Stop Feeding The Beast!

Protesting Twitter by posting on Twitter is stupid.  Stop feeding the beast!

I look back on life these days and wonder at all the changes that have occurred, for better or worse - mostly worse in the last few years, it seems.  When I was a kid, we were going to be a "great society" and had landed on the moon!  America, we thought, was the greatest country in the world (and still is, despite efforts to make it great "again").

When I was a teenager in the 70s, I had a front-row seat to the nascent PC evolution - and revolution.  We were warriors, we felt, bringing computers to the average American.  And with this revolution of information technology, we would liberate the world and start a new age.  Yes, we were that naive.

Funny thing happened.  Microsoft - a small, obscure software company whose claim to fame was a BASIC compiler that turned out to be vaporware - landed a lucrative contract to create DOS, as the owner of the then-prevalent CP/M system, Gary Kildall, told IBM to take a hike.

So Bill Gates had this opportunity land in his lap (no less after telling IBM to talk to Kildall in the first place!).  So he hires a guy to make a reverse-engineered copy of CP/M and called it DOS, or IBM-DOS if it came bundled with an IBM-PC, or MS-DOS if you bought your own copy.

Computer sales took off, and each computer needed an operating system.  That lucky IBM contract turned into a gold mine, as Microsoft had the rights, in the contract, to sell to third parties.  No one expected the generic PC market to be so huge.  Microsoft got rich, IBM no longer makes personal computers.

A lot of people saw this happening and wanted in the deal - rags to riches seemingly overnight.  Tech Bros have created this myth of instant riches, which is not so much a myth, but something that is not as common as many would think.  In the 1990s, I used to fly out to Silicon Valley every month to get Patent business.  Back then Silicon Valley was silicon - hardware.  Not so much in manufacturing chips (A "fab" they call it) but in designing a chip and then sending the design overseas to be manufactured.

It was a wild West and some companies did well, others struggled.  Like a casino, you could win big or lose it all.  Usually the little guy investor lost it all, while the Billionaires made money no matter what.  Computers (hardware) became a commodity and software was where all the money was.  Silicon Valley became Software Valley.  But that was just the start of it.

With all these PCs sold and internet connectivity becoming a common thing by the 2000's (remember all those Mom and Pop ISC's?  Heady days!) people wanted something to do with their computes, besides drafting dull memos or visiting government websites.  Internet commerce and Social Media was born.  And there were a few winners - and a lot of losers.  Timing is everything, it seemed.

For example, Sears offered an online service call Prodigy.  They also had the worlds largest and best known retail catalog.  But rather than combine the two, they discontinued the catalog and concentrated on physical stores as mall anchors.  You know how that worked out.  But to be fair to Sears, the world wasn't ready for e-commerce just yet.  An obscure used book seller would occupy that space and become a Billionaire in the process.

AoL had some social media-like features, with discussion groups.  Of course, UseNet newsgroups had been around since the 1980s, but by the 1990s, they were being SPAMmed to death.  A guy named "Tom" started something called "MySpace" and was very successful - at first.  In echoes of Gary Kildall, he decided MySpace should be some sort of indie band platform and not a social media site.

So instead, a Harvard dropout creates a Social Media monster - almost by accident.  A page for sharing pictures of incoming Freshmen turns into a colossus online.  And that was just the start - several other Social Media sites have sprung up since them.  You know their names.....

In those heady early days, many still believed that the Internet would make our lives better and we proselytized about how the world of the future would solve all the petty problems we have by providing transparent communication and data across the planet.  Google, back then, had a company slogan - "Don't Be Evil!" which was a dig at Microsoft's monopoly practices.  It was also a dig at the new Silicon Valley private equity investors who were not interested in the greater goo, but rather lining their pockets, often at the expense of the public.

Go big or go home.  Move fast and break things.  It had less to do with technology than with Business.  For a brief time, the Patent Office even recognized "methods of doing business" as Patentable.  Then they realized they had opened Pandora's box.

The new Silicon Valley investors weren't interested in hardware or even software (not a lot a money in that!  Requires effort and expertise, too!).  Rather, they wanted to create business that did things like taxi services or food delivery or scooter rentals - which were already "things" - and monetize them such that a big percentage of the profits, worldwide, finds it way back to Silicon Valley.  The consumer and the delivery driver get squeezed on both ends, while the CEOs of these companies rake in the dough.

Google abolished its "Don't Be Evil" mantra.  Most other "tech" companies were no so foolish as to adopt one.

And yes, there are upsides to the Internet, still.  You can get a lot of your work done online or do your finances.  Online prices can be far less than brick-and-mortar, with a better selection as well.  The downside is, the local merchant goes bankrupt in the process.  You also have to deal with shady suppliers selling substandard junk (Looking at you, Temo, Wish, etc.).  But we are so connected this way, it would be hard, if not impossible, to go back to earlier days and old ways.

So, technology, once thought to be our savior, becomes the enemy.  Instead of sharing truth and valid information online, we see myths, superstitions, misinformation, and outright lies being spread.  We are manipulated, sometimes by foreign forces, other times by commercial interests.  People are divisive these days because they are taught so by the Internet.  And we are all influenced this way, whether or not we want to admit it.  Sure, you can blame the maga-set for their idiotic beliefs they absorb from Inforwars or Fox News.  But many on the Left have similar wacky beliefs that they think are their own, but are  absorbed from their own echo-chamber.   The whole "pronoun" thing, for example, was the height of Democratic silliness and drove many independent voters to the right.  Of course, it was the Internet that made people think that the only issue they were concerned about was Transgender rights.  Both sides are painted as extremist by the other.

