented groups?

Of course, underlying all of this is the question that no one really wants to discuss.

How much of the disparity in SAT scores (and IQ tests) is not the result of environmental factors such as family situation, socioeconomic status, primary and secondary school resources but is due to raw innate ability?

No one is supposed to go there but there is data suggesting that there are IQ differences related to race/ethnicity.

Others argue that this is completely false and that even IQ scores are affected so much by environmental factors that there is no difference in innate intelligence between different races and ethnicities.

For example, some studies have suggested that Ashkenazi Jews have the highest average IQ of any ethnic or racial group for which reliable data is available. This corresponds to an IQ of 112-115 versus an overall average of 100 for the population at large. A disproportionate number of Nobel prize and chess grandmasters have this ethnicity.

Other studies suggest that East Asians in the United States have an average IQ advantage over Caucasians which have an advantage over Hispanics which have higher average IQ's than African Americans. Of course, the variation in IQ within each group is much greater than between any group.

Here is graphic illustration of the distribution of IQ scores by race ethnicity.

Source: https://twitter.com/PaoloShirasi/status/1547627211728949250

At the 50th percentile, it shows that Asians have a 5-6 point average advantage over Whites. Whites have 10-15 points on Blacks and 8-10 on Hispanics.

The differences in the numbers are real. However, what is the reason?

Is there some genetic component or is it all explained by the environment of the subject individuals within the group?

I don't know the answer.

There may be some general genetic effect but I believe the disparities in IQ scores and SAT scores in particular are affected much more by environmental factors.

Let's assume that Asians have a few points average IQ advantage. That small difference certainly does not explain the massive disparity in SAT performance compared to Whites, Hispanics and Blacks.

What do we typically see in Asian American students?

A strong family support system with two parents in the home.

Parents who prioritize and value the education of their children.

Parents who have high expectations that their children should do well.

As a result, children who put in a lot of time, effort and work to meet those expectations.

I am reminded of an experience with my oldest daughter when she took AP Chemistry in high school.

The lab partner she was assigned to be with the first day of class was reputed to be the smartest student in the school. He was Asian.

He leaned over to my daughter during their first lab assignment and told her that she should not be concerned about any of the lab assignments for the year because he and his father had already done all of the experiments during the previous summer!

Yes, Isaac had some real intelligence.

However, it was complemented with a significant amount of parental support and a willingness to work hard.

Did I prevent my daughter from reaching her full academic potential because I did not call up the Chemistry teacher the previous Spring to get the lab assignments and then work with her during the Summer on her AP Chemistry experiments in advance? I guess I did.

As I stated, I don't know what explains the achievement gaps we see today in education.

However, I do know that the gap has not gotten any better after almost 50 years of affirmative action programs.

iIt has not gotten better despite billions and billions of dollars being spent to close the gap.

It has not gotten better despite thousands and thousands of positions being added in educational administration focused on diversity and inclusion.

I also know that every individual has unique talents, skills and abilities. These talents and skills are not distributed equally. They never were and never will be.

However, I also know that any differences in innate ability and talent are small in relation to what hard work, effort, commitment and dedication can mean to any endeavor. ( See a blog post I wrote on this subject, "Toil,Training and Talent".

The best answer we are being given today about the education achievement gap seems to be that we are going to solve it by ignoring it.  It is not real, or it is racist, or it is irrelevant to one's college and future success.

There seems to be more interest in lowering the bar so that everyone can clear it than doing the hard work of raising people up to meet higher expectations.

I cannot see how this benefits anyone in the end. 

The last time the Supreme Court considered affirmative action 20 years ago it could not conceive that it would still be necessary in another 25 years.  

And that was 25 years after the Supreme Court had to first consider that affirmative action was leading us down a path of reverse discrimination. 

And yet here we are again almost 50 years later.

Too much affirmation. Too little action.

We can only hope that the Supreme Court can craft a decision that gives everybody their best opportunity for equal protection under the law as well as an opportunity to better their lives.

Postscript:

Further to the point that a whole lot of money is being spent and progressive policies implemented to narrow the academic achievement gap of Black students without much to show for it, consider this data from the State of Illinois that lists 53 schools where NOT ONE student can do math at grade level.

Almost all of these are Black majority schools.

In particular, look at the school underlined in red---Williams Medical Prep High School.

Source: https://wirepoints.org/not-a-single-student-can-do-math-at-grade-level-in-53-illinois-schools-for-reading-its-30-schools-wirepoints/

This is the stated mission of Williams Preparatory School of Medicine that is part of the Chicago Public School System.

Source: https://www.dhwprepmed.org/

The annual per pupil spending at Williams Prep is $47,793.

Almost $50,000 is being spent per student and NOT ONE is performing at grade level in Math?

Do you think the mission is being achieved that these student are on their way to top post-secondary schools to pursue careers in the medical professions?

It can only happen with the affirmative action we have today.

There is a lot of talk about gender these days.

It has become popular to state that gender is nothing but a social construct.

Nature, biology or anything beyond what a person feels or believes about their gender is invalid.

This has led us to being told that biological males can compete against females in athletics and men can menstruate.

A Supreme Court Justice in her nomination hearing when asked to provide a definition for the word "woman" stated she could not.

Source: https://nypost.com/2022/03/23/sen-blackburn-slams-judge-jackson-on-definition-of-woman/

We now have the Ecology and Evolutionary Biology (EBB) Language Project stating that science needs to stop using terms like male, female, mother and father.

These terms are not "inclusive" and are "imprecise".

The preferred terms are "sperm producers" and "egg producers" as science should not assume that sex is binary and heterosexuality is the norm.

Left unsaid by these scientists is how humanity survives and is sustained going forward if heterosexuality is not the norm.

Source: The New York Post

Alternatives to terms like “male” and “female” and “mother” and “father” should be sought in science because they assume that sex is binary and heterosexuality is the norm, a group of researchers from the US and Canada suggests.

