In the early days of human evolution, after our ancestors came out of the trees and started walking upright on the ground, there was a discussion among the different parts of the body about who was going to be boss.
First, the brain spoke up and said, “I have all the knowledge, the foresight and all information from all the body parts come to me. I should be the boss.”
Second, the legs spoke and said, “I take us everywhere we go and without me, we couldn’t move around and get food and water. I should be the boss.”
Then the stomach spoke up and said, “I digest all the food that gives us energy to live, move around and do everything. I should be the boss.”
Next, the eyes spoke and said, “I can see everything that goes on and we would just be bumbling around in the dark if it weren’t for me. I should be the boss.”
Then the asshole spoke. “Without me, we would get all stopped up and our legs would wobble, the brain would have a headache, the eyes would be cloudy, and the stomach would be backed up, unable to eat. I should be the boss.”
All the other body parts laughed and joked about how stupid that would be.
So, the asshole decided to show them. It went on strike and didn’t let anything out. The other parts of the body broke down and nothing could get down, so they all got together and decided to make the asshole the boss.
It just goes to show you, that you don’t have to have brains to be the boss; Just be an asshole.
And that’s how just a few people, sometimes even just one person , can control an institution like the U.S. Congress and the House of Representatives.
Although Inflation was high in 2022, the average annual rate from 2009 through October 2022, was one of the lowest in the last 50 years.
In 2022, inflation in the U.S. has hit highs not seen in decades, but how bad is it really and what caused it?
If we look at total inflation in the last two decades, it tells a different story. Looking at the average rate of Inflation over this period, it has been at a normal healthy pace over the long run—and that includes the high rates in 2022. The problem is that there was very low inflation for more than 10 years previously, and then we get very high inflation all at once in 2022. When “normal” inflation is spread out over several years, people don’t feel it as much as when it builds up and hits everyone over a one-year period, like in 2022. But overall, prices in 2022 are about where they would be if we had steady inflation little by little over this period. Hard to believe, bur that’s what the facts show.
Because of two major events since 2008, inflation has set records of prolonged periods of very low inflation, then, starting in 2021, the country experienced mild inflation, building up to high inflation in 2022. We can show this as we look back, but first: Is inflation good for the economy, and if so, how much inflation is good and how much is bad?
Is Inflation Good or is it All Bad?
Economists generally agree that a little inflation is necessary for a growing and healthy economy, so the government plans for some inflation. The Federal Reserve bank, the nation’s central bank, has set an annual target of 2% inflation, allowing it to periodically go a bit higher—up to around 3%. When it goes above 3% for a month or two and then drops down, there is little concern, but when it keeps climbing, everyone is concerned.
In the first 10 months of 2022, inflation hit a high of 9.1% and a low of 7.5%, with an average of about 8.3%. But if we average the inflation rate over the previous 10 years, going back to 2013, the rate averages out at 2.5% a year. * This is within the parameters that the Federal Reserve considers comfortable for stable economic growth. Part of the problem is that “stable economic growth” rarely happens for long periods. Growth has always come with downturns and upturns. Adding in unrelated crises, like wars and pandemics, which happen periodically, makes for even less predictable outcomes.
If we go back even further, to 2009, the average inflation rate changes even more. At the end of 2008, there was a major economic collapse—often called “The Great Recession.” But its major effect began a few months later in early 2009. When there is a collapse of the economy, demand drops when people lose their jobs and cut back on their buying. Consequently, inflation is low. There was even deflation in 2009 with a -0.4% inflationary average over the entire year. Subsequently, as the economy recovered and demand increased, Inflation slowly went back up until 2020, when the pandemic hit, which had a major economic impact that no one was certain about. Inflation dropped back down to 1.2% and then, in 2021, as the nation recovered from the pandemic, the rate began to rise until it hit the highs in 2022. In other words, the country experienced very low inflation from 2008 through 2020.
The Great Recession, the Pandemic and the Inflation Rate
These two major events, the Great Recession and the pandemic, instigated significant economic changes that caused inflation to fall and then rise again. But the effects from each event were vastly different and we can learn a lot by comparing the two, especially the inflation rates.
The Great Recession was a deep, but normal, recession with unemployment going up, profits dropping and inflation slowing down below the normal healthy inflation rate levels of around 2%. In the first year, 2009, inflation hit a low of -0.4%. The following year (2010) inflation began to rise, but it was still low at 1.6%. In 2011, as the economy began to recover, it hit 3.2%, then in 2012 it was 2.1% as the recovery grew stronger. Then it hit low inflationary rates in the following years of 1.5% (2013), 1.6% (2014), 0.1% (2015), 1.3% (2016), 2.1% (2017), 2.4% (2018), 1.8% (2019). These are typical of previous recession recoveries. The average of the years 2009 through 2019 was very low at 1.6%—below the average of 2% that the central bank sees as healthy. You might call the recovery from the Great Recession a normal “healthy” recovery that was just like other recoveries, except it was from a deeper and more severe recession than any seen since the Depression in the 30s.
The second big event, the pandemic, hit starting in the second quarter of 2020. Average annual inflation that year was at a very low 1.2%. It had not dropped that low since 2015. The pandemic caused a recession, but it was like no recession that anyone had ever seen before, and its effects were unpredictable. There had not been a pandemic in the U.S. in more than 100 years—and never in a modern economy. It was uncharted territory. The economy had just gone through a recovery over the previous eight years and was in a very strong and healthy condition. The pandemic recession was not linked to the normal business cycle, though. Many lost their jobs—even though demand was there—and small and medium-sized businesses closed down, some permanently, some temporarily. Many started working from home, and many just quit working. Unemployment went up. But the government gave out money and extended unemployment benefits to help those in trouble. That put some money into the economy. But the future was still uncertain.
The Pandemic “Recession”
No one was sure what the economy would do or how the government should respond. The economy had never gone through anything like it. In fact, it was hard to call it a recession since people weren’t really being laid off like in a normal recession. Many people were being temporarily laid off “until the pandemic ended.” During the height of the pandemic, many took early retirement and early Social Security benefits. Many started working for themselves and many joined the cash economy, getting unreported income. Crime went up as society was disrupted, plus crime always goes up when people lose their jobs. The poor suffered most, which always happens during rising unemployment. But generally, people had less money and demand was low, which means inflation would be low.
One could say that the pandemic, with layoffs and businesses closing or cutting back, caused a recession. It was like a recession, but it did not have the usual causes. Plus, it had one other unique aspect: It was the fastest recession recovery in history. The pandemic hit the economy in early 2020, then it basically ended in late 2020, and everyone went back to work, and it was basically over by early 2021—all in one year.
As people went back to work, demand increased and inflation went up, hitting 4.7% in 2021. This happened not only in the U.S. but around the world. The pandemic and its associated “recession” caused factories to close or cut back around the world. Before the pandemic, the world’s economy had become more international than ever before. Products were manufactured overseas and then shipped to consumers around the world. When product demand came back, it was difficult for supply lines to come back quickly. The overseas factories and supply lines to bring goods to America, mainly in Asia, grew “organically” and very slowly over several decades going back to the 70s. When demand came back in America, it came back quickly, but these supply lines to overseas factories had to be restarted. It was like rebuilding a car that was taken apart and put in storage.
With those two events, the Great Recession and the pandemic, the U.S. had record inflationary lows for many years and then record highs in 2022. But the average from the beginning of 2009 through 2022 was still low at 2.25%, which is as good as it gets for a long-term low inflation rate. If we look at inflation by decade, 2.25% over 14 years is exceptionally low. In the attached graph, inflation in the 2000s was 2.54%, in the 1990s it was at 3.08%, and in the 1980s it was at 5.82%. It’s just that the high inflation mid 2021 through 2022 hit all at once and was not spread out over several years. In other words, the prices in 2022 are pretty much what they would have been if the average inflation rate had increased at a relatively low and steady pace over this period. It just hurts more when it comes all at once.
Low Unemployment and Inflation Rate Average
The state of the economy post pandemic from 2021-2022 was a surprise to most everyone, and the biggest surprise was very low unemployment with two jobs for every person looking for a job. Companies, large and small, were struggling to find enough workers. And demand was booming as the economy’s recovery from the pandemic “recession” went into overdrive.