But I digress.....

In the early days of the PC, there were a plethora of manufacturers and many people assembled their own computers from parts.  There were few Billionaires, other than the Microsoft gang, but that was about to change.  We are in a similar situation as we had in the late 1800s - with "Trusts" controlling large swaths of the economy and controlling the government as well.  If you wanted to buy any sort of things, from food to coal to oil or minerals, you had to do business with the Trusts, and they could set prices as they saw fit.

The "Trusts" of today are information or technology related (if you agree to call a taxi service or delivering pizzas, "technology").  You want to buy something?  You go online and check out Amazon - it is kind of hard not to shop there than it is.  It is like trying to avoid WalMart - you can, but expect to pay 50-100% more for basic commodities.  And the competitor you go to may end up being as "bad" as the one you left.  People are calling for a boycott of Target because they cancelled DEI initiatives.  Funny thing, but no one let out a peep when Walmart did the same thing back in November.  I guess people expected that of Walmart, so it's OK.

People have similar reservations about Facebook, Google, and Twitter.   All the big tech companies bowed down to Trump, paid a million bucks for his inauguration, and Facebook forked over $25 million to Trump to settle a clearly specious lawsuit.  Say, that's another clever way to avoid campaign finance laws or bribery charges!  Just have the politician you want to bribe sue you and then you go "Mea Culpa! I'll settle! Here's a suitcase of cash!" Pretty slick!

But I digress again.  And yes, I am feeling a little better on the Parkinson's meds.  I just take a little pill when I want to use my brain for something.  Works pretty well - so far.

But getting to the topic of this posting (finally) the problem isn't - as I see it - the Billionaires, but the ordinary people (you and me) who fork over tons of money, directly or indirectly, to said same Billionaires.  Every time you use Facebook, you put a little money in the pocket of Mark Zuckerberg, who in turn puts some in Trump's pocket.  Meanwhile, you are exposed to all sorts of propaganda, both political and commercial.  You can't protest Zuckerberg in a Facebook posting.

Similarly, you can't go on Twitter to denounce Musk, as each time you go on Twitter, you put a penny or two (or dimes or dollars) in his pocket.  You are creating "content" for him to sell (laden with advertisements) by posting there.  Even providing a link to a Twitter post generates money for Musk.  Advertiser pay based on the number of clicks as well as "engagement."  So when you post something along the lines of, "Check out this outrageous thing Musk said!" and provide a link, and a thousand people click on that link, well, Musk wins.

And yes, I appreciate the irony of saying this on Blogger which was bought by Google in 2003 when they still believed, "Don't be Evil!"   And yes, Google is a case-in-point, as they have gone from being a search engine to being the only search engine (in practice) and along the way have gotten their hands into a lot of other businesses, from smart phone O/S to video hosting, etc.  It is kind of hard not to use a Google product and that is sort of the point of my posting.  We are stuck with these services, which, although not as necessary to our survival as food and shelter, nevertheless form a part of our daily lives.

And while Google abandoned "Don't Be Evil" long ago, until recently, they were fairly benign. But then someone decided they needed more money.  Unskippable ads started appearing on YouTube - and then more and more of them.  Google searches turned into advertisements for products, with the "real" search results way down the page.  And now, in recent months, we have Google AI providing all the (wrong) answers to your search inquiries.

They made it so easy to get into their "space" but then did a rug-pull as did all the other "tech" companies.  Like a drug dealer, they offer the first sample for free to get you hooked.  And one you are hooked, they set the hook.  I must note, however, that the anology is flawed - I never met a real-life drug dealer who gave away free samples.   That was only on television with those stupid "Just Say No!" ads, not real life.

I am not sure what the ultimate answer is, of course.  I was never on Twitter and when I click on something that links to Twitter, I quickly exit out.  There is nothing so important in this world that needs to be hosted on Twitter only.  I mean, for Chrissakes, you can cut and paste the text of a tweet or even do a screen shot if you wanted to.  Linking is just lazy.

As for Amazon, that is a lot harder.  eBay used to be America's garage sale, before it became all about power-sellers.  And much of what is on eBay is stuff that is sold through Amazon and then arbitraged onto eBay.  Then there are the Wish/Temu type products that find their way onto eBay on occasion (and Amazon for that matter).  For a lot of stuff, I find going to the manufacturer's (or distributor's) website to be cheaper than both eBay and Amazon, with the service just as good if not better.

Boycotting Facebook is a lot easier, other than having to deal with Facebook idiots.  I was on Facebook early on, but only for a few months. Something seemed "off" about it and it was very addictive.  Better off to blog, instead!  Mark was never on it, period.  The problem is, a lot of other people think that "everyone has a Facebook page!" and thus limits their online presence to Facebook.  This is problematic with businesses.

And I understand why they do it.  You want to update your website, it takes time to craft the HTML coding, even with editing tools such as those used here on Blogger.  But Facebook?  Much easier.  You want to update your restaurant's schedule of events, you can do it with a few clicks.  Your customers get the information, along with a lot of right-wing and Nazi propaganda.