Male and female should instead be referred to as “sperm-producing” and “egg-producing,” the Ecology and Evolutionary Biology (EEB) Language Project said, according to the Times of London.

Meanwhile, father and mother should be labeled “parent,” “egg donor” and “sperm donor” in the scientific field.

Someone also needs to notify Hallmark to trash those Mother's Day and Father's Day cards and get those "Egg Donor" and "Sperm Donor" cards printed right away. I am sure they will be big sellers.

It seems if we are living through an episode of The Twilight Zone in which we are living in an alternative reality.

We are being told what to believe. However, evidence to the contrary is all around us.

Is it really true that there are no differences between male and females that are hard-wired from birth?

To show how strange it all is I came across this tweet on Twitter recently asking if DNA testing companies makes accommodations for trans people?

.

Source: https://twitter.com/monitoringbias/status/1624101111211733007

The friend is uncomfortable that what "she" believes to be true is not the truth?

Accommodations for DNA?

It is true that all women are not alike, nor are all men. 

If we look at physical attributes alone, there are women that are stronger, faster and more athletic than some men. I don't think many men would want to challenge Brittney Griner to a game of one-on-one basketball, Serena William to a game of tennis or Allyson Felix to a 100-meter dash.  

There are overlapping bell curves with respect to the physical abilities of men and women. Some women will always have better physical abilities than some men.  However, most men will enjoy physical advantages over most women. It is a biological fact.

What about intelligence?

Most studies of IQ tests show that there are little differences in the average IQ between men and women.

However, I was surprised recently when I saw this graphic of the top chess players of all time by rating and gender.

Source: https://twitter.com/monitoringbias/status/1623014046613090322/photo/1

Of the 102 chess players who have achieved a rating of 2650 or higher only one is a female.

That female is Judit Polgar who I have written about in these pages before.

How do you explain the huge difference in chess ability between males and females?

Is it nature? Nurture? Something else altogether?

I recently spent some time looking at the issue of differences in intelligence between males and females.

If you look at the college graduation statistics in the United States you would tend to believe that females have more brain power on their side.

For example, since 1982, females have earned 13.7 million more college degrees than males. 

Source: https://twitter.com/monitoringbias/status/1623382796029857793

When I looked into the question further I found that while the average IQ of men and women is about the same, there is a significant difference in the distribution of intelligence.

Female intelligence is clustered around the mean. However, male intelligence varies greatly across the spectrum. 

This graphic shows the different bell curves comparing men and women regarding IQ distribution.

Women are grouped very tightly around the mean. Men have far fewer around the mean with many more well below and well above average.

Walter Block in an article "The Truth About Gender IQ Differences" had this observation about a possible reason for why the distribution of IQ might be this way.

Differences such as these are often chalked up to cultural sexism, but the reality is that such imbalance is most likely biological. It is almost as if men are nature’s crapshoot, while women are assigned the role of insurance. Consider the biological role of women to give birth, and what it would have done to the population throughout history if the grouping of women around the mean were reversed. The population would be in trouble. More women at the extreme low end of the IQ curve would mean more that are not capable of bringing up the next generation. They would have been too busy occupying the mental institutions, jails, or living homeless on the street. More genius women on the extreme high end of the IQ would mean more drawn into demanding professions and less available for motherhood.

This is undoubtedly not a popular opinion to voice in today's world.

However, take another look at the graphic above.

That graph is not the product of someone's imagination. Those are FACTS. 

Perhaps the fact that there are more men than women who are chess grandmasters, Nobel laureates in physics, chemistry and economics, and winners of the Fields medal in mathematics is not due to systemic sexism.

The same is true for why we see many more males than females who are homeless, in jail, or living in mental institutions.

When you also consider the fact that it has also been shown in studies that there is a pretty close relationship between cognitive ability and wages this may also explain some of the gender disparities in income that are reported.

Source: https://academic.oup.com/esr/advance-article/doi/10.1093/esr/jcac076/7008955?login=false

Interestingly, this study indicates that the cognitive ability/wage advantage plateaued at around the 90th percentile. Those in the top 1% in wages actually scored slightly worse in cognitive ability than those in the income strata right below them.

What does Block say about the relationship of IQ and incomes?

Suppose that what I’ve said about male versus female IQ distribution is correct. Is it better to share this information with women so they are cognizant of it? Or to keep it from them by cancelling all who espouse it, and to let women continue to think they are kept out of top jobs because of sexism? At present, we seem to be adopting the latter course of action.

Unlike the West, the Chinese aren’t burdened by woke theories of gender imbalances caused by alleged sexism. We are, therefore weakening ourselves in competition with them if we continue promoting these ideas. Furthermore, if there must be 50 percent of females in the America’s laboratories to ensure fairness, instead of this proportion being determined on the basis of merit, accomplishments, and skill, then our quest to cure COVID, cancer, and other such diseases will become just that much more unlikely.

Diversity is a strength when the unique talents, abilities and attributes of individuals are utilized in a way to maximize the outcomes of the group as a whole.

It is not a strength when it is used indiscriminately in a misguided attempt to achieve "equity" between  individuals when basic truths about the unique talents, abilities and attributes of those individuals are ignored.

It is popular to tell women today that male patriarchy is responsible for women not being able to achieve their rightful positions in society. 

This undoubtedly was true in the past.

However, is it true today?

Consider this comparison of men/boys and girls/women on a number of dimensions.

Females outnumber males on most of the positive dimensions.

100 women earn a doctor's degree for every 85 men.

100 women earn a bachelor's degree for every 74 men.

100 women earn a master's degree for every 65 men.

Men outnumber women on most of the negative dimensions.

145 boys for every 100 girls have to repeat kindergarten.

291 males for every 100 females are expelled from public schools.

1,314 men are incarcerated in state and federal prisons for every 100 women.