Economists, who mainly did not predict this situation when the pandemic ended in 2020, started to talk about a recession in 2022, even some saying we were already in one. Then came predictions about a coming recession later in 2022. Then it became 2023, then it was mid-2023, and then it was late 2023. And many predict the worst recession of all time.
What is the main problem with a recession? It’s simple: People lose their jobs. For those who have been saying that we are already in a recession are missing this key ingredient: There’s never been a recession with unemployment this low. Economics is not an exact science and considering the failure of at least 90 percent of economists to predict the Great Recession, I wonder about their opinions today. Maybe they are all trying to make up for not seeing the 2008 crash. But then again, even though economics is not an exact science, these “respected economists” talk like it is. Or maybe they’ve learned their lesson from 2008 and are better economists (I hope so). It reminds me of the old saying: Get five economists together and you get six opinions on where the economy is going. Add an unknown factor like a pandemic and you would probably get 10 opinions.
The other big result of the pandemic “recession” recovery was increase demand, which always causes inflation, or at the least, fears of inflation. In 2021, inflation immediately began to rise in the second quarter of 2021, with an average annual rate of 4.7%. In 2022, inflation increased very quickly. Wages were rising, but not fast enough to keep consumers happy. The “recovery” was going too fast, and with the low inflation for the previous 14 years, inflation was catching up all at once—in one year.
So… what can be done about it?
Rising and Falling Interest Rates’ Effects on the Inflation Rate
The main tool that the government has in controlling inflation is the Federal Funds Rate, which sets the interest rate for borrowing. The Funds Rate is set by the Federal Reserve (the “Fed”), and the one person who has the most power for setting the rate is the chairperson of the Federal Reserve. The theory on controlling inflation: In a strong economy, when demand is high, inflation goes up, therefore increase interest rates to slow down the economy and soften demand. In a weakening economy, when demand is low and inflation too low, lower interest rates to spur the economy and keep inflation rates at a healthy 2%. In a recovering economy, with low inflation, raise interest rates incrementally to stave off inflation. Interest rates that are too low for too long create a situation where there is too much easy money in the economy and inflation will go up. And in the long run, being able to borrow money at a very low cost is not a good thing, so bringing rates up to a “reasonable” level is a good thing.
By the time the Great Recession started in late 2008, the interest rate had dropped steadily from 5.25% in 2007 to around 2% in the third quarter of 2008. The economy started to show signs of weakness in 2007, so the Fed started a regular lowering of the Funds rate to encourage borrowing and investment. By August 2008, it was at 2%. By September, when the crash really came to a head, the rate was dropped to around 1% and by early December it was at .15%. It stayed in that range for the next seven years and the economy continued to recover and grow until the Fed, under Chairwoman Janet Yellen, started to raise the rate in December 2015 when the economy was doing fairly well. Then the rate was slowly but steadily raised over the next three years by Yellen and by the new Fed Chair, Jerome Powell who was appointed by President Trump in early 2018. It reached a low rate of 2.4% by the first quarter of 2019, when Powell indicated the Fed would continue to raise rates. Instead of raising them—and in response to pressure from President Trump—he made no rate change. And then he lowered the rate three times in the third and fourth quarter of 2019, again under pressure from President Trump, even though the economy was continuing to grow. Why the Fed agreed, or succumbed to Trump’s desire, to not only raise rates, but to lower them, was surprising to many, considering that the economy was still doing well. In fact, Fed Chairman Powell later admitted to making a mistake by lowering rates, stating that the economy was in better shape than expected. Lowering the rates was a big mistake, the effects of which would be felt much later.
In late 2019 and early 2020, inflation was below the 2% target. This was before the pandemic caused economic problems. Raising rates would have been the correct thing to do to keep the economy from overheating and causing rising inflation. Instead, only a few months later in the spring of 2020 when the effects of the pandemic took hold, demand fell, and inflation stayed very low the rest of the year. If, instead of lowering rates in 2019, the Fed had continued to raise them, or even just stabilize it, inflation would have been kept in check when the pandemic ended just months later in late 2020 and everyone went back to work. Instead, inflation started to rise in March 2021 and continued a steady increase until it started to increase very quickly in the second quarter of 2021 (going over 5%). This was another time to raise rates incrementally, but that didn’t happen. As it continued into 2022, the Fed woke up and finally started to raise rates monthly to stave off the extreme inflation through 2022. It was too late to ease the pain of low but steady inflation.
But the average annual inflation from 2009 through 2022 was, as noted above, only 2.25%—a very healthy rate over the long run. Rates should never have been lowered in 2019. The Fed should have continued to raise them instead, which is what they were doing in the years leading up to 2019. These were not big jumps, but incrementally small ones of only around .5% a year on average. The rates should have been left alone at around 1.5% in early 2020. Lowering the rate to less than 1% resulted in very low inflation in 2019-2020 and very high inflation in 2021 and 2022. The Fed didn’t follow its own historical guidelines of raising rates in good times to control future inflation.
Consequently, 2022 hit consumers all at once instead of slowly over the years. Again, at only 2.25% average per year, prices in late 2022 are about the same as they would have been anyway. But no one thinks of it like that. Why? Because Trump and Powell are to blame for lowering the rate in 2019, and Biden and Powell are to blame for not raising them in 2021, although that was too late to make a major impact right away. One thing about inflation: it takes time for changes in the Fed rate to affect a massive economy like the U.S., meaning many months to years. Politically speaking, everyone is looking for someone to blame, but no one wants to take the blame.
The Perfect Storm of Inflation
In conclusion, it was good that the economy had low borrowing rates during the pandemic, which was at its worst from the spring of 2020 until late that year. There was no reason to raise them; businesses weren’t borrowing during that time anyway. They were saving money, as were consumers, who experienced record savings rates, which was later money spent in 2021-2022, which helped fuel inflation. But it would have been best to not lower the rate in early 2020, when it was lowered substantially. It was down to 0.5% by April from 1.5% only 4 months earlier. Rates should probably not have been raised during that period but should have been in 2019. They should have at least stabilized the rates in 2020, not lowered them.
High inflation in 2022 was caused by the pandemic more than any single factor, and the pandemic was an event never experienced in over a century—and not at all in the modern world of an international economy. The country, and the world, will continue to feel the effects of the pandemic for years to come, so beware of those who are so certain in their predictions of total collapse in the coming year. Anything could happen, including total economic expansion and prosperity, short-term recession, long-term recession—or even another pandemic. After all, we are in uncharted territory. At the pace the world is changing—even without the pandemic—we will stay in uncharted territory for a very long time, perhaps forever, because it is the incredibly fast pace of technological improvements that is the main driving factor in the modern world—and the slow pace of human evolution that is trying to deal with it that will determine our future. That clash makes the future exceedingly difficult to predict, and a pandemic makes that even more difficult.
The pandemic might have been the most important single factor in the rise in inflation, but it wasn’t the only factor. There were three factors that created the perfect storm of inflation in 2021-2022: First was not continuing to raise rates in 2019, but instead lowering them and doing so again in early 2020. These decisions were not economic decisions, but political decisions. Second was the pandemic. And third was not incrementally raising them again starting in late 2020 and on into 2021, although it might have been too late, anyway. But it couldn’t have hurt the situation. Instead, the rates had to catch up with the economy all at once in 2022. The perfect storm. And no one saw it coming.
Inflation will slow down on its own, mainly because it has caught up with itself.
*******
* Many people don’t understand the monthly inflation reports. It’s important to know that when the inflation rate is 5% one month and then 6% the next month, that doesn’t mean that prices went up 5% the first month and then they rose 6% higher the next month. It means that in the first month, prices were 5% higher than the same month of the previous year, and the following month the prices were 6% higher than the same month the previous year. Over 12 months, the average is taken and that is the annual rate of how much inflation there was over the previous year.