We visited a campground the other day and our friend Juan was pissed that the theme that night at the bar was "funny hats."  Juan has a ton of funny hats but didn't bring any as he was unaware of the event as it was only posted on Facebook.  He's on Facebook, too!  But he didn't think to check.  Similarly, the next night was "Cowboy night" and here I am with my Stetsons sitting in a box on the shelf in my closet back home.  If I had only known!

It gets worse.  If you cross the border, you may be asked by an ICE agent for your social media account information (and even access to your cell phone!).  "What's your Facebook page?" they ask, and "I'm not on Facebook" isn't an acceptable answer.  Everyone is on Facebook, right?

Like with the Trusts, the Tech Bros have managed to get us dependent on them completely.  Going cold turkey is difficult, if not impossible to do. But protesting Facebook with a Facebook posting, or protesting Musk on Twitter seems kind of dumb.  The only answer is to not feed the beast.  Don't create content for sites you don't like.  Don't let them make money from your clicks.  It is hard to do, as alternatives are either obscure or hard to come by.  Some people are claiming "BlueSky" will eclipse Twitter as users flee the latter.  Perhaps, but since Twitter still has a critical mass of people (even after Musk killed off the bots /s), a message on BlueSky isn't going to resonate as well.

But why is it so important to send out messages on Twitter or post your updates on Facebook?  Beats me - probably the same reason I feel compelled to blog.

More Medicare Follies - Parts A, B, C, D, G, L, K, & N

How old people navigate Social Security and Medicare is beyond me!

A friend of mine got a big television as a Christmas present and asked me to help install it.  I bought a really nice wall mount at Harbor Freight for $35.  Heavy as all get-out with a backing plate that easily spanned two studs!  It came with 4" lag screws, too.  That ain't going anywhere!  So an hour or so later, we have it bolted to the wall, the television installed and even the soundbar (which I found at a campground, Sony with a subwoofer, too!).  Then the fun began.

Upon power-up, the television needed to access the router.  Do you remember your router password?  No.  Once logged in, it had to update the operating system - that took 30 minutes.  Then another 30 to learn my way around an Amazon television and "install" apps like Netflix and YouTube (the only two not pre-installed!  Welcome to the Social Media wars!).  Remember your password for Netflix?  What about your Google password?   No and No.  Between password resets (particularly Google) where the recovery account was either a dead e-mail or an old phone number, plus all the updates, well, it was a couple of hours of sheer frustration.

How is anyone over the age of 50 able to do this?  They have to wait for the grandchildren to visit, I guess.

The same is true for Medicare - it is a daunting task to learn the lingo and the "windows" and the horrific consequences you face if  you don't get it right.

Three months before you turn 65 - and three months after - there is a seven month "window" to sign up.  I filled out the form online in November and hit "enter" in late December and got my card in mid-January, with an activation date of March 1st.  Coverage begins on the first day of the month of your 65th birthday.

I went with "traditional" medicare - Parts A (Hospital) and B (Medical).  Part C is what they call "Medicare Advantage" and from what everyone tells me, it is no advantage in some States, as it may not cover all the charges.  Basically, your medicare money goes to a private insurance company who then insures you in a traditional manner.  You may pay less (or nothing) in premiums, but if you get sick, you may pay more.  In some States, apparently, it is an advantage.  Just not Georgia.  At least that is the way it was explained to me.

In 2025, most people will pay $185 per month for Medicare Part B, and most people will pay no premium for Part A. However, some people may pay more for Part A, for example, if you have worked less than 40 quarters.  Usually, the premiums are deducted from your Social Security check or debited directly from your bank account.  I guess that is another reason to claim Social Security at age 65 instead of later.  Which I just did.

$185 a month sounds reasonable, particularly compared to the hundreds a month (as much as $1000) when I was on a traditional Blue Cross plan.  It seems reasonable compared to the "standard" premium of $1800 a month under Obamacare (ACA) which is subsidized by the government down to a few hundred, or in some cases, zero.  What is clear, however, is that $185 a month probably barely covers administration costs - the taxpayer picks up the rest in the form of the payroll tax.  And by the way, as we shall see, there are other coverage charges to consider,  Such as.....

Part D is drug coverage and you have to sign up for this during the "window" or pay a penalty later on - every month.  People think this is unfair, but those same people think it is unfair that you can't get collision coverage after you've already wrecked your car or fire insurance while your house is on fire.  You can't get something-for-nothing.  I have one friend who declined coverage as his medications were inexpensive.  They are now - that can change.  Another friend decided to use the VA hospital which is an hour away.  It was cheap, but a hassle.

If you decide, later in life, to get part D, there is a penalty formula calculated that is applied to every monthly payment from then on. It is only fair - you can't wait until you need a $1000-a-month prescription to seek coverage.  That's now how insurance is supposed to work, or at least that is how it used to be.

When you sign up for Medicare at 65, there is no medical exam and pre-existing conditions are not excluded.  They have to take you.  That changes once you are on the plan, with regard to add-ons, as we shall see. Part D plans are priced based on what drugs you are taking at the time you sign up.  So for me, a basic plan from Humana will run about $50 a month, with an annual prescription cost estimated at another $50 or so.  I have five prescriptions, most of which cost less than $20 each for a 90-day supply.  Is Part D a good value?  It would be if, later on, I end up needing a $1000-a-month prescription.  There are co-pays, of course, and some plans have zero co-pays if you use an online pharmacy as I like to do.

