Of Morality And Marshmallows

The Atlantic reports on a new study suggesting that the famous “marshmallow test” is unreliable as a predictor of future economic instability. Excerpt:

In the case of this new study, specifically, the failure to confirm old assumptions pointed to an important truth: that circumstances matter more in shaping children’s lives than Mischel and his colleagues seemed to appreciate.

This new paper found that among kids whose mothers had a college degree, those who waited for a second marshmallow did no better in the long run—in terms of standardized test scores and mothers’ reports of their children’s behavior—than those who dug right in. Similarly, among kids whose mothers did not have college degrees, those who waited did no better than those who gave in to temptation, once other factors like household income and the child’s home environment at age 3 (evaluated according to a standard research measure that notes, for instance, the number of books that researchers observed in the home and how responsive mothers were to their children in the researchers’ presence) were taken into account. For those kids, self-control alone couldn’t overcome economic and social disadvantages.

The failed replication of the marshmallow test does more than just debunk the earlier notion; it suggests other possible explanations for why poorer kids would be less motivated to wait for that second marshmallow. For them, daily life holds fewer guarantees: There might be food in the pantry today, but there might not be tomorrow, so there is a risk that comes with waiting. And even if their parents promise to buy more of a certain food, sometimes that promise gets broken out of financial necessity.

Maybe so. But might it also be the case that children raised in more affluent homes will have been taught the value of resisting their impulses? I say this because one of my own children has had a very demanding sweet tooth from earliest childhood. He is also impulsive by nature. It has taken years of effort on the part of his mother and me to train him to say no to his impulses — not only for sugar, but, as he has gotten older and started earning spending money, his enthusiasms for buying things that strike his fancy. Many times I have pondered the difficulty he is going to have managing his money if he doesn’t get this impulsiveness under control. He’s a very good kid, highly moral and responsible, but impulsiveness is his Achilles’ heel.

He’s not being raised in poverty. We are middle class people, but culturally I guess that puts us with more in common with the affluent than not. Our impulsive child has been raised in a stable household — materially and emotionally — so there are no environmental factors that nurture his impulsiveness. From an Orthodox Christian point of view, this is simply one of his passions, something he has to struggle against. I have my own particular passions (anger and gluttony). Orthodoxy teaches that life itself is a struggle to crucify the passions and order ones desires towards the will of God. There is nothing wrong in principle with wanting to eat a marshmallow, but if your reason and your will are overcome by that desire to eat a marshmallow, you are weak, and can fall into sin. The regular fasting that Orthodox Christians do is designed to train the will to desire what God desires for us, not what we desire for ourselves.

Anyway, all of that is prelude to what I want to tell you. Last night, I was at a dinner party with some friends. One of them, N., told a long story about a local carpenter she and her husband had hired to do some renovations on their house. I won’t tell the story in depth, because the story is hers to tell, and she’s a writer. The gist of the story is that N. and her husband have been working with this guy for a long time — it’s a big project — and have gotten to know him well. He’s working class, and economically quite precarious. N. said the man has become a friend, and that she and her husband have been working hard to help him stabilize his life.

N. said — again, I’m summing up, but the details are sort of breathtaking — that the carpenter’s personal life is a study in chaos. He cannot grasp that he has the power to determine future events by the choices he makes today. A sense of moral agency totally escapes him. He sees N.’s ordinary family — they have kids — and thinks that they are simply one of fate’s winners. N. talked about the extraordinary lengths she and her husband have gone to befriend and to help this man, but how ultimately it has been futile. No matter what they say to him, no matter what they do for him, he cannot get it together. And he is leaving all kinds of chaos in his wake (several wives, kids, etc.).

I told N. that my wife and I have been in the very same situation, trying to help someone just like that who had become a friend … and in the end, concluding that it was futile. I wrote about it in the past on this blog: how I had gone to my lawyer, offering to pay him to represent this impoverished friend in a particular case. Lawyer said he would take my money and meet with the friend, but that in his lengthy experience with these cases, he could tell me that I’d be wasting my money and his time, because my friend would not follow through. It’s in the nature of people who get themselves into these kinds of situations, he said, to keep doing what got them into that situation in the first place. I told him I would be willing to take that chance to help her.