Donald Trump has a following of die-hard, cult-like followers who will support him no matter what he says and does. He called them out in January 2016, in Sioux Center, Iowa. when he stated:
“You know what else they say about my people? The polls, they say I have the most loyal people. Did you ever see that? Where I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose any voters, okay? It’s like incredible.”
The audience laughed, even though he had just insulted them by suggesting that they are blind, unthinking sheep who will follow him no matter what. They didn’t care—and they knew it was true, anyway. Essentially, Trump was right; His followers to this day have followed him—like blind, unthinking sheep who will follow him no matter what—the “fifth-avenue voters.”
There is no doubt that upon leaving the White House, former President Trump illegally took documents that were not his. These were government-owned documents, many of which were classified. He did not ask for permission because he knew it was not allowed (can you imagine Donald Trump asking for permission for anything?). He illegally took and mishandled classified documents that he had no right to have in his possession. Trump knew that classified documents were closely tracked as to who has them. Knowing this—and that it was illegal—why would he take them in the first place? Since the search of his residence, he has come up with so many excuses that it’s hard to keep track of them. But if you look at how he has handled the return of the documents, his motives become obvious why he took them and why he returned them little by little over 18 months.
Trump Took Classified Documents That are Tracked Closely
For over a year, the Dept. of Justice (DOJ) told Trump and his lawyers that he had more classified documents than he initially said he had. To some, it might appear as though the DOJ didn’t know what he had, but they probably had a good idea. Every classified document is catalogued. Records are kept noting what the document is about, where it is, who has it, where it’s going and when it was removed from a secure location that is the “home” where that document is normally kept. Also recorded is when the document was returned. Plus, everything must be signed for. National Archives oversees all classified documents, and there are several secure locations where they are regularly stored. To name a few: the Defense Department and the individual branches, the CIA, the FBI, the National Security Agency, various intelligence agencies, the White House…and certainly several more. *
In an organized system, this would all have to be centrally controlled by a computer system run by one person, or, more than likely, a team. That is, of course, if it was organized correctly and run by responsible people. Consequently, the central “controller” of the classified documents that Trump has in his possession should be able to know exactly what he has (unless others who had access to them took the documents). Trump knew this, too. And if Trump, in keeping with his normal behavior, ran a disorganized administration (which is likely), then perhaps these classified documents were handled haphazardly in the White House, and no one really knew what was where. But it is likely that their origins can be all traced back to a starting point to find out who was responsible when each document was “checked out.” With enough investigation, The DOJ could figure out what he has.
Why Trump Took Government Documents
One thing we can say with absolute certainty: Trump took the government documents, both classified and not classified, to gain benefit in some way for himself. The opportunities to use the information are numerous. It could be that there is information in the documents that he can use in the future to learn about people he could be dealing with in his continued business dealings, or even in his future political battles in his lust for power. This could be either to have an advantage by knowing something other parties don’t think he knows, or personal information that he can use against people that would be embarrassing. Or it could be information that would give him an advantage to make a business deal with someone.
There could also be information that he is concerned about that he does not want to get out about himself—to either make him look bad in the public eye, or his personal life, or in a future business deal.
Why Trump Didn’t Want to Return them Right Away
By the time the warranted search of his residence took place, Trump might have already learned what he needed to learn from the classified documents. After all, he had them in his possession for over a year and a half. It is highly likely that they were reviewed, since many of the documents (classified or not) were found in his desk in his personal office, and many were found outside their folders. These are all indicators that he, or someone, had already gone through them. In fact, it is highly likely that he directed someone else, probably a lawyer (to protect his actions, in his mind, through attorney-client privilege), to go through them with instructions for what to look for. Knowing Trump’s penchant for not wanting to read daily briefings while he was President, it is even more than likely that he had someone else review them. But certainly, at the least, Trump oversaw the process. And it is more than likely, that someone took notes, maybe even made copies.
The idea that he has already reviewed the classified documents is even more likely if you look at the timeline of how they eventually were returned to the government. They were returned little by little over a year and a half. In May 2021, four months after he took the documents to Florida, the National Archives requested that Trump return all government-owned documents. That gave Trump four months to have already gone through them. But perhaps he wasn’t done reviewing them yet.
Trump Returns the First Bundle of Documents 11 Months After Taking Them
Seven months later, in December 2021, Trump and his team responded that they had 12 boxes, which Archives arranged to have returned to Washington. That was another seven months that Trump had to review them. He most likely had already gone through those 12 boxes in the 11 months since he took them, but especially during the seven months after the government asked for everything to be returned.
One month later, in January 2022, Archivists went to Mar-a-Lago and retrieved another 15 boxes. That gave Trump another month to review them. That probably means he was done reviewing those 15 boxes. It became increasingly obvious that he was returning them little by little.
All the boxes retrieved so far had classified documents in them, besides unclassified material that belongs to the government. Four months later, on May 11, 2022, the DOJ, knowing there were still missing documents in Trump’s possession, got a grand jury subpoena that gave Trump until May 24 to return all of them. Trump asked for an extension and got one for two more weeks—until June 7. But on June 2, Evan Corcoran, Trump’s lawyer, contacted the DOJ and told them to come to Mar-a-Lago and pick up the remaining documents asked for in the subpoena. On June 3, The FBI goes to Florida. Corcoran gives them a large envelope that he claims contains all the remaining classified documents. Trump was obviously done reviewing the documents in the envelope. Corcoran also states (and signs a document saying so) that no other classified documents exist at Mar-a-Lago. The subpoena limits what the FBI can search for, and they leave with the envelope. That gave Trump another five months to review them. He continued to return them little by little.
On Aug. 5, the DOJ, after reviewing the envelope’s contents, which included classified documents, and realizing that there are still more missing documents, got a warrant to search Mar-a-Lago, and the search was conducted on Aug. 8. The FBI seized 33 items, 13 of which are boxes with classified documents in them. Many items were found in Trump’s desk intermixed with personal items. That gave Trump another two weeks to review them.
Why else would Trump return the documents little by little unless he wasn’t done with getting what he needed from them yet?
Is Trump Getting Away With It?
The problem for Trump, although minor at this point, was that he didn’t know they would get a warrant and search his residence for the final documents—and he didn’t know when a search would happen. His lawyers might have warned him that it could happen, and Trump could have sped up his review of the documents that he still had in hopes of finishing it all up. He also might have thought that they wouldn’t dare search his residence with a warrant, and if they did, he felt he could create enough of a furor over a warrant that he could still get away with it. And that’s exactly what happened. Besides, he probably already searched most of the documents over the last 18 months and got what he wanted out of them. He might even have believed that he could use a search of his residence to his advantage. He might have welcomed it. With or without the search, he was in legal jeopardy for having classified documents anyway, so who cares? It could easily have been part of his plan all along. He probably thinks he can get away with it all.
There’s good reason to believe that he is getting away with it. After all, he took the documents, and slowly—over a period of a year and a half—returned them little by little, the last time being returned because of a search warrant. But he managed to continuously postpone returning them. Eighteen months is more than enough time to go over all the documents, except perhaps those taken by warrant (since the search was unexpected to some degree). Plus, the Republican party and many of its leaders criticized the DOJ and the FBI immediately after the search.
Trump successfully took the documents—certainly knowing that they were classified—reviewed them and got what he wanted. He will continue to make a big enough stink over the warranted search that he believes he will get away with it, even if it’s a minor punishment and/or fine.
The idea that he took them by mistake, or he thought they were his, or he didn’t review them—is laughable. He had a plan all along and he pulled it off. He weighed the risks, took the documents, reviewed them, and gave them back when he was done with them—at his pace. So far, so good.
How Taking the Documents Could Help Trump
Trump talks about running for President in 2024, but I doubt he will run. He will pretend he will, even if he announces his candidacy, but he will pull out at some point, because he won’t take the chance of being a loser again. He might even use an indictment and conviction for mishandling of classified documents as an excuse—claiming it is all a political witch hunt. That’s because the chances of him spending jail time is almost non-existent. He will then have not only gotten away with it but used it to his advantage to further his political power—outside of government, which is what his real goal is. After all, he has tens of millions of Fifth-Avenue supporters who will follow him wherever he wants to go. They will always believe that he won the election and that he is a victim of persecution.