But supplemental plans are where it gets confusing.

During the signup window (Note, one agent told me, in the three months before your birth month only!), you can sign up for a supplemental plan (If you went with Medicare A&B and not C!), no questions asked, pre-existing conditions not an issue.  If you miss that window or decide to change plans later on, you can sign up in the fall, but if you are really sick, they may refuse to write you, or if they do, under standard underwriting terms.  It could get expensive, presuming they will cover you at all.  So it pays to sign up during the window.

So if I decide I don't like the plan I chose, I have to go through regular underwriting, where pre-existing conditions are considered.  Want to write me a plan?  No pre-existing conditions, other than diverticulosis, gout, a stroke, and Parkinson's disease.  Healthy as an Ox!  So you see, choosing the right plan is a once-in-lifetime choice, which for me, means a one-in-the-next-decade choice.  I am a realist.

Now, all you folks living in countries with National Health, have a good laugh at our expense and also take pity on us.  What other country has such a backward system where some people are covered and others are not and there is a complicated set of rules and deadlines and cut-off-your-balls with a rusty hacksaw if you don't?  Why is the government being generous on the one hand and stingy the next?  It is like some inheritance that you can only get if you agree to stay in the haunted house overnight, but before February 10th or you lose it all.

Private health insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, Employer-provided health insurance - or no insurance at all.  It is a patchwork mess at best.  And essentially, the wealthier you are, the better medical care you can get.  It is like the Dentistry business - no one opens a practice in Appalachia, where people need dental care. The smart move is to open a cosmetic dentistry practice near a wealthy city, where people can afford to pay a lot to look good.  Similarly, it doesn't pay to be a GP in a small town - better to be a specialist in a big city, where people have good insurance or wads of cash to spend.

It is a screwed-up system, but we are forced to play within its bounds - like the Squid Game, I guess.  And so long as you are winning, it seems like a good deal.  I see seniors all the time gloating how their gall bladder operation "cost them nothing!" - but at the same time treat their children or grandchildren as failures because they faced medical bankruptcy.  Why didn't they do the smart thing and wait until they were on Medicare to get sick?  Smug bastards!

But I digress....

What are supplemental plans and how much do THEY cost?  Which plan do you want?  There are several, and the government dictates the terms of each plan.  AARP/UHC for example, offers plans G, N, K, I, select G, and select N, to name a few.  Each lettered "plan" has the same basic required terms as the same lettered "plan" from another insurer.  So if you are comparing plan "G" from UHC with a plan "G" from Humana, the terms are going to be the same and the only difference is in the priciing.

Except.... They can't make this simple, can they?  Some insurers (AARP/UHC and I think Humana) offer "perks" like the "Silver Sneaker" perk, where you can get a free gym membership (at participating gyms only!).   There are also premium discounts if you have more than one person in your household getting a plan and if you sign up online - at least for some insurers.

AARP (United Health Care) Offers an alphabet of plans, including the following:

Plan G: $179.95 per month

Plan N: $160.25 per month

Plan K: $69.50 per month

Plan G has few co-pays and the (Gov't) standard $257 out-of-pocket limit, which seems ridiculous to me, having had $10,000 deductibles and out-of-pocket limits for decades now (I have been self-employed for 30 years).  It is a Cadillac plan, to be sure. Cradle to Grave!  Well, grave, anyway,

Plan N is not quite as generous, as you might expect, having $20 co-pays.  Plan K has a 10% copay and a $7220 out-of-pocket limit.  So, once again, we are tasked with deciding how sick we plan on getting and how much we think that will cost and how much we can afford.  It is a shitty system.

And remember kids, you have to make this decision NOW and are stuck with it for the rest of your life.  Since agents are on a commission (which may add $5 to $10 to monthly premiums) they tend to push plan G the most as the commissions are higher on the higher priced products.

There are a few major players in this game - UHC being the biggie, while Humana, Anthem Blue Cross, Aetna, and Mutual of Omaha are other significant players.  Not surprisingly, their premiums are all within the ballpark of one another - by a few dollars at least.

So why pick one over another?  In terms of "accepting insurance" this turns out to be a non-issue.  If the doctor or hospital accepts Medicare (which 99% do) they are bound to accept your supplemental policy.  In fact, it is transparent to them as they send the bill to Medicare, which pays 80% of the costs and then passes the remaining bill to your supplemental insurance provider who pays the other 20%.  No paperwork hassles for the provider.  This was a big issue for my Obamacare Ambetter plan, as some doctors refused to accept the insurance because of the low payouts and the hassles of submitting claims.  So, no worries there with regard to acceptance, with Medicare supplements.

So again, why choose one company over another?  The prices are all in line (within a few dollars of one another) and the coverage for each plan type is mandated by the government,   Just pick one at random - right?

Well, there is one other issue - and I discovered this after asking several agents pointed questions and searching online.  Premiums go up over time.  And they go up for everyone, uniformly, not based on your claims.  Some companies raise rates more than others, but getting hard data is difficult.  I read a lot of reviews online, but in this era of the dead Internet, well, reviews are spammed.

For example, I read one review - which was repeated all over the net, leading me to believe it was part of a bot campaign (act shocked) - that Mutual of Omaha or "MoO" raises rates more than others, particularly at the five-year mark.  I could not find hard data to back this up.