Credit: https://twitter.com/monitoringbias/status/1624666618566529026/photo/1

Is this evidence of a male patriarchy?

Is this all due to a social construct?

Might there be something that relates to nature and science that explains all of this? 

Can we fool Mother Nature?

For the most part we are not hearing much about Covid in the news these days.

We are more likely to hear about inflation, Ukraine or Chinese balloons.

Several BeeLine readers reached out and asked that I provide an update on what I see going on with Covid.

Part of my daily routine for the last several years is to look at the most recent national Covid data as reported by The New York Times.

The good news is that confirmed cases have been trending down and we are at lower levels in the United States than at the same time in 2021 or 2022.

Source: The New York Times

Is this due to the vaccines or is it the result of increasing natural immunity?

Interestingly, a large percentage of the U.S. population seems to have decided that they are done with additional vaccine doses.

83% of the population have received no doses of the vaccine since June, 2022.

Only 16% have received the bivalent booster that is supposed to be effective against the Omicron variant.

Credit: https://twitter.com/Humble_Analysis/status/1623866871601844224

A large percentage of people have clearly reached their own conclusion that the vaccine is not going to prevent them from getting Covid or transmitting the virus despite what they were told when many were mandated to get it or lose their jobs.

Of course, we still hear that the vaccine will prevent severe disease and keep you out of the hospital.

However, the current data on hospitalizations raises questions about that assertion.

The highest rates of Covid hospitalizations right now are almost all in states with the highest vaccination rates.

Source: The New York Times

Is this merely a coincidence?

We have also recently seen Dr. Anthony Fauci co-authoring an article in a scientific journal which effectively admits that flu and Covid vaccines have proven to be very ineffective at preventing infection and disease.

Regarding the flu vaccines that Fauci and the CDC push every year.

“After more than 60 years of experience with influenza vaccines, very little improvement in vaccine prevention of infection has been noted… our best approved influenza vaccines would be inadequate for licensure for most other vaccine-preventable diseases.” 

The best approved influenza viruses would be inadequate for licensure under the same standards for other vaccine-preventable diseases?

That does not inspire a lot of confidence in the benefits of the product. 

Fauci and his co-authors see the same problem with the Covid vaccines.

"As variant SARS-CoV-2 strains have emerged, deficiencies in these [Covid] vaccines reminiscent of influenza vaccines have become apparent."

This admission is coming from the same guy who once stated that if you got the Covid vaccine you became a "dead end" for Covid and was a leading proponent for mandates.

“When you get vaccinated, you not only protect your own health and that of the family, but also you contribute to the community health by preventing the spread of the virus throughout the community,” Fauci continued. “In other words, you become a dead end to the virus. And when there are a lot of dead ends around, the virus is not going to go anywhere. And that’s when you get a point that you have a markedly diminished rate of infection in the community.”

How could someone that was supposed to know so much be so wrong?

And if Fauci knew all of this (or should have known based on prior experience) why did he push the draconian vaccine mandates so forcefully?

Last week also saw the release of a study by the Cochrane Institute---the gold standard of evidence-based reviews--- of 78 global studies involving the effectiveness of masks on preventing Covid.

The conclusion was that masks "made little or no difference" in Covid infection or death rates.

Surgical masks provided, at most, a 5% reduction in risk. That benefit was considered too small to be statistically significant. N95 masks offered best protection but did not consider possible harms.

Credit: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-11702865/Masks-make-little-no-difference-Covid-infections-massive-cross-country-meta-analysis-finds.html

This suggests that if someone felt the need to wear a mask on their own there may be some marginal benefit.

However, there is no basis in science that widespread masking provides any community or societal benefit. 

If you want to see a real-life example of the considerable limitations in the vaccines and masks in preventing Covid you only need to look at the experience of Japan.

Japan is one of the most vaccinated countries in the world.

Japan has injected 50% more vaccine doses into its citizenry than the United States.

It is also one of the most mask-compliant nations on earth. They have had almost 100% mask compliance indoors for over two years.

The odd thing is that Japan had relatively few Covid infections until after the vaccines were introduced.

What is worse is that 89% of Japan's Covid deaths have come after the introduction of the vaccines.

Unfortunately, deaths have been accelerating in Japan the last several months especially with its large, aged population.

Recall that Japan was the first country outside of China to get global attention when the Diamond Princess cruise ship docked in Yokohama in February, 2020. 

Despite that early potential exposure to the virus it was not until after millions and millions of doses of the vaccine had been administered that it has seen the most ravaging effects of the virus.

Does any of this make sense based on what we were told by so-called "experts" like Dr. Fauci?

It seems to be no different than much of what has occurred with Covid over the last three years.

Since Russia invaded Ukraine almost one year ago a major question has been how much military and monetary support should the United States and European countries be providing to support Ukraine?

The Kiel Institute has been tracking the military and financial aid that other countries have been providing Ukraine since the beginning of 2022.

The United States has been contributing the bulk of the military assistance.

Credit: https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/

However, this chart does not begin to show the full level of commitments the United States has made to Ukraine.

The chart above only reflects what was actually spent in Ukraine by November, 2022.

The fact is that Congress approved $113 billion of aid to Ukraine in 2022 that included almost $50 billion in the year-end Omnibus appropriations package in December.

Source: https://www.crfb.org/blogs/congress-approved-113-billion-aid-ukraine-2022

Since Russia launched its invasion of Ukraine less than one year ago, Congress has approved more than $113 billion of aid and military assistance to support the Ukrainian government and allied nations. The Fiscal Year (FY) 2023 omnibus appropriations package included an additional $47.3 billion of emergency funding to provide humanitarian, military, and economic assistance to Ukraine on top of the $65.8 billion of funding already approved in three other emergency funding packages enacted by Congress.

This is the detail of all of the authorized amounts.

The bottom line is that about twice as much has already been authorized for Ukraine over and above what has already been spent.

This would suggest that the war in Ukraine is not going to end soon because of a lack of war funding. The United States is making sure of that.