Questions remain about who reviewed the classified documents: Did they take notes and make copies, and where are those notes? ** The most likely place is in a lawyer’s files. The DOJ needs look for them. The country needs find them.
******
* For more detailed information on how classified documents are handled, go to this link to download a PDF of the Classified Matter Protection and Control Handbook put out by the Dept. of Energy. Start on page 55 of the PDF (skipping the marking information).
For a shorter, and less informative, description of the handling of classified documents from the National Archives, go here.
** Update: In January 2023, more classified documents were found in Trump’s possession, including a laptop where notes had been made from the classified document. This article suggests that all the classified documents were reviewed and notes made. So far, investigator’s have only found this laptop. There are probably dozens, if not hundreds, of notes made, both digitally and on paper, that were a result of Trump and his team’s reviewing of all the documents.
When European man came to North America about 500 years ago, they brought horses, because there were no horses in the “New World.” But there were about 100 million Native American “Indians,” and they had only one mode of transportation: Walking.
For the previous tens of thousands of years, these native peoples walked everywhere─on the plains, in the deserts, in the mountains and in the forests, yet none of them were walking around with two hiking poles. With millions of acres of forests, they had enough resources to build as many hiking poles as they would want. They had thousands of years to develop two poles if they thought they would be helpful. But they walked without them. This didn’t surprise the Europeans, because there is also no historical or archaeological evidence that shows humans carrying two hiking poles in the “Old World,” for the last few hundred thousand years
And now, within the last 30-plus years, many people are now saying we humans need hiking poles? Really? Anyone ever watch a perfectly healthy person walk down a steep, rocky trail in the mountains using their hiking poles? To me, it proves we not only don’t need them, but we need to encourage healthy people to not use them.
In the last three to four decades in the U.S., mountain hiking has expanded greatly, along with outdoor sports stores, hiking clubs, mountain biking, backpacking and other related activities.
I started hiking and backpacking in the High Sierra of California over 50 years ago in 1969, and I’ve seen a lot of changes in both the people who hike and the gear they use.
People who live in or near the mountains enter hiking because it’s healthy, and you get to see a lot of beauty. You also don’t need to buy a lot of accessories (some will say you do, and many will tell you that you need all the latest gear, which you don’t). Plus, you can join a hiking club and meet lots of people. Sounds easy and cheap. Plus, there’s a perception that there’s no skills to learn. After all, it’s just walking. How hard can it be?
The Reality of Learning to Hike
In reality, mountain hiking takes time to build stamina and body strength, a lesson that many soon learn. But you can start on easy trails and work your way up, while still enjoying it. There are also lots of books and videos out there, along with hiking club members and outdoor store clerks to advise you. But beware of a lot of this advice, because, in many ways it is just walking. They will all tell you what you need to get started, like what clothes to wear (meaning what to buy), what backpack (to buy), and what hiking boots (or shoes) to buy. You’ll also need to buy water bottles and miscellaneous other items, all of which the stores will sell you. Regardless of what people tell you, you really don’t need to buy all this stuff to get started. Learn for yourself before buying all that stuff.
The most important item you need to buy are good hiking boots, but more on this later.
Almost everyone will also tell you that you need hiking poles (trekking poles), which you can also buy at the outdoor store. But do you really need them? Depends, but don’t believe anyone who says that everyone “needs them.” Most don’t. This is my view, and it goes against almost everyone’s view in the modern-day hiking crowd, which has, in many ways, succumbed to the mass hysteria of getting the “latest gear.” Believe me, the latest gear is the last thing to get and it’s really not very important.
And is hiking really that simple to get into? Do I need any skills or training? Or can I just hit the trails and “jump” into hiking?
About Mountain Hiking Trails
If you are on a typical mountain trail, you will often find trails that are a “walk in the park.” This is where the ground is flat, soft dirt, with maybe a small incline here and there. These trails are similar to a walk in the local city or county park, except the mountain trail is usually only one-person wide. In this type of “walk-in-the-park” mountain hiking, you don’t need buy anything special. Just bring a water bottle and a backpack (or whatever works) to carry it in. Maps and other stuff involved are for another discussion.
It’s when mountain hiking trails go up and down that changes the nature of “hiking.” The trail changes, as does everything else. Unless it’s simple and short, going up and down trails can be everything from easy to extremely difficult. If you’re not in great shape, don’t go on a steep trail that starts by going down, because then you must go up to get back. In other words, don’t hike down into a valley and back until you are in good-enough shape. If you are patient and determined, you can “train” your body over time to hike into the steepest valleys with ease.
It’s when mountain hiking is not a “walk in the park” that you must get some good hiking boots and do some training.
Training for Hiking
Training? Why would I need to train myself to go hiking if all I am doing is walking up and down? I’m just going for a walk in the woods. And what kind of training and how long does it take?
Mountain hiking, which generally involves going up and down many steep trails, like all sports, requires practice and training. You need to build up your stamina, leg strength, joints, and balance. Contrary to what others may say, training is necessary, and building up your body takes time-all depending on your age and current health. But this is not rigorous training, like training for a race. You just need to start slowly and work your way up (so to speak). You can even do this in your leisure time.
Keep in mind that if you go slow enough, going up or down a steep trail is relatively easy. If it’s steep and rocky, you can always crawl up the trail, even on all fours, or sit on your butt and slowly go down. It’s when you want to walk up and down at a decent pace and in an upright, safe manner that you need to develop some physical strength and stamina. But this is not Olympic training, it’s simple training and you can go at any pace you want. I mean, walking is one of the slowest methods of going somewhere, so what’s the big hurry? Hiking is recreation and for fun. It’s not a race, and in hiking, the tortoise generally wins over the hare─in the long run. Do a lot of hiking for many years and you’ll probably live longer. And don’t forget to stop and smell the roses.
It’s more important to regularly go walking than it is to train heavily to improve your hiking. Don’t listen to people who tell you how fast you should go. Hiking is for fun (unless your goals are different). Be patient. After all, with all this hiking you’ll probably live longer, so you’re gaining extra time. But don’t let it be stressful. Don’t worry, be happy.
After trying it for a while, if you find that you want to continue hiking you need to have good hiking boots. This will be your most important purchase.
Buy Good Ankle-High Boots
I cannot say enough about how important good boots are. Personally, I am extremely careful that I have boots that fit perfectly and are worn in (which means that after a while, they will fit better).
If you decide to get into this “sport,” then get some very good ankle-high hiking boots. Just make sure you try them on at the end of the day when your feet are biggest. Then take them home and wear them only inside the house. If all is good, keep them. Just make sure they fit.
Do not get low-height tennis shoes that have Vibram-like soles. They are really just glorified tennis shoes (unless you plan to go “trail-running”). Get boots with Vibram (or similar) soles but make sure you buy ankle-high boots. Mountain hikers who hike on more than “walk-in-the-park” conditions must have ankle-high boots. Don’t let anyone tell you different if you are going to be on some steep and rocky trails. They might not have learned this lesson yet. Some never learn. Everyone wants to wear tennis shoes because most everyone owns a pair, and they are comfortable on day one (they are fine to get started, but you will hike slowly even if you don’t plan to). Other more experienced hikers you meet who wear them will often tell newcomers that they are fine. But in the long run, you will be a better hiker with good ankle-high boots.
With good ankle-high boots, you will learn that they give you a better platform and foot support to step on rough surfaces. Low-height shoes, regardless of their soles, will be weak and have more of a tendency to slip on rough trails (plus high boots keep more rocks and dirt out, which means your socks don’t get as dirty). Regular shoes mean you will have to move more slowly with each step, otherwise, if you slip, your foot and ankle are more susceptible to twisting and you falling. Ankle-high boots enclose your entire foot and ankle, meaning they become part of your feet.
Some people who have only hiked with glorified tennis shoes will never know how superior ankle-high boots are. But if you are only going to hike on simple trails that are basically flat dirt and very gradual slopes, any shoes, including sandals, will do.