Most of the oldsters on the island are on the AARP/UHC plan, but some are on Cigna, Humana, Anthem Blue Cross, and I found one on MoO.  He was complaining that at age 79, his premiums are now up to $220 a month!  I kind of had to take him down a notch, reminding him I was paying over $1000 a month when I was in my 40's before the invention of Obamacare.  $220 a month?  I can fund that in loose change under my couch cushions.

So the idea that MoO raises rates more than others seems kind of specious to me.  They have a 4.5 star rating on NerdWallet, while UHC has a 5.0.  Anthem Blue Cross comes in at a sad 4.0.  I read something in the paper the other day about UHC and a guy named Luigi, but I can't remember, because that was several news cycles ago and I am supposed to be outraged about something else now.

On the other hand, if you add up the Part B ($185) plus the Plan G supplemental ($180) plus the Part D drug plan ($50) you end up with a monthly premium of $415 a month (for one person!) which is considerably more than I am paying now ($0) or last year ($200 for two people).   On the other hand, going to a cheaper plan doesn't save much, and dropping drug coverage could get expensive down the road.  Given my health issues, well, maybe I should spend the money.

While changing to another plan down the road is not really realistic, one can always drop add-on coverage and simply pay the 20% medicare doesn't cover.  For the very poor this is a real option as often hospitals are happy to get the 80% from Medicare and write-off the rest.

Again, these "survey" and rating sites are always suspect as they can be spammed by bots (A 5.0 rating?  Really?  No one complained, ever?).  A note of caution:  There are sites claiming to allow you to "compare" different plans - all you need to do is enter your e-mail address, phone number, and birth date!  If you do, your SPAM box will be full and your phone ringing off the hook.  All they are is a lead aggregator selling your info to various insurance agents and who knows who else.

Speaking of which, in the months leading up to your 65th birthday, you will get dozens of phone calls from overseas call centers, trying to sell you supplemental coverage.  You'll get flyers in the mail and even brochures and whatnot. A local agent sent an entire portfolio of information which was helpful.

Do you go with an agent or just apply online?  Good question.  Agents can answer all of your questions and if they are local, at least that is something.  But from what I can see, most companies offer a small discount (such as 5% with MoO) if you apply directly online as opposed to going through an agent.  Problem is, the shit is so confusing that you feel you need to talk to someone about it, and it seems kind of shady to say, "Thanks for an hour of your time, I'll just apply online!"

But that's all I  have learned so far, which leaves me with more questions than answers.  Sadly, even with insurance, the future is an uncertain thing.  Again, you Canadians and Brits can all have a laugh at our expense. Choosing Plans? Paying Premiums? Deciding how much illness you can afford?  Madness!

But it is the madness we are stuck with.  By the way, some of these supplemental plans pay for overseas coverage (20% co-insurance, $50,000 max) so that may come in handy if you decide to flee the country before they start construction of the crematoriums at Guantanamo Bay.

An Interesting Conversation

Is the world coming to an end?  Not quite...but yes.

History, it is said, never repeats itself, it just rhymes (or echoes).  And you know you are in for a bumpy ride when people say, "well, this time, it's different!"  And sure, 1929 was a unique year, but then again, so is 2025.

"But the stock market is at all-time highs!  Everyone is making money!"  Well, if by "everyone" you mean people who live off investments, perhaps you are right.  But then again, due to inflation over time, stock indicies (along with any other major statistic) are always at or near an "all-time high!"  In fact, when something goes lower, that is newsworthy.  Going up is the norm.  Humans are always expanding, interrupted only by brief reversals - brief from an historical perspective, unending for those who have to live through them.

I noted before that we lived through two real estate market crashes.   The first was in 1989, when we bought our first house together.  Prices crashed and then remained flat for a decade.  We were still buying foreclosure properties as late as 1999!  The second was in 2008.  We had sold most of our investment properties by then - and bought two personal residences instead!  Again, a decade or so later, prices are finally again on the rise - and then some!

Back in the 2000's. we would attend cocktail parties in Ft. Lauderdale - with other real estate investors, agents, mortgage brokers, house flippers, developers, appraisers, and everyone else in "the business."  All were too enmeshed in the system to bail out, so the talk was whether we would have a "soft landing" or not.  "The government will have to bail everyone out!" one real estate agent told me, "Otherwise everyone will go bankrupt!"

And some were bailed out, some were not - it was not a fair or orderly process.  Like student loan forgiveness, it was an unevenly applied program, helping a lucky few (some of whom actually needed no help) and failing the vast majority.  It also set expectations for a future collapse, as government bailouts have become a part of the landscape.

Fast-forward nearly 20 years and once again I am having the same conversation with someone in the real estate field.  He acknowledges how things got out of hand in the 2000's and how risky oddball loans kept the party going longer than it should have.  But, he argues, "This time it's different!"

I asked him how anyone can afford to spend three-quarters of a million dollars on an ordinary 3-bedroom ranch-style home that, only a few years' prior, was selling for less than a half-mil.  What made it increase 50% in value so quickly?  He replied that what was driving prices was the  banks, who were willing to use unusual financial instruments to put people into overpriced homes.

This time, it's different!  Indeed.

Back in the 2000's, it was "payment optional" variable-rate balloon notes, all written on the premise that some greater sucker will pay an obscenely larger amount for the same home in a few short years.  Today, similar mortgages are being written, this time on the premise of the potential income a property might produce as an Air-BnB rental - even if it was not intended to be rented out.