The question remains as to whether Ukraine will run out of personnel to fight the war before it runs out of money.

Ukraine only has a population of about 44 million. Russia has 144 million.

Russia has over four times the male fighting-age population of Ukraine.

Source:https://ifstudies.org/blog/the-demography-of-war-ukraine-vs-russia

Even before the war started, both Russia and Ukraine had bleak demographic futures due to low fertility rates.

It takes a fertility rate of 2.1 to maintain a stable population.

Source: https://ifstudies.org/blog/the-demography-of-war-ukraine-vs-russia

Based on these rates, the projection was that Ukraine's population would shrink by over half over the next generation or two and Russia would lose 25% of its population even before their young men began dying in this war.

The human toll that the war is having on Russia and Ukraine is only going to make matters worse for the future of these two countries.

Reliable assessments of casualties for both Ukraine and Russia in the war are difficult to come by. Almost everything out there is a raw estimate or guess.

The New York Times reported recently that senior American officials believe that Russia has suffered close to 200,000 dead and wounded in the conflict. Those same officials place Ukraine casualties at over 100,000 and another 30,000 dead civilians.

However, a Turkish paper citing Israeli intelligence sources, puts Ukraine's losses as much greater.

It puts Ukraine war deaths at 157,000 with another 234,000 injured.

That report estimates only 18,480 Russians have been killed in action.

Credit: https://twitter.com/MarkACollett/status/1622231862335897602

I would view that report skeptically as I would the other estimates.

Neither Russia or Ukraine is willing to share any accurate information.

However, it is clear that both Russia and Ukraine forces have undoubtedly seen a lot of blood shed over the last year in this conflict.

It is also clear that this war only continues because the United States wants it to continue.

Yes, the United States wants to assist Ukraine in defending itself. However, the United States is most interested in using this war to weaken Russia militarily and financially.

Former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett revealed last week that he attempted to broker a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine early in the war but the United States stopped the efforts.

He subsequently walked back his comments after they got a great deal of attention by stating that he was not sure any deal could have been made anyway.

Add to this the reporting of Pulitzer Prize winning reporter Seymour Hersh who published a bombshell report this week that the Nord Stream pipeline explosions of last September were part of a CIA operation under the direction of Joe Biden.

Why would Biden do this?

Hersh explained it this way, " As long as Europe remained dependent on the pipelines for cheap natural gas, Washington was afraid that countries like Germany would be reluctant to supply Ukraine with the money and weapons it needed to defeat Russia."

The White House has responded to the reporting of Hersh by calling it "utterly false and complete fiction".

Has Hersh slandered Biden with false allegations or is Biden one step removed from being impeached for provoking a war with Russia?

Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) suggests Biden may have huge problems ahead.

It is almost laughable to think that the Democrats impeached Donald Trump over a phone call with the Ukrainian President in which he released the entire transcript and then compare that to these allegations.

Hersh says Biden was concerned that if Nord Stream continued to supply Europe with cheap natural gas that they would not be willing to supply the money and weapons to defeat Russia?

The fact is that the United States has been supplying more of each to Ukraine than Europe has in any event.

A big problem for Europe is that it has little in the way of military weaponry to provide to Ukraine.

Let's look at the issue of tanks which is the latest hot button issue regarding military hardware to Ukraine.

Most European countries have been dragging their feet on providing tanks to Ukraine.

If you look at the data it is understandable.

Most European countries have spent very little on military hardware which is a point that Donald Trump made over and over to other NATO countries when he was President.

They neglected spending money on their own defense instead relying on the United States to be their defender of last resort.

Consider this graphic of "Combat Tank Fleet Strength by Country-2023".

I guess they were counting on Poland's 569 tanks to put up resistance until the United States could get its tanks and troops in place.

The tragedy in all of this is that when all is said and done in this war it is hard to believe that Russia will not end up retaining Crimea and be in control of some of the Donbas region of Ukraine that borders Russia. This region was generally controlled by Russian separatists groups even before the Russian invasion. The people in this region also principally speak Russian.

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60938544

Putin's pretext for the invasion was that Russia needed to protect these people from Ukrainian persecution. Before the war, a good number of the people in this region were considered pro-Russian. However, a Ukrainian opinion poll (take it for what it is) stated that 82% of those in the territories seized by the Russians early in the war now had a negative attitude toward Moscow.

The tanks that the United States, Germany and other European countries are going to supply to Ukraine is another escalation in the war.

It is certain that more death and destruction will follow as fighting intensifies with the coming of Spring in Ukraine.

Biden seems intent to keep upping the ante in Ukraine.

Perhaps we can expel the Russians from every part of Ukraine and depose Putin as a result.

That seems like a bad bet as I assess the odds.

However, even if Biden wins that bet, what will be left of Ukraine in the end?

All signs point to Ukraine losing even if they win.

How do they recover? How do they rebuild? How do they repopulate?

A mere pawn in a much bigger game of chess.

The Ford Model T was the first vehicle that was mass produced for a wide audience.

A Model T cost $280 in 1924.

1924 Model T Touring Car Source: https://www.thehenryford.org/collections-and-research/digital-collections/artifact/159025/

The average assembly line worker in that era could purchase a Model T with four month's pay.

The Ford Motor Company reported its 2022 financial results last week.

I was interested to see in that report that its average vehicle sales price in the fourth quarter was $56,143!

We are not talking about Mercedes Benz, Lexus or Tesla here.

We are talking about Ford.

Customers paid an average of $56,143 for company vehicles in the fourth quarter, about 10% more than the previous year, according to Edmunds.com. Many of those sales were high-end trucks and SUVs.

In 2017, Ford's average sales price was $40,000. 

Ford's biggest money maker is the Ford F-150 pickup truck.

2023 Ford F-150 Platinum Credit: https://www.ford.com/trucks/f150/models/f150-platinum/

The average sales price for the F-150 in the fourth quarter was $65,858.