Part II – Hiking Poles
Hiking Poles Have Only Been Around for a Few Decades
Last, but not least, and probably the most controversial piece of gear is hiking poles (trekking poles).
When you get into hiking, almost everyone will tell you that hiking poles are necessary for everyone. In my view the claim that everyone must have poles is completely ridiculous. In fact, for most everyone, my belief is you must not get hiking poles, especially if you are young.
When I started hiking and backpacking over 50 years ago in the 1970s, hiking poles didn’t exist. Now, everyone seems to have them. There’s been a lot of changes since those days. There was no one around to tell us we needed hiking poles─because they didn’t exist.
In today’s world (2022), 90 percent of the hikers I see use two hiking poles. (This does not include people who visit an area, park their car, and go for a short hike in their street shoes, or those out for a short, casual hike.) Sometimes I see a large group of hikers, which I am certain is a hiking club, and they all have two poles. If you join a club and tell members you are new to mountain hiking and want to get involved, I guarantee they will tell you that you must get hiking poles. Must? Really?
Yet-after 50-plus years and many, many miles of backpacking and mountain hiking without poles (often with heavy packs on long back-country trips over two weeks), the more I am convinced that most people don’t need them, and for many, they are harmful to developing good agility and balance in going up and down steep trails, especially those with obstacles to step on and over.
Some People Do Need Hiking Poles
Before I get into why I have found this, let me make sure that it’s understood that I am certain there are people who need poles because of a physical ailment and/or advanced age. As we get older, our joints get older, and knees and hips seem too often to be the first to go. But I’m not convinced, as others say, that poles are good for those joints. If you are old and relatively new to mountain hiking, they might be. My joints are still doing good, but as I age, yes, they might start to feel old, and I might want poles one day. But at 73, I’m going strong and have not even the tiniest feeling that I need poles. No poles haven’t hurt me. In fact, I am certain that not hiking with poles all these years has made me stronger and more agile in my mountain hiking.
The situation where I see the need for poles more than any other reason is for those who have bad knees, bad hips, or other leg problems before they started hiking. I know people who can’t walk on a city street because of bad hips or knees. Obviously, these people need poles.
Poles, of course, are an individual decision based on knowing yourself and learning from others, like reading this article.
Mountain Hiking is Not Always “A Walk in the Park”
This popular saying means it’s extremely easy. And that’s exactly what I think of when I say: “Compared to mountain hiking on a steep, rocky trail with roots, logs and other obstacles, walking on a flat dirt mountain trail on a gradual incline is a ‘walk in the park.’ “
In many flat, or even “hilly” county or city parks, where the trails are flat dirt or pavement, you certainly don’t need hiking poles or hiking boots. Although you might see people wearing boots, you almost never see someone with poles.
When you get into the mountains, trails can be flat, soft dirt on gradual inclines. These are a “walk in the park” and poles are just as unnecessary. But mountain trails are also in the “mountains” and trails are often steep and laden with obstacles and steps, being either straight up or down steep slopes or on switchbacks. And in these cases, one has to regularly step on and over rocks, tree roots and logs─and constantly at different angles. It’s no “walk in the park” in these cases. That’s when many people say that poles are needed, although many still use their poles when the trail is easy, mainly out of habit, I am sure. I have seen many people, though, tie their poles to their packs on easy trail sections. Or they might carry them in their hands without using them. At least these people realize that poles are not always useful, but often in the way.
As I mentioned above, some people with physical ailments or of older age do need poles. But for those who are healthy and in fairly good condition─especially if you are young─my bottom-line opinion is: definitely, don’t start using them. If you are a beginning mountain-hiker, consider that now is the time to start training your body to be a better hiker, and in my opinion, that is best accomplished without poles.
It Might be Too Late; Are Your Poles Now Crutches?
If you are already using poles, it might be too late to stop using them. In other words, you’ve got to the point where you can’t hike without them. If you are young and have already been using poles for years, I suggest you put them away. But be careful, you might already be too dependent on poles to hike comfortably without them. So, take it slow.
Poles might fool you into thinking that they are helping you right away, which they might be—in the short run. But in the long run, they might not be good for you. Developing good balance and strength is a slow process and mountain hiking is like any other physical endeavour; You must develop these attributes through time with training and practice. Hiking poles are not a shortcut to long-term goals of developing these attributes; They just make you think they are.
I never criticize anyone who uses them, because I don’t know if they have a physical need to use them, and it’s also not polite, nor is it my concern. But when I see groups where almost everyone is using poles, I am sure that they don’t all have physical problems that require them. The great majority of people I’ve hiked with in a hiking club are very healthy people and most have hiked a lot of miles and are strong hikers.
At times, I even wonder if the reason they use them is because they’ve been using them for so long that they now need them—or think they need them. But many of these pole-hikers aren’t that agile when it comes to going up and down steep, rocky trails. In fact, many are slow and awkward in these situations, and I blame it on the poles in almost every case.
Some might say: “If everyone is using poles, then maybe they are needed. Why should we listen to you?” The fact that everyone is doing something, even if it’s just the majority, is not a good reason to do something. Just look around at society. Continue reading here, and then go hiking and find out for yourself.
My Years of Mountain Hiking Without Poles
I started hiking and backpacking over 50 years ago when I was 20. For several years, backpacking was all I did in the warm months. I put in a lot of miles in the high mountains of the Sierra Nevada in California.
I also hiked and lived in the high mountains of Colorado for 13 years. Hiking at high elevations in the Sierras and the Rockies is lots of steep climbing, often on narrow rocky trails going over 10- to 12,000-foot passes. When I came to the southern Appalachians in North Carolina in 2007, where I’ve hiked for most of the last 15 summers, I was introduced to a different mountain environment that has many steep trails, but all at a much lower elevation then in the mountains out west.
And all this mountain hiking was done without poles─“in the good old days.” One thing I am certain of─beyond any doubt─based on my experience: Poles are desirable by many, but the idea that they are necessary for all is ludicrous. I do believe that if you want to be a great hiker, and you are relatively young and in good condition, that poles will be, in the long run, detrimental to developing good leg strength and balance.
But the real proof I offer is that I am 73 and go up and down steep, rocky and difficult trails many times faster and with greater ease than most people who are 10 to 20 years younger who have poles. It’s the poles that slow many of them down. The younger ones are faster on easy areas, but I’m no slouch.
How Long Have Hiking Poles Been Around?
Back in the 70s and 80s, hiking poles still did not exist that I knew of. I do know that throughout history, a hiking “stick” (also known as a staff) has been used by many around the world. A stick/staff is generally around one’s own height or more. In my backpacking youth, I and my friends would hike with a stick at times, but only if we found one suitable and only for a little while─just for fun, really. I never found them useful. And we crossed rivers and streams often carrying heavy packs and without poles or sticks (we did wear old tennis shoes we packed for fishing, tying our boots onto our packs to keep them dry).
I started to see hiking poles in the 90s when I lived in Colorado, but they were rare. When I came to the southern Appalachians in the early 2000s, I saw people using them all the time. It was rare that I saw even serious hikers without them, although I ran into lots of people (tourists, generally) who, visiting an area, would just park their car near a trailhead and walk in for a ways─without poles and in their street shoes or sandals. In fact, I still see this all the time.
Later, I joined a hiking club and some Meetup groups and hiked with groups for many summers. I noticed the use of poles increasing more and more, especially among the “younger” old people, who might be in their late 50s or 60s (much younger people rarely hiked with us “old” people). In that group, it’s closer to 100 percent pole use. But to this day I have never used them, and I feel great hiking without them. Plus, I like my hands free.
The problem is that poles have been around for so long (20 to 30 years) that I believe many of the more “experienced” hikers have them because someone else told them that they need them, and they passed that belief on to the next generation. When I started hiking, no one used poles, so there was no one around to tell me I needed them (I doubt I would have listened to them anyway).
How Long Have “Humans” Been Hiking Without Poles?