Of course, potential income is just that - potential.  A fantasy.  If everyone puts their home on AirBnB, well, the market becomes flooded and prices will tank.  What's more, many jurisdictions are reining-in where houses can be rented on a nightly basis.  Moreover, many consumers are tiring of having to pay cleaning fees or do chores or be socked with penalties and hidden charges from AirBnB rentals.  Hotels might be due for a comeback.  It goes without saying that during a recession, the first thing people cut from their budget is vacation spending.

In the job market, there are already signs of trouble on the horizon, with many "tech" companies announcing massive layoffs and trimming their sails for an anticipated storm. What do they know that we don't?  The auto business is in flux, as the number of days of inventory edges above 80, the highest level in five years.  Worse yet, so many companies have invested  billions in developing electric cars, while sales have yet to take off - and may never do so.  Some of these high-priced electric SUVs, with price tags well over a hundred grand, have an inventory supply of over a year, some close to two years!  Kinda hard to sell a 2023 electric SUV for $100K in 2025 as a "new" car.

On the other hand, historically, auto inventory is low, compared to decades past. But I think that is a result of the long-term trend of "just in time" inventory control.  Back in the day, we had acres of new cars kept in inventory.  Today, they get shipped out to dealers and sold as quickly as possible.  No more waiting months to get a car that you "order" from the factory.  So maybe the car business is doing OK.  Tell that to Stellantis and Nissan though!

Housing "days on market" so far seems to be declining in recent years - again, a reflection of a hot housing market, or an overheated one. Agents we talk to tell us of a tight inventory as so many homeowners are reluctant to sell, thinking that today's hot prices can only go up even more.  We saw the same thing in 1989 and 2008.  If I sell now, I might get priced out of the market - forever!

So, economic indicators can be misleading.  It is like an airplane crash - right before it flies into the side of a mountain, the airplane's engines are at full power and everything is running fine.  It just is going in the wrong direction.  I suspect a similar thing could happen to us - and rather quickly.

In the 2008 crash, the effects were felt virtually overnight, as a few traders discovered that the mortgage-backed securities, which were the foundation of America's bull market, were worth far less than they were selling for.  Not worthless but worth less.  Overnight, they plummeted in value, taking down the entire economy and bankrupting GM and Chrysler in the process.  Yet things were going so well.

Maybe it won't happen.  But when someone says, "This time it's different!" I can only assume it's not.

kak·i·sto·cra·cy

/kakəˈstäkrəsē/

noun

1. government by the least suitable or competent citizens of a state.

   "the danger is that this will reduce us to kakistocracy"

This is a word you may hear more of in the coming months....

Compounding this are the jackass actions of the new administration, which, after only a week in office, have caused prices to jump.  Eggs, once a dollar-a-dozen are over fifty cents each.  Orange juice,  $12 a gallon. Trump's "concept of a plan" to bring down prices was a poorly written word salad (or AI-generated) Executive Order Memo vaguely instructing government officials to somehow bring down prices by, you know, doing stuff.  Meanwhile, the fear of deportations is causing what few farm workers lare eft, to either flee or not show up for work.

And this will only get worse.  Mass layoffs, mass deportations.  I guess a former coder for Meta can get a good-paying job as a field hand.  So, it all works out and the circle of life is unbroken.

Layoffs mean people can no longer afford their homes - or overpriced rentals in big cities.  I can see tenants simply abandoning rentals even with a year left on the lease.  Foreclosures on overpriced homes will follow.  And that guy who paid over-sticker during CoVid for a pickup truck on a 7-year loan?  It will get ugly.

Temper-tantrum tariffs will add gasoline to the fire, as much of the food we actually eat comes from overseas. Sure, America is efficient in growing corn and wheat, but we fall down when it comes to produce - which has to be picked by illegal labor (now deported) or slapped with tariffs if imported.  Meat?  Meatpacking plants are staffed by illegal labor - and will struggle to stay in operation.   There will be mush waste and prices will skyrocket.

And those Midwest farmers growing corn and wheat? We export most of it - or did.  Retaliatory tariffs will shut down that market pronto - although I suppose China will make an exception for American farms owned by the Chinese.  Checkmate, Trump!

Will it get that bad?  You betcha.  And there ain't much you can do about it, either.  If you have little or no debt and some money put aside, you'll do better than most - although you can expect to see your investments cut in half, if by nothing else, stagflation.  Yea, I lived through this in the 1970s and it sucked, but we got by - mostly be lowering our expectations in life.  Consider the ridiculously small and flimsy cars we drove back then, just to save a gallon or two of gas.   People today have no idea.

For others, it will be like 2008 only worse.  They can walk away from a lot of debt in bankruptcy, but not all of it. And those are the people who will cry the loudest for a "bailout" from the government.  And yea, they all voted for Trump and will believe him when he says it is all Nancy Pelosi's fault.  Some people never learn.  In the depths of the depression, there were some pining for Herbert Hoover, again.

Of course, I could be wrong, but I doubt it.   History has shown, time and time again, that economies follow a pattern of up and down cycles.  Moreover, history has shown - in 1829 and in 1930 - that tariffs just make everyone miserable and destroy an economy, not save it.

But hey, that was 100 and 200 years ago.  Time for another painful history lesson, kids!