Next time I saw this friend, I told her to make an appointment with Lawyer X., that he would be willing to advise her, and that I would pay the bill. She thanked me profusely, but said that wouldn’t be necessary that she had decided to … well, that she had decided to keep doing the same stupid thing that got her into this bind in the first place. The country lawyer’s practical experience in dealing with the poor was wiser than my heart-on-the-sleeve idealism. Not for the first time did I feel like a character in a Flannery O’Connor story. (My future epitaph: “Call me Azzberry”.)

At dinner last night, my friend and I dwelled on the intractability of human nature in cases like this. She said that she had to conclude that a stable family life in childhood provides psychological goods that cannot be given through any other way. There aren’t enough government programs, personal charitable efforts, or anything else to compensate adequately for a chaotic childhood. My friend was certainly not saying that we can wash our hands of the responsibility for our neighbor’s welfare, but she was concluding — accurately — that we have to recognize the limits of our ability to change the lives of others. She was also saying that her experience with the carpenter made her more fully aware of how important it is to do everything she can to give her own children a stable home life.

Notice that I’m not saying — nor did I hear her to say — “affluent” home life. My folks never had a lot of money. We were an ordinary working-class to lower-middle-class family. But the gift my mother and father gave me of an orderly, stable childhood was priceless, I now see. How did they do it? They were both imperfect people who endured their share of difficulties in marriage, caused by their own flaws, as well as a period of economic stress. My father is no longer with us to discuss the matter, but the truth is, neither one of them would have been given over to much self-reflection on the question. They were the kind of people who would have simply said, “We made a vow,” and left it at that. For them, that was reason enough to stay together — that, and they always made it clear that the needs of us kids came before their own. That was just how my folks went through life. Not to get too philosophical about it, but for them, that was the Tao.

That wouldn’t have guaranteed stability in my family’s or my late sister’s, but they gave us such a good model of how family was supposed to work. Again, I don’t want to hold my mom and dad out to have been perfect. I don’t think there are any perfect families, and certainly mine had its particular flaws, some of which had unfortunate long-term consequences. That said, I am so very grateful to my parents for holding things together, and showing my sister and me that it is possible to build that kind of life, even when you don’t have much money.

My father was the chief breadwinner in our household, and, because they were a traditional 1950s-era couple, he was the one who dictated how our financial resources would be handled. I find this interesting with relation to the Atlantic article because having grown up very poor in the Great Depression, he ought to have been shaped by the experience of inconstancy in a particular way. Remember, the Atlantic writer said:

There might be food in the pantry today, but there might not be tomorrow, so there is a risk that comes with waiting. And even if their parents promise to buy more of a certain food, sometimes that promise gets broken out of financial necessity.

That’s how my father grew up, but that same experience made him far more likely to do what he could to hedge against chaos. He talked to Ruthie and me a lot about these things, relating him to his childhood. His own father was away from home for most of my dad’s early childhood, entirely because he had to work and send money back to support his wife, children, and elderly mother, who lived in the household. That sense of vulnerability made a profound impression on my dad, who was determined that his children would not feel it, if he could help it.

Daddy wasn’t unique in that. What I can’t quite understand today is why his response to childhood poverty and insecurity was so very different from what is normal today. That is, Daddy’s response was to live as an adult in such a way that he was less vulnerable to that chaos, and in which his own children were made less vulnerable to the chaos that would have come had outside pressures broken the family apart. I’ve written many times in this space about how he had deep compassion for people who were poor and suffering victims of circumstance, but also something bordering on contempt for people who were poor and suffering, but who always blamed others, or fate, for their suffering. He would say, “You can’t do nothin’ for people like that.” This was the opinion of a man who had once been poor, and who had lived his entire life in the same community as poor people, and working with them. Kind of like that country lawyer I mentioned above.