That was just short of the average transaction price for Ford's Lincoln nameplate at $66,124.

The truck pictured above has a MSRP base price of $64,695.

The median American worker made $54,132 annually in 2022.

That means that in 2022 it took a full year's income for over half of all workers to pay for the average Ford vehicle while 100 years ago an assembly line worker could buy a Model T with four month's of pay.

Of course, that overall median pay does not begin to take account of varying incomes by age, occupation and educational attainment.

$56,000 for an average Ford?

At current interest rates, even with a 60-month loan term, that is a monthly payment in excess of $1,100/month.

Source: Calculator.net

Add to this the news last week that the US personal savings rate is close to 70 year lows after being at record highs two years ago.

Credit card debt in the fourth quarter, 2022 also increased 18.5% over the last year to a new record high $930.6 billion.

The average credit card balance that card holders are carrying over is now $5,805.

At nearly 20% (the current average credit care interest rate), if you made minimum payments toward this average credit card balance, it would take you more than 17 years to pay off the debt and cost you more than $8,213 in interest, Bankrate calculated.

Credit: https://twitter.com/KapustaGroup/status/1621611766454140928/photo/1

How is any of this sustainable?

This is progress?

Now that the House of Representatives have a majority of Republicans the issue of extending the current debt ceiling of $31.4 trillion has taken center stage.

House Republicans have indicated they are not willing to increase the debt ceiling unless Biden and the Democrats will commit to some cuts in federal spending.

Biden has stated he expects the Republicans to raise the debt limit without any conditions and is unwilling to negotiate on the issue. 

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/01/us/politics/biden-mccarthy-debt-limit.html

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

You can see how how the the federal debt and the debt ceiling have increased over the years in this graphic.

Total federal debt has increased by $7 trillion in the last three years.

$10 trillion in the last five years.

Over $25 trillion in the last 20 years.

This chart puts all of it in a little better context.

Credit: https://twitter.com/WallStreetSilv/status/1620286659765088256/photo/1

It is popular for Democrats to blame every fiscal problem of the federal government on "tax cuts".

All would be just fine if we all paid ( especially "the rich" and "those large corporations") more in taxes.

For example, here is Senator Elizabeth Warren stating that the "Trump tax cuts" are the reason that the debt ceiling needs to be increased.

Listening to Warren you would think that tax receipts are down.

The fact is that those tax law changes facilitated one of the largest increases in federal tax revenues in history. 

Source: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/W006RC1Q027SBEA

Were it not for the pandemic the effects of the increased revenues would have undoubtedly been felt earlier and in larger measure.

Do not be misled that this increase in tax receipts is somehow related to the tax increases that Biden and the Democrats passed as part of the Inflation Reduction Act last year.

Almost all of Biden's proposals to repeal the Trump tax cuts on corporations and those making more than $400,000 did not make it into the final legislation that was passed.

Any tax increases that survived were generally not effective until January 1, 20223 or were tied to the increased IRS enforcement measures in the bill (87,000 new IRS employees) to have effect in later years.

This chart also only shows revenues through July, 2022.

On the other hand, here is a chart showing current government expenditures.

You can see the massive Covid spending spikes.

However, notice that even though most of that spending has now ended the level of spending has resumed at a much higher level than it was before.

Source: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FGEXPND

Since the Trump tax cuts took effect in the first quarter of 2018, current federal tax receipts have increased by $1.2 trillion (+ 60% increase).

However, federal current expenditures have increased by $1.8 trillion over the same period.

When it comes to our federal deficit and the need to borrow more and more money to fund the debt, do we have a bigger spending problem or revenue problem?

The annual federal deficit has increased by over $600 billion per year because spending increases are outpacing the significant increases in tax receipts.

Many liberal Democrats argue that the debt level does not matter.

Some have embraced Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) that contends that the government can spend as much as it wants on various projects because it can always print more money to pay for its agenda.

That was the basis upon which much of the spending during the Covid pandemic was based. 

However, MMT ran up against the basic laws of economics involving supply and demand. When there is a lot of something, it is less valuable. Massively increasing the supply of money in the economy  decreases the value of said money.

Inflation is the inevitable result and predictably this is where we have ended up.

The Federal Reserve is now engaged in a battle to tame inflation by increasing interest rates.

However, with every tick up in interest rates, the cost to carry that $31.4 trillion of debt gets more expensive.

For most of the last decade, although the federal debt level was increasing, the interest expense on carrying the debt was relatively stable as interest rates were declining. 

In December, 2022, the average interest rate paid on that debt was 2.36%.

In 2021, it was only 1.57%.

In this FRED chart you can already seen the significant increase in interest outlays in the federal budget due to the interest rate increases in 2022.

Source: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYOINT

As more short-term, low interest rate debt rolls off and is replaced with higher interest rates, the cost of carrying the federal debt will get more expensive.

For example, about $7 million of debt held by the public must be refinanced during fiscal 2023 at higher interest rates.

With $30 trillion of federal debt consider what the additional costs to the federal budget are on each additional increase of 1% in the average interest rate.

+1% in average interest rate=$300 billion in additional interest expense on federal debt

+2% in average interest rate=$600 billion

+3% in average interest rate=$900 billion

An increase of 3% points from 2021 levels still only gets us to an average interest rate on the debt of 4.6%.

That is still less than the average interest rate being paid on federal debt in early 2008.

In 2000 and 2001 the U.S. was paying an average interest rate of about 6.6% on its debt. That is 500 basis points (5% points) higher than we paid last year.

What would have to be done in the federal budget to pay for another $300, $600 or $900 billion in interest costs?

The entire Defense Department budget is around $700 billion.

Simply stated, it would not take much for increased interest costs to wipe out the entire Defense Department budget.

Medicare is budgeted at $766 billion in 2022.

Social Security is at $1.2 trillion.