Humans’ prehistoric ancestors on the evolutionary scale started hiking without poles when they first came out of the trees a few million years ago and started walking on the ground. These “pre-humans” first started walking hunched over similar to how modern apes walk. In other words, they were “knuckle-draggers.” That proceeded to evolve from having long arms and dragging their knuckles on the ground, to standing more upright. As time passed over a few million years to modern humans, who today stands upright when walking, the arms didn’t evolve and get longer so they would continue to touch the ground. Arms got further and further from the ground to where we are today…until poles came along,
So, the answer to the subtitle question is that hominids (pre-humans) have been walking around as their only mode of transportation for a few million years, and there is no evidence of the use of two hiking poles to get around.
We started out as knuckle draggers with arms used like hiking poles. Now people say you need hiking poles. Are we now going backwards in evolution?
So why do so many people use them like they are essential?
Part III – The Use of Poles
Why Do People Use Poles?
As mentioned above, people who started mountain hiking in recent years are generally told by others─who often appear to be experienced─that you need poles, although many of the people who say that are selling hiking poles and, consequently, they tell you they are necessary. I also believe that most of these salespeople sincerely believe you do need them. But in my mind, to say that poles are necessary is pure garbage. They might be necessary for some, but not for most.
Plus, if you join a club or Meetup group, I can guarantee that almost all the members will tell you that you must have poles and then when you hike with the club, almost everyone will hike with them. It’s called peer pressure.
I also see hike leaders often comment in their online announcements about an upcoming hike that poles are either “highly recommended” or “necessary.” I cringe when I read that. Are they trying to scare you? Or are they too someone who needs poles?
Of course, for those who have been hiking with poles since they started mountain hiking, maybe they are necessary. I’ve done many hikes where these remarks were made by the leaders, and when I do the hike, I never found they were “needed.” What they mean is, for those who do need them for a physical condition, or for those who have never hiked “difficult” terrain without poles, poles are necessary. But for those, like myself, who have never hiked with poles, they are not necessary.
I wonder how many people started hiking with poles and don’t know what it’s like to hike without them. I also wonder how many are so use to them that they really believe that they do need them─and feel weaker when they don’t have them. In other words, they’ve become crutches.
Do Some People Need Poles?
Of course. I once had a very strong hiker (in his 80s) say to me that I still have good balance and don’t use poles. My answer was simple: “I’ve never used them.” The conversation ended there. He was a good, strong hiker with 30-plus years’ experience. But he had terrible balance and was concerned about falling in some situations─even with his poles. The thought that he had damaged his natural balance by using poles for many years went through my mind, but there could be other reasons that I am not aware of, so I don’t dwell on it. (After all, he was a bit older, in his 80s, and might have other problems requiring poles, and I might be there myself one day when I get to his age). This is someone who uses poles because they are necessary.
I’ve also hiked with people who have had hip replacements (sometimes both hips) or other problems, like bad knees. It’s obvious these people need poles. I must admit that all the people I met who had those conditions were strong-willed people who were not going to let anyone or anything keep them from hiking in the mountains, and I never heard one of them complain. These people are remarkable in my opinion. It’s obvious that poles are not only helping them achieve their goals, but they are also necessary.
But I do have my opinions on healthy people using poles (especially healthy, young people), and because poles have become so common, I have given great thought to the advantages and disadvantages of using poles.
Are Hiking Poles Really Beneficial?
Obviously, healthy people who use poles are convinced they are beneficial. But are they? How, one might ask, can they possibly be harmful?
An example of their use might be instructive. A couple of years back, I went on a 9-mile loop-hike with nine other hikers (men and women all over 50, many in their 60s, and me at 70). I was the only one without poles. There was an elevation gain of about 900 feet. On the loop we hiked up and down about 8-plus miles on a long, gradual, and relatively easy ascent to the highest point. We then descended back to the beginning of the hike in about a half mile. In other words, most of the final section was very steep downhill on a rocky and rough trail with switchbacks, all in the woods.
Everyone was in rather good shape and hiked at a good pace on the long gradual ascent, where it was mainly a soft woodsy, well-worn flat trail that was easily hiked (in fact, most of it was a “walk in the park”). The hikers didn’t seem to use poles like they are necessary on this part of the hike. Most of the time, they just walk with them in a cadence with their arms and legs moving, placing one pole on the ground, alternating with the other arm and pole. Sometimes, someone might even carry both poles in one hand for a short spell on the casual, flat dirt trail. On a trail like that, they really do appear to be useless, and I wonder why even carry them in that situation, although I have seen people at other times tie their poles to their packs for the easier sections.
I personally like my hands free, and they move around like they always have ever since I took my first steps as an infant (although I honestly can’t remember), helping me balance my body as I move. That’s the natural use of hands and arms while walking; helping your balance. Everyone walks with this same natural rhythm; arms straight down, swinging forward and back in a natural cadence.
Even in the gradual ascent where there were periodic stair-like steps on rocks, I saw people putting their weight on one pole to help lift themselves up to a higher step. But people with poles often hesitate on stepping up if there is a big step or anything tricky, deciding where best to put the pole on the ground, because such steps are always made of rock or some other object, like a root. Consequently, they slow down a bit going uphill. To me, using poles like this is ridiculous, because I see it with people who are good, strong hikers when they are going uphill on a trail. In other words, they have the strength to step up without the poles, but they use the poles anyway. I wonder if they subconsciously justify their use by doing so, because what they are really doing is not training their legs to be stronger when stepping up.
Descending With Poles on a Steep Trail Can Be Painful to Watch
It is in descending a rocky mountain trail that makes me really wonder about any advantage of poles. In fact, this is where I see a real disadvantage. In much of the final descent on the hike, you had to step down from rock to rock, sometimes about a foot or a foot and a half, and often at weird angles.
I watched as others in front of me, with poles, would sometimes stand and pause for a bit to look at the step and study it. Then they would carefully place their two poles in front of them on the surface of a rock, or near it, on what they judged to be solid grounding. Then they would lean out over them, putting much, if not most, of their weight on their poles, and step down, then repeat this action for the next step…and do so on most of the descent. The amount of time spent on taking one step was phenomenal. When I see this I wonder if these people never learned how to descend steep rocky trails like this without poles—that maybe they think this is the only way to hike down them.
I have watched this many, many times, done exactly in this manner, and every time, I cringe. When hikers do this, those behind them must wait until that hiker had stepped down and then it was their turn. A short line would then form. I was always waiting for the people in front of me when they were pole-hikers. It’s like waiting in a long line to use the bathroom because there’s only one toilet. On this particular hike, I was near the end with one person behind me. I kept looking back to see how they were doing, as they were always a little way back, moving slowly with their poles down the “steps.” That person was stepping down just like the one I described.
Walking Naturally You Connect to the Ground with Two Points; With Poles It’s Four Points
The problem is that when a hiker with poles is ready to make a steep step down, instead of using their body’s leg strength and natural balancing ability, they use the poles. When people walk without poles, they only have to find two points to connect to the ground: their two legs. With poles, they have to find four points, and two of those points are going to take some of the body’s weight, even most of it at times. This is one way that causes them to go slower.
All our lives, we learn to walk with two contact points to the ground. Then poles come along and make it four. You couldn’t design a more confusing way to screw up the walking and balancing habits that come from walking and from evolution. At some point, the body can’t go back to the normal way of walking; it’s too late.
Our Natural Way of Walking
When we all take a step─regardless of the terrain─for a few seconds all the body’s weight is on one foot. For someone like me, who is 170 pounds, all that weight (plus what I am wearing and carrying) is on that area that is the sole of the shoe, which is about half a square foot (in other words 340 pounds per square foot is placed on one foot). That’s an incredible amount of pressure on a very small area. When one foot is planted on the ground, that amount of weight is powerfully connected to the earth and chances of it slipping are minimized with that connection (just imagine placing a 170-pound, one half square-foot, lead weight on the ground and try moving it). And when the soles are solid like Vibram soles, the connection is even stronger, hence, the importance of good hiking boots. It’s not going to slip easily.
