Is it Better to get Married Younger or Older??

In 1970 the average age of American men marrying was 23. Now in the current days the average age is 28 which is five years up. And it is the oldest average. It is because of the men pulling along the women into marriage, that women are now starting to want to marry older. Therefore, the age gap between spouses is starting to get more and more narrow. In 1890 the age gap of marrying men and women was around four years. In 1960 is gap got smaller and was around 2.5 years. Many women have reported that they were being peer pressured in to avoiding the serious thought to marriage until they are in their late 20’s. Those who are thinking about or wanting to get married in college are considered a pariah. Now a day’s parents are advising their children to wait on the thought of getting married until their education is complete. To launch their full carriers and become financially independent. This is not only an economical problem, but it is also an emotional problem. Marriage will eventually be there in the end whenever it is time. The only problem, according to social psychologists Roy Baumeister and Kathleen Vohs, the “market value” of women is on a steady decrease as women get older. While the men’s “market value” rises with time, because as time goes by they are goring their resources of money and maturation. The understanding of “early marriage” from social scientists is completely misunderstood by the public. The age-divorce link is most seen by young teenagers, which are those that are married before the age of 20. Marriages that have begun at the ages of 20,21, or 22 are not nearly so likely to end in a divorce than a s many people have believed. According to the data from the government, the women who would marry at the age of 18 have a better chance of making it work than those women who marry at the age of 21. So they age of getting married will always differ from generation to generation. 

What is the difference between Communism and Socialism?

Communism and Socialism are both economically and politically structured to promote equality. Also, they seek to eliminate social classes. In theory, Socialism and Communism may seem to be appealing. For all those who are doing and sharing their work together for the cause of the greater good. They hold the idea of a utopian economic structure. Which some countries have tried. However, most of those countries have failed and or became dictatorships. Which in turn is making reformation nearly impossible.

Let's take a look at a Communist society. In a Communist society, everything is owned by the working class. Therefore, everyone is working towards the same communal goal. It has eliminated both wealthy and poor classes. So it's saying that everyone is equal. Production in this type community is distributed by the need, and not by the effort or by the amount of work. It is expected that all the needs and requirements needed to do the work would be met by the community. That there is no more to be obtained through working more than what is necessary. Therefore, this type of economy often has the end result of poor production. As well as mass poverty and little advisement. This has happened before. During the 1980's, the poverty in the Soviet Union had become so widespread, that the rebellions and the revolutions had caused the nation to go into chaos.

Now Socialism economies share similarities to Communism but to a much lesser extreme. As in Communism, the main focus is equality. However, instead of the workers owning the facilities and the tools for their production, the workers are paid and allowed to spend their wages as they choose. While it is the government body that owns and operates the means of production for the benefit of the working class. Each of the workers is provided with the necessities so that he would be able to produce without any worry for his basic needs. The only downside of this is that both the advancement and the production factors have been put on a limit because there is no more incentive to achieve more.

With there being Socialism and Communism, there ended up being a third type of economic system, which is Capitalism. Capitalism has no private ownership and no class equality. In Capitalism, the reward comes naturally without any limitations to those workers who are able to exceed the normal minimums. This kind of environment can cause a lot of competition. And this can result in unlimited advancement opportunities, which can sometimes be very dangerous.

In conclusion, many modern societies and countries have adopted pieces of Socialism into their economic and political policies. Like in the United Kingdom, workers have unlimited earning potential based on their work. However, some of the basic needs, such as health care, are provided to everyone regardless of their time or effort in their work. Each one of these economic systems has their benefits and flaws, so there may never be the best or the worst in a worldwide view.

Trade Deficit

In 2015 the U.S. trade deficit with China was 367 billion dollars. This is then new record, which is up a little from last year’s record of 343 billion dollars. The U.S. trade deficit is the amount by which the cost of a country's imports exceeds the value of its exports. U.S. exports to China was only 116.2 billion dollars. While the imports from China had created a new record of 483.9 billion dollars. And the trade deficit keeps growing because the imports are rising much faster than the exports. The United States imports electronics, clothing, and machinery from China. China can produce goods that Americans want at the lowest cost. Most economists have agreed that China's competitive pricing is the result of two major factors. A lower standard of living, which allows companies in China to pay lower wages to workers. And an exchange rate that is partially fixed to the dollar. This is saying that man American companies can’t compete with China’s low costs. And the result of this is that more and more U.S. jobs are lost. If this were to happen, U.S. consumers would have to pay higher prices for their "Made in America" goods. Most people would rather pay as little as possible for computers, electronics, and clothing. For many, that's true even if it means other Americans lose their jobs. China must buy so many U.S. Treasury notes. That it is how China is the second largest lender to the U.S. government. Japan is the first largest lender to the U.S. government. As of October 2016, the U.S. has a debt to China of 1.115 trillion dollars. That's 29 percent of the total public debt owned by foreign countries. By buying Treasuries, China helped keep U.S. interest rates low. If China were to stop buying Treasuries, all the interest rates would rise, and that could throw the United States and the whole world back into the recession. It isn't in China's best interests. As it is that U.S. shoppers would buy fewer Chinese exports. In fact, China is buying almost as many Treasuries as ever. The U.S. trade deficit with China means that U.S. companies that can't compete with cheap Chinese goods must either lower their costs or go out of business. Many businesses reduced their costs by reaching out and giving jobs to India and China. Which in turn is adding to the U.S. unemployment. But other industries have just fried up and gone. U.S. manufacturing, which is measured by the number of jobs, has declined 34 percent between 1998 and 2010. As these industries declined, so has the U.S. affordability in the global marketplace. In 2016, U.S. Treasury Secretary Jack Lew continued the U.S.-China Strategic Economic Dialogue. Which discusses with China the U.S. desire to loosen its hook against the dollar. That would raise the price of all the Chinese exports. It also seeks to open up U.S. companies to the China's domestic market. Both of these actions would lower the trade deficit. 