Higher interest rates on the federal debt threatens to crowd out much of other budget items unless spending is brought under control.

If you don't want to consider spending cuts to get the federal budget under control what is left?

I think we all know.

It does not matter how much tax revenues go up. It is never enough. It will never be enough.

Hold on to your wallet.

In my last blog post I wrote about the fact that almost 50% of the American adult population is now single.

This is undoubtedly the highest percentage in history.

37% of men and 31% of women have never been married. 

Single people are alone a lot more than couples.

Human beings were designed to be social.

Societies from the beginning of time have been built upon families, tribes, groups and human relationships.

For most of history these relationships were a critical element in survival. Those that did congregate and collaborate were at much greater risk.

Large families were a necessary component in all of this to provide for a division of labor so that the family unit could survive and prosper.

This folk art painting depicting a wheat harvest in the 1800's shows the close collaboration necessary to put food on the table in years past.

Credit: https://www.etsy.com/listing/263146467/folk-art-print-primitive-wheat-field

However, as economies and technology advanced, families and relationships have suffered.

Collaboration is still critical for survival. In fact, people in modern society are more dependent on it than ever. They are reliant on a vast infrastructure to provide for their daily needs--food, water, energy, clothing etc. However, it is provided, by and large, anonymously without requiring human interaction or relations to the end consumer.

You now put food on the kitchen table by picking what you want off the shelf in grocery stores selected among aisles and aisles of foodstuffs.

There is no need to even interact with a cashier when you checkout.

Credit: https://www.bizjournals.com/bizwomen/news/latest-news/2021/02/kroger-tests-all-self-checkout-store.html

Of course, we have now reached the point where you don't even have to enter the store. Fill out your grocery order online and an anonymous person selects your produce and someone else puts it into your car or delivers it to your door.

A lot of human interaction and relationships have been lost.

Why is this important?

Studies have shown that rates of anxiety and depression have increased by 70% over the last 25 years.

The rates have increased most among the young.

For example, this chart is from a study on how rates of anxiety by age groups changed between 2008 and 2018.

Rates of anxiety almost doubled in the 18-25 age group in the decade studied. Rates in the age 26-34 age cohort were up more than 50% while older age groups were relatively stable.

Source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022395620309250

Here is chart from another study that shows the prevalence of depression by age group cohort.

Our young are most particularly at risk in the impersonal world driven by technology. 

Source: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Prevalence-of-Depression-by-Age-Cohort-and-Gender-At-Most-Recent-Survey_fig1_264623036

Notice as well that levels of depression are generally higher in younger females than any other age group.

What do you think the odds are that the significant decline in the number of close friends that people report having has been a major contributing factor in increased levels of anxiety and depression?

Source: https://twitter.com/ReubenR80027912/status/1597303723054665728

Of course, the negative trends on human relationships and socialization were exacerbated further during the pandemic due to the lockdowns, school closures and mandates.

Look at what happened to the hours of who Americans reported they spent time with between 2013 and 2021. 

Time alone was the big winner by far.

Credit: https://twitter.com/DKThomp/status/1597299988626780162/photo/1

Time spent with others plummets followed by a surge of anxiety and depression?

Do you think this is a coincidence?

In this blog over the last few year I have observed several times about the curious fact that there is such a heavy representation of young, single, college-educated white women in the Black Lives Matter, Antifa and other far left movements.

It defies logic.

How is defunding the police or emptying prisons going to make single women feel more secure?

How is allowing a biological male to use a women's restroom going to make her feel safer?

How does allowing biological males to compete with females in athletics advance the opportunities for women?

Is there any group today that feels more lonely, is more misunderstood and wants to belong than young, single, college-educated white women? 

Many have no man in their life. There are no children or likely prospects that marriage or children will occur soon due to the imbalance between male and female college graduates. They live in rental apartments in large cities leading hectic, anonymous lives with little sense of community and huge sums of student loan debt.

The picture below is one that I referenced in these pages in 2021 when I was discussing this issue.

How many young, white women do you see in this picture supporting BLM's calls to defund the police?

How many Blacks do you see in the picture?

How do you make sense of it?

You can't. It is not logical.

The best answer I have seen is from  relationship counselor Suzanne Venker that all of this can be traced to a need to belong in these young women.

These women have a void in their life and are looking to fill it with something that they believe has meaning even if it is antithetical to their own interests, security and future.

The need to belong is more important than facts or logic to these young women.

The need to belong is just that fierce and strong, particularly for vulnerable folks who feel lonely or misunderstood.

It's happening right now with the Black Lives Matter movement. It's not about the fact that black lives matter, with which no sane person would disagree. A simple search of their own website will tell you its goals: to "disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure" and to "foster a queer‐affirming network."

But doing research or thinking critically about any idea or movement is threatening to what so many people want. These folks aren't interested in the truth. They don't want the facts. What they want is to belong.

Is it also a coincidence that so many young, white liberal females have been given a diagnosis by a healthcare provider that they have a mental condition?

56.3% of 18-29 white liberal females are in that category.

Source: https://www.eviemagazine.com/post/over-50-percent-white-liberal-women-under-30-mental-health-condition

The single, young white females typically vote Democrat at least 2/3 of the time according to most exit polls.

Unmarried women of all ages and races voted 68%-31% for the Democrat in House races in 2022.

Married women overall voted 56%-42% for Republicans.

Source: https://www.cnn.com/election/2022/exit-polls/national-results/house

One final factoid that gets us back to where we started.

Women who are married are much, much happier than women who are single.

Women who have had children are also happier than those who are childless. 

Source: https://ifstudies.org/blog/shrinking-american-motherhood-1-in-6-women-in-their-40s-have-never-given-birth-

Contrast the percentage of women who say they are "very happy" at all ages between those married with children and those unmarried and childless.

Why is it a problem that there are so many single people in the United States today?

Why is it a problem that the birth rates have been dropping for years?