Caring For Your Eye-Holes

We tend to take our eyes for granted.

I recently had an eye infection.  Not the first time this has happened - I used to wear contacts, and if you wear contacts, you can get an eye infection very easily.  Eventually, I developed a sensitivity to contact lenses - which is typical.  I had the all-day disposables and by the end of the day, my eyes were itchy. Pretty soon, it was a half-day before I had to take them out.  Then a few hours and then down to an hour and, well, I gave up on contacts at that point.

So I wasn't too alarmed when my left eye got red, as usually such situations sort themselves out within a day or two.  But after a few days, it got worse, and we were going away for New Year's Eve.  So I found an Ophthalmologist who was open early.  He prescribed an antibiotic and some eye drops (I think with a steroid or something) and in a few days, I was back to normal.

While waiting for his office to open, I had visited the nearby pharmacy looking for over-the-counter solutions.  Alas, there are none - only eye drops for "dry eyes" or to "get the red out" or fatally poison someone.  One product stood out to me, and that was "eyelid wipes."  WTF?

I asked the doctor about this and he suggested using them to control eyelash mites.  You no doubt have read that our bodies are hosts to a number of parasites, besides the bacterias in our digestive system that help break down long-chain sugar molecules.  Tiny mites - or lice as the doctor called them (Eeew!) live in our hair follicles, eating dead skin cells and facial oils.  It is quite a feast, too, as we shed billions of dead skin cells a day.  Where do you think "dust" comes from?  Yea, it is us, shedding like snakes.

And apparently, we all have these mites living in our eyelashes.  Everybody, just about.

Anyway, he recommended using these eyelid wipes, preferably with teatree oil, which he claims will kill off the mites or at least control their growth.  I am not sure there is science behind this, but he argues that these mites can cause inflammation which can lead to eye infections or at least eye irritation.

Anyway, I ordered a year's supply on Amazon, and they seem to help.  At least they smell nice.  Maybe it is psychological, but the idea of killing little creepy-crawlies on my eyelashes appeals to me.  I suspect, however, that since these buggers are on nearly everyone's face, that the wipes will, at best, merely keep the population in check.

The human body is a fascinating thing.  Too bad it didn't come with an owner's manual!

When To Collect Social Security - Revisited

If you knew ahead of time when you were going to die, this would be an easy decision!

I wrote before about this topic and concluded that while there were good arguments for collecting "early" or "later" - the upshot for most people is they claim when they need the money.

To recap, there are two schools of thought on this subject - and gradations in-between.  The first was explained to me by an Accountant in Ithaca, New York.  "Collect at 62!" he said, "that way you get more money overall!"  And he is right about that, in a manner of speaking.  As you can see from the chart above, the amount you receive increases linearly the longer you wait.  At age 65, I get about $2600 a month and if I waited until at age 70, I would receive almost $3800 a month.  For each year I delay, the monthly income increases by about $200 a month.

So why not wait until age 70?  Well, his argument was, that the average person lives to about age 78 or so, and if you collected at age 62, versus collecting at age 70, if you lived to be 78, you'd collect more, overall, by collecting early.

Let's use the data from my 2022 Social Security statement, when I first qualified to collect at age 62.  Back then, the benefit was $1940 a month at age 62.  If I waited until age 70, the benefit would have increased to $3280 a month.  You can see that the Social Security payments (as shown above) have been adjusted for inflation since 2022!

Collecting "early" yields: $1940 x 12 x (78-62)=$372,480

Collecting "late" yields: $3280 x 12 x (78-70)=$314,880

So, in a sense, he is "right" that you collect more overall, provided you die on the required date.

Plugging in the math the other way, in order to yield $374,480 if you start collecting at 70, you'd have to live to about 79-1/2 years, which is not beyond the realm of possibility.  Of course, death statistics are just that - an average of everyone including infants who die in the cradle, teenagers who die in motorcycle accidents, to middle-aged people dying from cancer.  If you live to be 60, odds are you will live beyond the "average" lifespan of 78 years.  The sample pool of data has been culled of those already dead.

So in effect, my friend in Ithaca is right - and wrong.  If we only knew when we were going to die, it would be an easy equation to solve!

The second philosophy is based on other factors than dying.  Being ill and unable to care for yourself is a very probable outcome for many of us.   So if you live to be 80 or 90, you might want to have that extra income around.  Medicaid will probably force you to burn through your savings at that point, before they pay in.  So it might make "sense" to spend your IRA/401(k) cash first, and then live on the expanded Social Security payments at age 70 - which would pay out the rest of your life, regardless if you lived to be 78 or 108.

Initially, I sort of vacillated between the two philosophies.  I didn't "need" the money at age 62 and the payout was so paltry (so it seemed) that I might as well wait - perhaps to age 70, or at least until "full" retirement at age 67.  But then again, there is nothing magic about age 67 - the payout is pretty linear with age, if you look at the chart above.  So waiting until age 67 is fine, but collecting a month early doesn't deprive you of a significant chunk of money.

As the chart above shows, I am now on Medicare, or will be, effective March 1st.  I got my shiny new Medicare Card (Parts A and B) in the mail and laminated it! It was dead simple to apply online through ssa.gov once you set up your master login at https://secure.login.gov/.  That master login can be used for any government site, such as Medicare, Social Security, or the State Department (the latter of which I used last month to renew my passport).  Some folks claim you should make an in-person appointment with the local Social Security offices.  If you do, plan in advance as many are booked out for months at a time.  I found the online experience pretty easy to use, though.