It seems to me that aside from his personal qualities, my father was the beneficiary of a local culture that, for better or for worse, had a strong bias against people living morally disordered lives. I should add that my dad had much more hostility towards middle class and wealthy people who lived that way. “They know better,” he would say. “They don’t have an excuse.” In his case, it wasn’t so much a matter of religion — my dad wasn’t particularly observant — as it was a matter of shame and honor. The culture that shaped my father’s code said it was dishonorable for men and women to live in ways that violated its core moral code. I heard my dad say on a number of occasions, “There’s no shame in being poor,” but he also spoke with stern judgment against men who abandoned their families, people who wouldn’t work, and so forth.

That code could be harsh, but it was more realistic about life than a lot of what passes for wisdom today. I think that has a lot to do with why Jordan Peterson is so popular. He gives to young men a sense of moral agency. Peterson is not Moses coming down from the summit of Sinai, but he talks common sense to a culture that has forgotten it. There has never been a society, and never will be a society, in which somebody can live like a fool and not pay the consequences — and for that matter, inflict consequences on others. You can’t not show up for work and expect to keep your job forever. You can’t ignore your kids and expect that they will grow up to be responsible people. You can’t get loaded every weekend and wonder why your roof is falling in, and won’t fix itself. You can’t allow television and social media to raise your children, and expect that they will be good.  And so forth.

“The world doesn’t owe you a living,” my father would lecture me, usually when I hadn’t done my homework, or failed to do something I was supposed to have done. I suppose this attitude is what made my dad a natural conservative. He couldn’t stand people who were ungrateful and lazy. His basic attitude towards us kids was: I bust my ass to provide for y’all, and I’ll be damned if I’m going to let you waste the opportunities you’ve been given. There was a time in my life when I thought he was so square, but the older I get, the more I see that there really isn’t any other way to live. My dad was keen to help people who were down on their luck, and I see now that he allowed himself to be taken advantage of by some folks with hard-luck stories. Mostly, though, what he was eager to do was to teach people how to help themselves, and to encourage them to do so. For him, this was a matter of natural justice. A society in which people were rewarded even though they did the wrong thing, or failed to do the right thing, was not a just or good society. And doing the right thing always meant subjugating your own desires to the greater good, especially the greater good of your family.

Here’s a funny thing: a few years back, when I was working with the African-American actor Wendell Pierce on his memoir of growing up in south Louisiana, I spent some time speaking with his Uncle L.C. Edwards, the last surviving member of Wendell’s parents’ generation. Uncle L.C. was the same age as my father, and like him, had grown up in rural poverty. I loved the stories of L.C.’s parents (that is, Wendell’s grandparents): poor black farmers who weren’t educated, but who had a very strong religious ethic, and who placed enormous value on education and self-discipline as the only reliable means of self-advancement. Poverty was the enemy of both L.C. and my father, but Lloyd and his siblings also had to deal with Jim Crow. If memory serves, every one of the children of Wendell’s grandparents got educated, and escaped poverty. I’m telling you, the chapter on Papo and Mamo (the grandchildren’s name for L.C.’s parents) is worth the price of the book. Here’s a characteristic excerpt:

One Christmas evening after supper, the Edwardses went to call on their College Point neighbors, to wish them a happy holiday. The kids were startled to go into one house and to see that all that family had eaten for their Christmas meal was potatoes and grits. When they returned home, Papo told the children, “This is what I mean when I tell you it’s important to save for a rainy day. If you put your money aside now, you will have enough to eat well on Christmas.”

Given the man Papo was, if the Edwardses had any food left, he probably took it to that poor family and didn’t tell his own children for the sake of preserving their neighbors’ dignity.

His children remembered Papo as a slow talker but a deep thinker. He never made a quick decision, but acted only after prayer, deliberation, and sleeping on it. Whatever the answer was, he arrived at it through careful reason, not passion. Acting on impulse was the sure way to lose your money, in Papo’s view.

Papo worked for a time in a sugar factory and received his weekly wages in a brown packet. He had a firm rule with himself: Wait twenty-four hours before spending a penny of it. Uncle L.C. said that as a young working man, he thought his father’s rule was silly. You have the money, he figured, so why not enjoy it?

But when he got married and started a family of his own, he understood Papo’s good sense and followed the rule himself. Uncle L.C., who worked at the DuPont chemical plant, has done well through saving and investing over the years. To this day, he credits Papo for teaching him by word and example the importance of being careful with your money and not letting your passions guide your decisions.