The Biggest Owner is You!!!

The U.S has a debt of more than $19.8 trillion. Fewer people know that the Social Security Trust Fund owns most of the national debt. Most headlines focus on how much money we owe the Chinese. The U.S. Treasury manages the U.S. debt through its Bureau of the Public Debt. There are two categories: Intragovernmental Holdings, at $5.479 trillion, and Debt Held by the Public, at $14.409 trillion. Some agencies, like the Social Security Trust Fund, take in more revenue from taxes than they need right now. Rather than stick this cash under a giant mattress, they buy U.S. Treasuries with it. Social Security, by a long shot, owns the most Treasuries. Social Security (Social Security Trust Fund and Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund) holds $2.786 trillion. Office of Personnel Management Retirement holds $873 billion. Military Retirement Fund holds $601 billion. Medicare (Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund, Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Fund) holds $267 billion. Nearly half of the nation’s public debt is held by foreign governments. One fourth is held by Federal Reserves and state and local governments. Mutual funds, private pension funds, saving bonds, and individual treasury notes hold fifteen percent. The rest is owned by businesses like banks, insurance companies, and a wide range of trusts. Foreign has $6.175 trillion. Federal Reserve has $2.461 trillion. Mutual Funds has $1.056 trillion. State and Local Government, including their pension funds have $803 billion. Private Pension Funds have $403 billion. Banks have $515 billion. Have Insurance Companies - $293 billion. U.S. Savings Bonds have $174 billion. This debt is not only in Treasury bills, notes, and bonds but also TIPS. TIPS are Treasury Inflation Protected Securities. 

Comparing US State GDPs to Entire Countries

In 2015 the US produced 24.5% of the world’s GDP. And the US holds only 4.5% of the world’s population. California, Texas, and New York are the top three states that produce the most economic output. The first US state with the most economic output is California. California produces a GDP of $2.46 trillion. Which is just above the GDP of France’s output of $2.42 trillion. If California was a separate country, it would have been ranked as the 6th largest economy in the world. Texas has America’s second largest state economy. Texas produces a GDP of $1.59 trillion. Texas’ GDP was also slightly higher than Canada’s GDP of $1.55 trillion. Texas would have been ranked as the world’s 10th largest economy. The third state with the most economic output is New York. NY produces a GDP of $1.44 trillion. New York produces slightly more than South Korea ($1.38 trillion). If New York was a separate country is would be ranked as the world’s 11th largest economy. Also New York is ahead of Russia. Russia’s GDP is $1.32 trillion. Together, those three US states produced $5.5 trillion in economic output. And as a separate country would have ranked as the world’s third largest economy and ahead of No. 3 Japan ($4.1 trillion) by almost $1.5 trillion.

C.I.A. Judgment on Russia Built on Swell of Evidence (late)

C.I.A. Judgment on Russia Built on Swell of Evidence (late)

American spy and law enforcement agencies were united in the belief, in the weeks before the presidential election, that the Russian government had deployed computer hackers to sow chaos during the campaign. The C.I.A.’s conclusion does not seem to be the result of specific new intelligence obtained. But instead, it was an analysis of what many believe to be overwhelming evidence. Evidence that others feel does not support firm judgments. “I think it’s ridiculous. I think it’s just another excuse. I don’t believe it,” Mr. Trump said on Sunday in an interview on Fox News. And yet Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, went public and accused the Russians of election interference. American intelligence officials also believed that Russia had access to the databases housing Republican National Committee data. More generally, the Russian government has blamed Mrs. Clinton, along with the C.I.A. and other American officials, for encouraging anti-Russian revolts during the 2003 Rose Revolution in Georgia and the 2004 Orange Revolution in Ukraine. A senior American law enforcement official said the F.B.I. believed that the Russians probably had a combination of goals. Such as damaging Mrs. Clinton during the election and undermining American democratic institutions. But the agency’s suspicions about a direct effort by Russia to help Mr. Trump.Or about possible connections between the two camps, appear to have waned as the investigation continued into September and October. Now that a partisan squall has erupted over exactly what role Russia played in influencing the election, there is growing momentum among both Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill to have a congressional investigation.

The Dangers of Echo Chambers on Campus

After Donald Trump’s election, some universities, faculty members canceled classes for weeping, terrified students who asked: How could this possibly be happening? It is when students inhabit liberal bubbles, they’re not learning much about their own country. To be fully educated, students should encounter not only Plato, but also Republicans. Liberal outrage at Trump’s presidency will increase the problem of liberal echo chambers, by creating a more hostile environment for conservatives and evangelicals. At Oberlin College soon after the election, students erupted in protests after a local bakery was accused of racial profiling of a black student in a shoplifting case. The student senate endorsed a boycott of the bakery, and demonstrators carried signs calling the owner a racist. This is because of the bubble that students are taking way to seriously. The weakest argument against intellectual diversity is that conservatives or evangelicals have nothing to add to the conversation. The weakest argument against intellectual diversity is that conservatives or evangelicals have nothing to add to the conversation. Of course, we shouldn’t empower racists and misogynists on campuses.  underscores that we were out of touch with much of America, and we will fight back more effectively if we are less isolated. When universities are echo chambers, they become conservative punch lines, and liberal hand-wringing