Age 65 has been one of those inflection years for me.  At age 30, I had my first experience with gout.  At age 40, it was diverticulitis.  Both were sobering (and painful) experiences.  You start to realize you are getting old.  Well, this year has been a doozey.  And I realize the party might not go on forever, or at least I doubt I will live into my 90s - or want to.  Those last years in a nursing home shitting in a diaper? Hard Pass.

I remember we went to visit Mark's Grandmother at Shell Point when she was in "The Pavilion" - their nursing home care section.  She was in a hospital bed, her thin skin covered with bruises, and a big blue curtain separating her from her roommate and the window view - not that she would have noticed anyway.  In front of the bed was an enormous tube TV playing nothing but static.  I offered to turn it off for her and she said, "No, that's my favorite program!"  God Bless!

No, I could do without that experience.

But regardless, I realized that if I live to be about 80 or so, I would be doing pretty well, given my physical condition.  And if we do the math on that target number, it works out as follows:

Collecting "today" yields: $2602 x 12 x (80-65)=$468,360

Collecting "late" yields: $3771 x 12 x (80-70)=$452,520

In fact, at this point, I would have to live another six months just to break even.  For each additional year I would live, I would "lose" about $12,000 a year in benefits.

That latter part sounds scary, but consider the alternative scenario.  How do you think you (or you next of kin) would feel if that first Social Security check arrives just in time for your funeral?  You wait until age 70 and then get hit by a bus.  Who says God doesn't have a dark sense of humor?

We see this all the time in RV forums: "For Sale, Deluxe Class-A motorcoach, low miles, only used once, must sell due to death in family."  A little longer than Hemingway's "baby shoes" short story, but just as poignant.  Mom and Dad work like dogs their whole lives, and finally are able to retire and buy their "dream" motorhome and travel across America!  But on the first trip, Dad is coughing up blood and when they get home, discover he has terminal cancer.  It happens a lot to people.  Heck, they even made a movie about it.

So, I pulled the trigger on this and applied online for Social Security.  Maybe it was a psychological thing, as in earlier years, a number in the teens didn't seem like much, but $2600 seems like a lot - $31,200 a year!  Maybe not enough to live on, but a big chunk of my annual income as it is.

The decision is not irreversible, either.  If you change your mind, you can "suspend" benefits for as long as you want to - until age 70, when the payments will automatically kick in.  And yes, while you are in suspension, well, the monthly amount again ratchets up.

The folks in The Villages found a loophole here and it has since be closed.  Thanks Boomers!  Seems you could claim retirement for yourself and your spouse could collect a "spousal benefit" up to 50% of what you were getting.  Wily retirees realized they could "claim and suspend" their Social Security benefits, which would allow their spouse to claim the 50% spousal benefit.  Then, they could wait until age 70 to claim the maximum benefits, each.  It was a neat scheme, but today the law has been changed such that spousal benefits are available only so long as the primary beneficiary is not suspended (does not apply to divorced spouses).  The spouse has to be 62, and if their own benefits exceed the spousal benefit, well, they collect that, instead.  Fun while it lasted!

There are, of course, a whole host of other factors to consider.  Inflation, for example, as well as cost-of-living adjustments factor into the math (but are too complicated to consider here).  There is also the prospect of Social Security becoming insolvent, or as Trump has promises - abolished!   I still scratch my head in wonderment why people on Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Obamacare, SSI, TANF, SNAP, or Social Security Disability voted for a guy who promised to cut their benefits.  I guess they thought it would only apply to "the other guy."

And granted, there is some fraud in Social Security - or any benefits program.  The disability portion can be readily abused if you can fake a back injury, mental illness, or other problem and have a friendly doctor (and/or lawyer) fill out the paperwork for you.  It is hard to police, to be sure.  But abolishing a program that has worked for nearly 100 years isn't the answer.

If they "abolish" Social Security, what would that mean for those currently collecting it?  Would those already collecting be "grandfathered" in, or would their payments be cut off?  For many, this would mean a dent in their lifestyle.  For many more, it would mean devolving into abject poverty or even homelessness.  A surprising number of older people are living month-to-month on Social Security.  It literally is their lifeline.

All this talk of Social Security "insolvency" of course, is nonsense.  Conservatives - in the US or anywhere else in the world - love to underfund these programs and then say, "See?  They don't work!"  And we are seeing this right now with National Health in the UK and Canada - with "horror stories" being spread by the far-right about how long it takes to get elective surgery.  Meanwhile, in the United States, women are dying due to miscarriage, as nervous doctors don't want to be charged with "murder" for performing an "abortion."  Other patients are told to go home and die, if they don't have cash-up-front or good insurance.  It happened to a friend of mine and it happened to me.  If I can live to March 1st, I'm good, though.  Some system!

But I digress.

When to collect Social Security is a personal question. If you are fit and spry (I don't do spry!) you might want to wait until age 70.  If you are that fit, of course, you might want to think about fully funding your 401(k) plan, too.  Sucks to run out of money in old age - something Social Security was designed to help prevent.  On the other hand, if your health is not so hot, well, maybe collect earlier.  But since it is a reversible decision, well, don't sweat it.  You can change your mind during that eight-year window.

Like anything else, people make it out to be more complicated than it really is.