Talking with L.C. was like speaking with a black version of my own father. Though he had long been in retirement when I met him, L.C. was always thinking of ways he could make a little money. He told me about how he would take fatherless black boys from a nearby trailer park, and try to teach them something about working to make money and to plan for the future. He told me how sorry he felt for those young men, who had no father in the home to offer them direction, or a sense of responsible manhood.

But his pity had strict limits. Like my own father, L.C. was death on those who wouldn’t work or practice self-discipline. He told me about how his own wife, a retired public schoolteacher, quit her job the very day the last of their adult children no longer needed their help paying for college. She was of a generation for whom education was the most precious thing, their ticket out of poverty and oppression. Today, though, she was worn down by students who wouldn’t work, wouldn’t behave themselves, and parents who blamed the schools and the teachers for their kids’ failures.

American culture is far less friendly to the worldview of those Depression babies like L.C. and my father. Politics and economics are complicated things. You can’t simply apply a moral code to every situation, and expect it to solve the problem. But let’s recognize this: very few Americans in 2018 are as materially poor as my dad and L.C. Edwards were when they came into this world in the 1930s. Is there anybody in America today who is poorer than a black child born to uneducated farmers living in the Deep South under American apartheid? And yet, look what they did with what they had been given! There never will be a society in which family won’t matter, and in which moral self-discipline won’t matter. 

The wealthy, and those with social connections, can absorb a lot more disorder than the less well off can, but money won’t last forever.

The world we have today is wealthier, and in some ways is better able to defray the cost of that disorder. We have more of a social safety net today than we did back then. But this world is much poorer in social capital, which is not something you can raise from Chinese bankers.

There’s a lot of brokenness in this country, and no clear way to fix it. The people my dinner companion and I were talking about last night are white. They live in Charles Murray’s fictional Fishtown. They diverge greatly from the core values and practices of stable middle-class and well-off Americans, in ways that were not true a couple of generations ago. Society has grown far more individualistic and tolerant of non-conformity. This is not entirely a bad thing! But the cost to people who don’t have a lot of social and material capital to begin with has been immense. People love to imagine that if only we brought good jobs back to America, or voted in this or that political party, then these problems would solve themselves. I don’t believe that’s true. That’s no reason not to try to improve opportunities for people, but there are no government programs or private charitable initiatives that can meaningfully compensate for the loss of a sense of moral order and purpose.

Finally, I phrase occurred to me while writing this post, a fragment from something I’d read ages ago. I googled it, and the source turned up here. Here is the excerpt I was thinking about. The writer is talking about the 1950s:

It was a more human world in that it was a sexier world, because sex was still a story. Each high school senior class had exactly one girl who got pregnant and one guy who was the father, and it was the town’s annual scandal. Either she went somewhere and had the baby and put it up for adoption, or she brought it home as a new baby sister, or the couple got married and the town topic changed. It was a stricter, tougher society, but its bruising sanctions came from ancient wisdom.

We have all had a moment when all of a sudden we looked around and thought: The world is changing, I am seeing it change. This is for me the moment when the new America began: I was at a graduation ceremony at a public high school in New Jersey. It was 1971 or 1972. One by one a stream of black-robed students walked across the stage and received their diplomas. And a pretty young girl with red hair, big under her graduation gown, walked up to receive hers. The auditorium stood up and applauded. I looked at my sister: “She’s going to have a baby.”

The girl was eight months pregnant and had had the courage to go through with her pregnancy and take her finals and finish school despite society’s disapproval.

But: Society wasn’t disapproving. It was applauding. Applause is a right and generous response for a young girl with grit and heart. And yet, in the sound of that applause I heard a wall falling, a thousand-year wall, a wall of sanctions that said: We as a society do not approve of teenaged unwed motherhood because it is not good for the child, not good for the mother and not good for us.

The old America had a delicate sense of the difference between the general (“We disapprove”) and the particular (Let’s go help her”). We had the moral self-confidence to sustain the paradox, to sustain the distance between “official” disapproval and “unofficial” succor. The old America would not have applauded the girl in the big graduation gown, but some of its individuals would have helped her not only materially but with some measure of emotional support. We don’t so much anymore. For all our tolerance and talk we don’t show much love to what used to be called girls in trouble. As we’ve gotten more open-minded we’ve gotten more closed-hearted.