When people cross a stream, they are often hesitant to step on rocks because they might be slippery. I wish people would test this out in reality, instead of just thinking that or hearing that from others. It’s generally not the case. Rocks can be slippery, but hikers need learn how to recognize that. And when all your body weight is on one rock, that’s a lot of weight and the connection to that rock is massive (170 pounds in my case). When you put some of your weight on poles, you lessen that connection, making it more liable to slip. Poles, might be helpful when crossing water, but most people who always use poles will never know that they aren’t always the best method, because that’s all they’ve ever done.
When I watch people with poles cross a stream, I always witness a bit of concern, even fear, as they look for a path, wondering where to put their foot and their poles. Since they might never have crossed a stream without poles, they never get to learn when rocks are slippery. Water cascading over rocks is often slippery, but on a stream with rocks scattered across it, they generally aren’t, and when you step on top of a rock smaller about the size of your foot, the chance of slipping is tiny. Why? Because you are putting your body weight on it and that weight grabs that rock with a very strong connection.
I, hiking without poles, generally cross streams many times faster than people with poles, who generally slow down and spend lots of time trying to figure out how to cross. They should get some old boots that can get wet and practice crossing to see. Of course, if their balance is already damaged from years of using poles, it could be too late.
One thing I do if my foot gets in the water is to move quickly, keep crossing and get out of the water. High boots, if waterproof, barely get any water in them, unless it’s real deep. Others, with poles, often stop while their foot is in the water and try to figure out the next step. It’s the worst thing they can do. Of course, the best way, if you know you are going to cross water, is to carry cheap sandals or tennis shoes, take your boots and socks off, and just walk across. If you move slowly and plant each foot carefully, poles are not needed. I use to carry old tennis shoes for standing in the water while fishing. I’ve never had a serious fall.
I can see some advantage to taking poles with you if you know there will be difficult stream crossings, but I personally would not. There have been a few times I have come to crossings where I had no extra shoes with me. In those cases, I have taken my boots (and socks) off and either tied them to my pack or carried them, and then crossed barefoot, stepping carefully. It’s easier done than people think. Most are just nervous. But, after all, it is just water.
Part IV – The Good, the Bad and the Not-So-Ugly of Poles
The Body’s Center of Gravity
In normal walking and standing, our center of gravity is in the lower abdomen, just below the navel and several inches under the skin (walk around thinking about it and you will feel it). Balanced and controlled walking is keeping the center of gravity in that low spot on the body. If a walker is carrying something heavy (like a backpack), then the center of gravity is higher, making the body less stable than without that extra weight. Consequently, the body learns how to compensate. But if the added weight is too high or too far away from the body, the body will compensate by leaning forward, in a slouch. So, it’s critical that backpack weight be close to the body, so the body maintains an erect, stable posture.
How Poles Move Your Center of Gravity
When someone uses hiking poles, the poles have changed the body’s center of gravity. That means that instead of the weight passing down through the body’s natural center of gravity in the lower abdomen through one’s legs, they’ve raised the center of gravity and balance higher in the body because the poles are attached to the arms which are attached to the shoulders. Plus, by putting weight on the poles, the center of gravity has moved away from center of the body, towards the area where the poles are planted on the ground. All this makes the body more unstable and more liable for slipping or falling, but what it really does is confuse the body. Consequently, pole-hikers slow down out of a subconscious concern for safety. It’s actually the body intuitively compensating to slow down and be careful.
This becomes obvious when you watch a pole hiker step up or down, especially in stepping down on a rocky, steep trail.
This is a totally unnatural act that the body is not designed for, nor is it used to doing (unless you’ve been using poles forever). If the hiker has a heavy backpack on, the situation gets worse since the center of gravity is already raised higher in the body, and the hiker must slow down even more to compensate.
In summation, what the use of the poles is doing when the body is going up or down steep trails is totally confuse what the body has learned and developed since the first steps were taken as an infant. After a while, the body might lose forever what has taken many years to learn, along with millions of years of evolution,
Poles Weaken the Body’s Connection to the Ground
The hiker has also taken some weight off their boots/shoes, which again increases the chances of slipping or twisting a foot. Instead of, in my case, 170 pounds contacting the earth at one connection point, the strength of that connection is now reduced by possibly the majority of your weight─and it’s been transferred to a higher position, making it even more out of balance.
Consequently, every time someone puts weight on their poles, they’ve raised their center of gravity, and moved it away from the center of the body. Plus, they’ve weakened their connection with the earth through their boots. This all puts them in a more precarious and weaker position, not only causing them to slow down, but to constantly rethink and re-evaluate their weight distribution in an unnatural way. This doesn’t matter so much on the walk-in-the-park trails, but it becomes extremely important on steep, rocky sections, especially going downhill.
To see this, all one must do is watch a hiker with poles go up or down a steep trail, which has rocks, roots, and other obstacles to step over and on. They calculate every step, constantly shifting their weight between the four points where they connect to the earth. It’s almost painful to watch, especially knowing that they don’t need to hike like that.
If the hiker is wearing boots, this effect is minimized, but if they are wearing glorified tennis shoes, the situation is even worse─because their ankle can twist sideways. Ankle-high boots lessen the chance of that happening.
Therefore, my advice to people who hike down a steep trail while depending on the use of their poles to help their balance is: You better slow down, because you have increased the possibility of falling. But in a way, if you are using your poles for balance, you are already moving slowly on steep trails, because your body and mind are subconsciously telling you to do so.
Watching pole-hikers, I’ve never witnessed a bad accident─just little mishaps and struggles─but every time I wonder what would happen if someone slipped on a step-down like this on a steep hill. Their hands are full so there’s no way for them to immediately extend out and help their balance, block their fall, or grab a small tree or branch to help. And they move down the hill very slowly in these conditions. I generally have to stop, watch, and wait, as I sometimes hike at the end of a group. (Sometimes, if the leader doesn’t mind, I will just go ahead and walk downhill on steep trails in the front, and before long, I am way ahead of the whole group. Some leaders, for some weird reason, frown on this.)
But the alarming thing that bothers me is what happened to our natural way of walking, which has developed ever since our ancestors came out of the trees a few million years ago? Homo Sapiens is an incredible species, which walks upright and has walked the entire earth in every scenario and been extremely successful in going everywhere. But we have now been reduced to this type of walking in the last 20-30 years?
Stepping Up and Down Without Poles
Me, without poles, I just walk and step down, using my natural balance and my leg strength to control my descent, often putting my arms out, unconsciously, to maintain my balance, or sometimes to grab a thin tree trunk to help. But that’s only for speed, I never need a tree or limb to help me climb up or down. I move quickly and easily as I descend a trail. In fact, I am completely comfortable and confident in my balance and strength working together.
I also never break my cadence going up or down as I hike on and over rocks and other obstacles. I never─and I mean never─stop and analyze a step up or down. I just walk up and down. I go uphill and downhill so much quicker and easier than those with poles that I am confused every time why people use poles.
The New Normal in Mountain Hiking
Since it’s become the norm that in group hikes almost everyone uses poles, then how pole-hikers use their poles going up and down more difficult steeper trails is all that anyone sees. It’s become the new normal. That all reinforces the belief that poles are necessary. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy.
I wonder if, when someone like me comes along without poles, some are baffled that I don’t need them. Maybe they think I was born with some natural balance. Beyond having the good luck of being healthy, along with the natural ability to walk that most everyone is born with, I never had any special athletic abilities (I was a swimmer). I guess I just didn’t know any better as there was no one around when I started hiking to tell me I needed poles. If I’d known, I could have been using poles all these years, screwing up my natural balance all this time. I guess I missed out.
Not everyone with poles is so clumsy and awkward in stepping down as I described above; some are quicker and more graceful, and most have obviously gotten use to their poles and hike up and down steps with confidence, although they never move as quickly as I do without them. But they still use four points to connect with the earth, constantly shifting their center of gravity.
With some people, when they are stepping down with poles, I even see a little bit of fear and doubt in many of their steps. I wonder how they would manage such hiking without poles, that maybe they are now crutches.
I wonder if people new to hiking who are using poles─because someone told them they were necessary─learn how to use them by watching how others use poles to step up and down. In other words, how many people never learned how to hike without poles? If you always held an infant’s hand when they were first learning to stand up and walk, but never let go of their hand so they could learn to walk on their own, how long will it take them to walk on their own?