These are both having the effect of further destabilizing our society by interfering with the necessary social and relationship infrastructure.

Human beings are social animals.

They need meaningful human connections and relationships in their lives to thrive.

In families, In friendships. In day to day life.

God established a natural order in his design for humans to live happy and fulfilled lives

Men and Women each bringing their unique gifts to society.

Marriage and commitment between men and women.

Children born of those unions.

Families supporting each other.

Supportive friends and communities built on a bedrock of values, beliefs and faith.

Do you want to know why everything seems off these days?

The natural order has become unordered.

Don't take my word for it.

What do the facts and data say about it?

Almost 50% of the American adult population is single.

That is undoubtedly the highest percentage in history.

Over 37% of men have never been married. That number is only 31% for women.

On the other hand, women are over three times more likely to have been widowed.

Source: https://www.census.gov/newsroom/stories/unmarried-single-americans-week.html

Source: https://www.census.gov/newsroom/stories/unmarried-single-americans-week.html

Only 34% of Blacks are married.

61% of Asians, 46% of Hispanics and 53% of Whites are married.

It is probably not surprising that out of wedlock births generally track the marital status by race.

70% of African American babies are born to unmarried women. Less than 12% of Asian babies are.

The median age of first marriages has increased pretty dramatically since the 1950's and 1960's.

Source: https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/visualizations/time-series/demo/families-and-households/ms-2.pdf

Women married on average around age 20 in that era.

The median age for women marrying today is eight years later.  

For men, the median age for a first marriage is now over age 30.

I have a lot of friends with daughters in their 30's who are not yet married. These are for the most part attractive, college-educated women. They have good jobs and are interested in finding the right guy. The common complaint is there are not enough quality young men 

It is not an imaginary concern.

I have written before about the worrying imbalance between men and women who are college-educated.

Why is that a problem?

Women have historically tended to date and marry men of at least equal educational attainment. However, that is becoming an increasingly difficult goal today. Almost 60% of college graduates are now women. Only 40% are men. This is true for almost all college degree programs. Doctorate degrees are a little more balanced but women still earn more than half of those degrees.

This translates into the fact that many women below the age of 40 are earning more than their male counterparts because of the educational imbalance. 

You would think that it shouldn't matter but it seems that it is pretty important.

CNBC.com wrote about the problem in a story titled "Millennial women are 'worried', 'ashamed' of out-earning boyfriends and husbands" about five years ago.

There is also data that supports the fact that when the woman earns more than the man in the marriage, the odds of the marriage ending in divorce increases.

The problem is that even though the world has changed our basic biology and the way the male and female brains are wired has not changed with it. There are primal emotions deep within us that dictate a lot about what we are looking for in a mate.

Many marriage experts will tell you that the most important factor that a woman is looking for in a husband is security. Women want to feel secure that they will be protected and cared for. Men, on the other hand, are looking most for respect. They want to have the respect of their wife.

Do you see a potential problem when the wife is out-earning the husband in the house considering these underlying factors in marriage involving men and women? How does the wife feel secure? How does the husband feel respected?

Where does that leave a young woman in her 30's looking for a tall, dark, handsome and financially stable potential mate in the dating scene today?

I recently came across a website that calculates the odds that a woman can find the man of their dreams based on various parameters (age, race, height and income) in the U.S. Census Bureau data.

For example, let's take a 30's something young woman who is looking for an unmarried male (any race) between the ages of 30-45, at least 6 feet tall and making at least $80k.

The probability that a guy between the ages of 30-45 meets those standards is 1.3%.

Source: https://igotstandardsbro.com/

If you limit the search to just white men in that age range the probability drops to 1.0%.

If you are willing to accept someone making $40k the odds increase to 2.7%.

If you are willing to accept someone who is at least 5'7" tall and making $40k that is going to describe 10.3% of the men in that age range.

Saying that it is hard for a woman in her 30's to find the man of her dreams is not in her imagination.

There is also a calculator that men can use called the Male Reality Calculator.

A 40 year male is not immune from the laws of probability when it comes to finding a woman of his dreams if their standards are too high.

A 40-year old male who is looking for a single woman without children between the ages of 25-40, between 4' 11" and 5'8'', not overweight, and making at least $80k per year (so there is a chance they have been paying their student debt off) has worse odds than the 30's age woman.

.601%. That is well less than 1 in 100 odds.

Source: https://realitycalc.com/

To put those odds in perspective, compare that probability to a 65-year old widow who is looking for a 60-80 year old male that has income of at least $100,000.

This traditionally is thought to be a very tough spot for for a woman to be in looking for a mate. There are many more women in this age demographic compared to men based on longevity tables.

However, the 65-year widow's probability to find the ideal man is over three times better than the 40-year guy above with the standards he has on his list.

Source: https://igotstandardsbro.com/

If the 40-year is willing to consider a female who is overweight (but not obese) and makes at least $60k per year he can increase his odds to those of the 65 year old widow above.

Source: https://realitycalc.com/

To those of you blessed to have your soul mate with you, give them an extra big hug today. 

You won a major life lottery.

For others, reality bites at times. The playing field is not level. It never was. It never will be.

However, the beauty of probabilities is that it only takes ONE to be the ONE.

Never lose hope.

At the same time, understand your reality and make decisions that are not based on delusions.

When thinking about reality it also makes sense for a lot more young people to be looking to be getting married in their 20's than in their 30's.

It has become popular for many to say they want to focus on their career or play the field before thinking about settling down.

However, the reality is that the person you marry, or who becomes the mother or father of your child, is the most important decision you will make in your life. It is more important than your career or any wild oats you sowed along the way.

The probabilities are much greater that you will find THE ONE the earlier you are open to the possibility. 

Make the numbers work in your favor.

Antifa is at it again.

Credit: Reuters via https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11662679/Chaos-Atlanta-Antifa-rioters-torch-cars-set-fireworks-outside-Police-Foundation-building.html

So is the mainstream media in downplaying the activities of these domestic terrorists.