Message to society: What you applaud, you encourage. And: Watch out what you celebrate.

The author of those words is Peggy Noonan. She published them in, get this, 1992. Some things have gotten better over the last 26 years. For example, when she published this, David Dinkins was mayor of her town, New York City, and the city would record just over 2,000 homicides. Know how many the city recorded last year, 25 years after the column was published? Only 290.  Progress is real!

On the other hand, I can’t get out of my head the words spoken to me by a professor at an Evangelical Christian college. Speaking about the student body, which is predominantly white, he told me that he didn’t think most of them would ever be able to form stable families. I was shocked by this.These were not kids from the blighted projects or wretched rural trailer parks. Why not? I asked.

He said, “Because they have never seen it done.”

We live in a society in which the moral code that we applaud and the people we celebrate all say: Take the marshmallow now, and don’t worry about the future. This is going to cost us.

Read more from The American Conservative…

Waco

“Five thousand people to every one officer of the law. You know how we keep order with those odds?” asks one senior FBI agent in Paramount’s new TV miniseries Waco. “Because they believe we are more powerful than we are. We project strength and the people believe in that strength.”

The line is startling in its brutish cynicism, but it accurately sums up the lesson of Waco‘s six-episode dramatization of the infamous and deadly 1993 standoff between the federal government and the Branch Davidian religious sect.

Government agents are shown as almost uniformly incompetent, heartless, and oblivious to the consequences of their decisions. The Davidians are meanwhile depicted as mostly honest, sympathetic, and smart people taken in by charismatic messiah figure David Koresh. Bridging the gap is an FBI negotiator, Gary Noesner, who pushes his bosses to treat the Davidians as human while constantly fretting about the dangers of militarized cops.

At Waco‘s heart is a sharp critique of power and those who exercise it. This includes federal agents as well as the cult leader, whose own manipulative emotional hold over his followers eventually leads everyone to their doom. Though at times ignoring Koresh’s flaws and those of his acolytes, the show is a refreshing rehabilitation of a group of people unfairly derided for too long as murderous cultists up against brave, upright law enforcement.

Read more from Reason.com…

Taxation – Our Framers Got It Right

What were they thinking? Long ago, G.K. Chesterton wrote how easily, or with apparent ease, societies discard beneficial practices and institutions without knowing two things. Why was the practice or institution was the way it was, and second, without considering, without reasoning the subsequent effects of change? Nobody has any business destroying an institution until he examines it from a historical perspective.1 Regular readers know my disdain for the 17th Amendment and its awful accumulated consequences. Yes, there was a building consensus in favor of popularly elected senators and in 1913 congress headed off a convention of the states. While…

Read more from Free Republic…

Bernie Gives Glimpse of How His America Would Look, Attacks Disney Over ‘Unfair’ Wages

The radical left’s favorite socialist wants Disney to “feel the Bern” — but it could have serious consequences on the economy. Apparently desperate to stay relevant, former presidential candidate Bernie Sanders has shifted his sights from the White House to Disneyland. According to BizPac Review, the Vermont senator is rallying behind a California proposal that…

The post Bernie Gives Glimpse of How His America Would Look, Attacks Disney Over ‘Unfair’ Wages appeared first on Conservative Tribune.

Read more from The Western Journal…

Another Senseless, Illegal Killing in Gaza by Israeli Forces

Israeli forces killed a 21-year old Palestinian woman, a volunteer paramedic, in Gaza yesterday:

A young Palestinian woman was shot dead by Israeli soldiers near the Gaza border fence on Friday, in another day of protests and violence, Palestinian medical sources said.

Razan al-Najjar, 21, was shot near Khan Yunis in the south of the territory, health ministry spokesman Ashraf al-Qudra said, bringing the toll of Gazans killed by Israeli fire since the end of March to 123.

According to Qudra, Najjar was a volunteer with the ministry, wearing the white uniform of a medic when she was shot in the chest.

Targeting medical personnel is strictly prohibited even in war, and it is nothing less than criminal to gun down a paramedic while she is trying to assist others. All of the illegal shootings have been outrageous and excessive, but the killing of this young woman seems particularly perverse and absolutely indefensible. Ms. Najjar’s killing is just the latest in a series of illegal shootings of unarmed Palestinians in Gaza. As the report indicates, hers is the 123rd fatality from Israeli attacks on the protesters.

The New York Times had interviewed Ms. Najjar previously (video here), and they quote her in their story about her unlawful killing:

When we met her at a protest camp in Khan Younis last month, she said her father was proud of what she did.

“We have one goal,” she said, “to save lives and evacuate people. And to send a message to the world: Without weapons, we can do anything.”

Ms. Najjar was helping to tend to the many thousands of Palestinians that are being injured in the Gaza protests when she was shot to death. She posed no threat to anyone. How could she have? She was dressed as a medic, and yet she was murdered anyway. What else do we call the deliberate shooting of an unarmed woman as she helps treat injuries?

The U.S. response to these killings all along has been to shift blame away from Israel, the obviously culpable party, absurdly pin responsibility for everything on Hamas, and to shield Israel from the consequences of its forces’ actions. Yesterday was no different. The U.S. vetoed of a Kuwait-sponsored resolution that condemned Israel’s illegal use of force against Palestinian protesters:

Kuwait’s draft resolution condemned the use of “excessive, disproportionate and indiscriminate force by the Israeli forces against Palestinian civilians” and demanded a halt to such actions.

The U.S. was unusually isolated on both this resolution and the one our government sponsored. Just as the U.S. was the only member of the Security Council voting against the Kuwait-sponsored measure, it was the only voting for its own lopsided resolution. Reflexive U.S. support for anything and everything Israel does cannot possibly be in the American interest, and it is a disaster for the people of Palestine.

Read more from The American Conservative…

Video: FBI agent accidentally shoots patron at a Denver bar while he was getting his groove on

Anyone who thinks disgraced former FBI Director James Comey is the only PR problem in the 109-year-old agency clearly hasn’t met this idiot yet:

This unnamed off-duty FBI agent and complete moron almost killed someone at a Denver nightclub Saturday night when, while performing a back handspring, his gun fell to the ground and went off, sending a bullet speeding into the leg of a patron. While it’s true the victim is reportedly OK, this doesn’t excuse the agent’s incompetence.

What’s even more astounding is that by Sunday morning the perpetrator had not yet been publicly identified. Nor did it appear he would be facing any consequences for his actions.

“Authorities have not identified the agent because he was not arrested, Denver police community resource officer Marika Putnam said,” CNN reported Sunday afternoon. “Denver police will continue investigating the incident, and the district attorney’s office will determine whether charges will be filed against the agent.”

Does anyone really believe the agent will be fired, let alone even suspended?

From failing to stop the Parkland shooter in February to refusing to pursue criminal charges against the Obama-era IRS goons who targeted conservative groups, the contemporary incarnation of the bureau is nothing like the FBI of J. Edgar Hoover.

Nothing better demonstrates this than the behavior of Comey, who successfully transformed the once revered agency into an international laughing stock.

Watch below as he describes to late night host Conan O’Brien about how he once sang a Beyoncé song during a briefing:

What an absolute joke of a man and FBI director. But in his limited defense, at least he never almost killed someone — or at least not that anybody is aware of.

And at least he never once got so drunk with an exotic dancer that he passed out, only to later wake up and discover he’d been robbed blind.

Read more from BRP – BizPac Review…

A closed-door meeting… $1 million in student loans… What’s up with GE?

Dear reader,

I want to make sure you don’t miss this…

Have you heard American Consequences feature contributor Dr. Steve Sjuggerud’s big prediction?

He’s sharing information from a closed-door meeting in Boston… where he sat down with a group that Bloomberg calls “The World’s Most Powerful Stock Picker.”

Steve was the only independent analyst there. And what he learned was that trillions of dollars are going to be heading into a few select stocks.

He detailed the why in our free February magazine… I hope you read it. Because right now it’s time for the when.