Nothing says peaceful like a police car on fire, rocks thrown though windows and painted obscenities on buildings on Peachtree Street in Atlanta.

Of course, we have seen this before.

Remember the coverage in Kenosha, WI by CNN in 2020?

Fires raging all around in the "mostly peaceful protest" as reported by CNN.

Of course, who can forget the months of protests and violence in Portland in 2020 with calls to defund the police and remove all federal law enforcement from the city.

By now I would think that Antifa and "peaceful protest" would have to be considered mutually exclusive terms,

At the time we were told that Antifa was motivated to action because of the fascist and racist President of the United States at the time.

We were told that all would be fine if Donald Trump was just removed from office.

So much for that excuse.

You might also recall that FBI Director Christopher Wray testified before a House committee in 2020 that Antifa was simply an ideology, not an organization or group.

Source: https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-ap-top-news-elections-james-comey-politics-bdd3b6078e9efadcfcd0be4b65f2362e

“It’s not a group or an organization. It’s a movement or an ideology.”

A bunch of people show up in Portland, Kenosha or Atlanta wearing all black, wielding weapons and carrying incendiary materials and they are just random ideologues out for an evening stroll?

This is the conclusion of our Federal Bureau of Investigation?

I am curious how is it that if Antifa is just an ideology why so many ideologues happen to show up randomly at appointed times and places if there is no group and no organization?

Let's take a look at the six people arrested in Atlanta Saturday night.

None of the six arrested were from Atlanta. Five were from out of state.

How did they decide to come to Atlanta? 

Where did they get the money to travel to Atlanta?

How are they supporting themselves?

Here are the six who were arrested in Atlanta on Saturday night.

Evatt is from Decatur, Georgia. The only one of those arrested from in-state.

Geier is from Nashville, TN.

Feola is from Spokane, WA.

Ferguson is from Nevada.

Murphy is from Grosse Ile, MI.

Carrol is from Kennebunkport, ME where his father is reportedly a prominent surgeon. When arrested on Saturday night Carrol was already out on bail for a previous arrest for domestic terrorism.

Yes, just a few random folks with shared ideologies out for a Saturday evening walk.

Another seven individuals (note they were all young, white (single?) females ) were arrested earlier in the week (when most that age are working for a living) after throwing rocks at police and possessing what appeared to be Molotov cocktails.

Several times in these pages (here, here and here) I have written about the curious fact that so many of those in the BLM, Antifa and other far left protests are young, white women.

Why?

Those young women who were arrested were from places like Pennsylvania, New York, Maryland, Virginia, Rhode Island, Minnesota and Tennessee.

What group?

What organization?

Nothing to see here.

Let me remind you that all of this stems from the plans of the Atlanta Police Department to simply build a police training center in suburban Cobb County. Both environmental extremists and Antifa have found it objectionable. Tensions escalated at the site when one of the protestors was killed by police after allegedly shooting a Georgia Highway Patrol officer. This led to the "peaceful protest" by random ideologues in downtown Atlanta on Saturday night. 

You may recall that Donald Trump was roundly criticized by the media and others when he referred to Antifa as domestic terrorists and that the organization should be labeled a domestic terrorist organization.

Source: https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2020/06/02/designating-antifa-domestic-terrorist-organization-dangerous-threatens-civil-liberties

It was after these statements by Trump that FBI Director Wray pushed back and said there was no Antifa group or organization that could be called domestic terrorists.

Source: https://globalnews.ca/news/7342966/chris-wray-fbi-antifa/

However, Wray had no problem using the term "domestic terrorism" when it came to January 6th.

Source: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-live-fbi-chief-chris-wray-to-face-questions-about-extremism-capitol-riot

We also never heard the term "mostly peaceful" from the media on January 6th either.

There are a lot of problems in this country right now.

However, right at the top of the list are the double standards we see applied by the media in news coverage and in the administration of justice from the highest levels of our federal government.

Why is it also true that the truth is right in front of our eyes with so many things but there are so few willing to admit seeing it?

Every time I think I will not see something crazier come out of California I am proven wrong.

That goes double for when it comes to San Francisco. Insanity seems to rule there.

The latest example is a recommendation by a panel established by San Francisco's Board of Supervisors to pay $5 million in reparations to each of the city's Black residents "for the decades of harm they have experienced".

Source: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/san-frans-reparations-committee-proposes-5-million-each-longtime-black-resident-total-debt-forgiveness

It does not seem to matter that California was admitted to the United States in 1850 with the express proviso that it be a "free state" and the California Constitution expressly prohibited slavery from the  beginning of existence as a state.

"...Neither Slavery nor involuntary Servitude, unless for the punishment of crimes, shall ever be tolerated in this State."

The panel on reparations is also proposing that all African Americans receive supplemental income to bring them up to the median income for the area (currently $97,000) for at least 250 years.

I am not sure where the 250 years comes from? That is longer than the United States has even been in existence.

Should you have a hard time in believing any of this, I have included a direct excerpt from the report. 

Source: https://sf.gov/sites/default/files/2023-01/HRC%20Reparations%202022%20Report%20Final_0.pdf

The panel on reparations also proposed wiping out all debts associated with educational, personal, credit card and payday loans for African American households.

To be potentially eligible for the $5 million payment applicants must be at least 18 years of age and have identified as Black or African American in public documents for at least 10 years.

In addition, to receive the reparations the applicant must meet at least two out of eight other criteria.

These criteria include:

Being born in San Francisco between 1940 and 1996 and with proof of residency in San Francisco for at least 13 years,", being a descendant of someone enslaved before 1865 or "personally, or the direct descendant of someone, incarcerated by the failed War on Drugs."

Source: https://therealdeal.com/sanfrancisco/2022/12/19/sf-faces-728m-budget-deficit-over-next-two-fiscal-years/