In a few hours, this massive amount of capital is going to start flowing to a certain number of companies. It will begin with a few hundred million… grow to the tens of billions… and ultimately hit trillions of dollars.

It’s a fascinating story that will affect hundreds of ETFs and mutual funds. And it’s all due to the massive rise in passive investing over the past several years. But the outsized winners of this initial move are likely to be two specific stocks.

I’ve talked with Steve several times about this opportunity… and heard him present this idea to thousands of people. He knows his stuff. He’s been right, every step of the way. And this next step is the big one – a culmination of three years of his research.

If you’re interested in learning more about the future of the market, click here to read a transcript from Steve’s presentation. (This does not go to a long video message.)

You don’t need to buy anything. But if you read our February magazine – you should realize that you do need to pay attention to this major shift in global markets.

Now here are a few of the most interesting stories we’re reading…

When I forwarded this story to P.J., he wrote back… “If any business except the education biz pulled this, everybody would be in jail – from the CEO to the bike messenger.” 

Mike Meru Has $1 Million in Student Loans. How Did That Happen?

Escalating tuition and easy credit have yielded a class of student-loan borrowers with spectacular debt they may never pay back.

Good question…

 What the Hell Happened at GE?

What happened? And what’s next? The first question must be answered first. It is inevitably a story about Jeff Immelt, and it starts well before the stock’s recent implosion. As a former GE executive puts it, “The wheels came off in 2017, but the lug nuts had been loosening for a long time.” The story of Theranos may be the biggest case of corporate fraud since Enron… and how one woman fooled an incredible number of powerful folks.

The Reporter Who Took Down a Unicorn

How John Carreyrou battled corporate surveillance and intimidation to expose a multibillion-dollar Silicon Valley start-up as a fraud.

An underwater autonomous vehicle owned by billionaire hedge-fund manager Ray Dalio just found a few billion in gold and jewels on the ocean floor… 

Finally Found: Spanish Ship That Sank With $17B in Gold

The 62-gun, three-masted galleon, went down on June 8, 1708, with 600 people on board as well as a treasure of gold, silver and emeralds during a battle with British ships in the War of Spanish Succession. More of what we’re reading from the ocean…

The Weird, Dangerous, Isolated Life of the Saturation Diver

Life in the tube was built around going through these same steps day after day after day… while trying not to think about the fact that any unintended breach in his temporary metal home would mean a fast, agonizing death.

And here’s Steve’s article from our February magazine… 

The Biggest Mistake of My Career

“What you see across the river,” the executive said as he beamed with pride, “will be greater in all ways than Manhattan.”

 

Read our latest issues of American Consequencesfor free – by clicking here.

And let us know what you’re reading at [email protected].

Regards,

 

Steven Longenecker
With P.J. O’Rourke and the American Consequences Editorial Staff
May 30, 2018

Read more from American Consequences…

UMC gears up to push back against looming state budget cuts, which it says could “decimate” the New Orleans hospital

University Medical Center in New Orleans is again revving up a campaign aimed at preventing further cuts to public health spending in Louisiana, warning of dire consequences if the budget ax falls. Hospital officials gathered with business and community …

Read more from State Budget Cuts…

Rewiring Employment In A New Age

Change is happening in employment in all sorts of ways and much more change is on the way. Both employees and employers need to anticipate some of this change. (It will be impossible to anticipate it all, and it is in these unforeseen changes that opportunities for workers and employers will largely arise. Think social media.)

(From Forbes)

An employment crisis is brewing. Recent research on the impact of artificial intelligence and automation estimates that there will be 38 million jobs lost in the U.S. by the year 2030. Without significant interventions, this could translate into a 23.5% unemployment rate—equivalent to the peak unemployment rate during the Depression in 1933. Those hit hardest will be the 87 million people in frontline and early career jobs. The consequences are potentially devastating for our economy and for millions of individuals and families.

The most immediate and powerful solution lies with companies. Employers can begin to compete with the changing nature of work and automation by upskilling existing talent and providing creative pathways for advancement. This investment pays for itself; companies that have restructured their hiring, management, and training of entry-level workers have seen dramatic reductions in turnover and increases in productivity.

Click here for the article.

Read more from Against Crony Capitalism…