It’s all About Balance ─ or is It?
I have no problems with my knees, my feet, my hips, or my legs. I’m lucky in many respects because I started hiking on serious mountain trails without poles at a young age. I have great balance and I attribute a lot of that to no poles. My belief, in general, is that many people are slowly damaging their natural ability to balance by using poles. But there’s more to it than just balance.
Searching the internet, you can find other hikers who’ve written about the benefits of using poles, but it’s rare to find those who write about the disadvantages, possibly because almost everyone uses them, including the writers. Most of those promoting them talk about how they reduce strain on hips, knees and ankles and can help on balance. Some even comment that they are good for your back. Ironically, I say the exact opposite. Poles help cause these problems over the long run.
Without poles you help develop strength in these areas, especially developing your natural balance. Of course, if you are young, you’re more likely to develop strong joints, leg muscles and balance.
As for your back, I believe most back problems have to do with posture more than any other single factor (except for accidents, too much sitting and bad lifting practices), and I don’t see any benefit how poles help in posture. They most likely are detrimental to good posture, because we were not born with poles attached to our hands. We evolved and grew up from infancy to walk without aids, using our natural balance with our arms swinging by our sides in a steady cadence.
To constantly hold poles with your hands in front of you is more than likely going to cause you to hold your shoulders forward, which is very bad posture. Most people have poor posture, and you can see it as people age. They slump over─because they’ve been slowly slumping over all their lives. (If you want to help your posture, study and learn about the Alexander Technique.)
Balance, Leg Muscles and Knees
Balance while hiking in the mountains to me is leg muscles combining with your arms to create a natural balance using your whole body. I see myself at times throwing my arms out automatically and subconsciously, even in extreme ways at times, as I move up and down and left and right. After 70-plus years, it’s become unconscious movements on the trail.
But there is one other important aspect of mountain hiking besides balance, and that is leg strength. The leg muscles are the strongest and largest muscles of the human body, and being able to step up on your own requires leg strength. Many trails have lots of rocks, logs, and roots to step over and around. The real problems with balance are when you have to really step up, like in a stair step from one level to another, often stepping up a foot or more onto a rock.
In a building, the maximum height for a stair step by code is 8 inches, but a 12-inch, or even an 18-inch, step on a rocky trail is not uncommon. It takes a lot more leg muscles to step up that high than a normal stairway. And it takes even more muscle to step down that far in a controlled manner, and this is where the leg muscles are extremely important for maintaining your balance.
When you step down, especially on a tall step, if you don’t control your step so that you gently reach the bottom, then you will put pressure on your knee joints because in a sense you are jumping down. When you use the leg strength of the upper leg to slow your descent, then there is no “jump” because the muscle in the upper leg gives you a controlled descent.
Where the knee joint suffers is by an impact that is fast and sudden, and when this is done over and over, you cause joint pain. When you walk down stairs, the short steps (at a maximum of 8-inch height), are low enough that you never “fall” to the next step, you just step with control to the lower level. But with taller steps, your leg strength becomes critical to a controlled descent-and you need develop that leg strength, otherwise the muscles atrophy.
People might think that hiking poles can be helpful. Maybe, but are they really? Strong leg muscles are major in controlling your balance while stepping up or down. When stepping using your poles you are not developing your leg muscles in a normal healthy way in coordination with your natural balance. It’s more than likely that you are going to suffer from future problems with balance because of years of hiking-pole use.
Hiking Boots Are Critical to Mountain Hiking
If all the mountain hiking was on soft, flat dirt trails on gradual slopes, tennis shoes, even sandals, are good enough. My observations are that poles are a complete waste on such trails. But when hiking moves onto trails that are less “like a walk in the park,” but are steep and filled with obstacles like rocks and roots, good hiking boots are essential and if someone is going to hike without poles, I believe good ankle-high boots are essential for developing strength, balance and agility, along with safety without having to rely on poles.
Part V – The Final Word
And… the Final Word On Poles
So, what do I conclude about the use of poles? If you are young and have no physical problems, then I strongly advise you not to start using them. If you already have been using them, it might be too late, but youth adapts more easily than older people, so you can probably get your body acting in a more balanced and coordinated fashion by discarding poles. But remember it takes time to develop your body for any physical endeavour; It’s just easier when young.
Since almost everyone today tells people that hiking poles are necessary, people believe them─and those who tell you that probably started using them for the same reason: others told them they need them. On top of that, outdoor stores like selling things and hiking-pole companies promote them. I mean, how many things in life do people do because everyone else is doing it? For older people, poles might be your best option. But, depending on your age and health, don’t let anyone─unless you have some physical limitations─tell you they are necessary.
But the final decision is up to each person, especially for older hikers. Poles might be the tool to enable you to hike in the mountains. If so, go for it. After all, we might all need them, including me, in old age if we want to continue mountain hiking. But let’s not call them necessary for all. I personally want to encourage younger people to learn to hike in the mountains without poles, because you will develop better strength and balance in the long run. Do you really want to never learn how to hike without poles? And don’t forget good ankle-high hiking boots.
A Bit of Human History and Walking — Are We Going Backwards in Evolution?
At the beginning of this article, I mentioned that there is no evidence that humans, which includes Native Americans and their prehistoric ancestors, ever came up with the idea of hiking poles and that was after a few hundred thousand years of walking everywhere. I find it hard to believe that in the last 20-30 years they have become necessary, or even advisable. And to suggest they are a modern invention, well, hiking poles from trees were everywhere waiting to be invented, but they weren’t (read more on this at end of this article).
And people are now saying we need them?
I read one internet article where an “experienced” hiker wrote about how to use poles. He wrote that you use them pointing forward going downhill to take some of the strain off your legs and put it on your arms. And when going uphill you should use them pointing backward to help you move up a hill.
After tens of thousands of years of humans walking everywhere, especially in the Americas where there were no horses, this is what man has come to? Native Americans were going up and down mountains in the east, in the high Rockies and in the High Sierras in the west. It was their only form of transportation. And now we humans must use poles to help us walk?
Nope. I don’t buy it. That is not progress. My best reason why poles are now popular? It’s mass hysteria, and the key word here is “popular.” Let’s first learn how to hike in the mountains without poles. If after that, if you are still in good physical condition, you decide to try poles, then give it ago. But I bet you will get rid of them after your first hike without them. If I get old and feeble, maybe I’ll get them, but right now, in my mid-seventies, I can walk up and down steep, rocky mountain trails faster than the average day-hiker with poles, and with ease.
The End (almost)
And now, for the final (after) thought:
Native American Indian Hiking Poles?
And to anyone who says that modern science and aluminum has brought lightweight hiking poles to society: Well, that’s just plain stupid. What is shown here is a pole with a leather strap attached at the handle end. It could have easily been used as a hiking pole, but it’s a stick used in a Native American game. If they’d wanted to make hiking poles, they could have easily made them. Native Americans had skills. I mean, really? Aluminum hiking poles have changed human evolution? I don’t think so.
Many gun control advocates want to ban semi-automatic weapons, like the AR-15. I say don’t ban them, license them. Why? Because the Supreme Court has allowed gun control laws, but banning guns is another story. And licensing a weapon is more acceptable than banning one.
Semi-Automatic Weapons are Basically Automatic Weapons – Let’s classify Them as Such
The U.S. has dangerous fully automatic weapons that the citizenry can own: “Title II” firearms. A machine gun is one—a fully automatic rifle. To own a Type II firearm, though, you must be federally licensed, meaning you must prove you are responsible enough—and not “dangerous.” If we want to get dangerous semi-automatic weapons like the AR-15 out of the hands of “dangerous” people, we can classify them as Title II firearms, which allows those who are not dangerous to own them. Like the machine gun, applicants to own one of these weapons must prove to the public that they aren’t dangerous. Considering how many innocent people have been killed by semi-automatics like the AR-15, I want good and thorough proof—the kind of proof that is required to own a machine gun. Licensing could solve the AR-15 problem.
To own a fully automatic weapon, like a machine gun, members of the general public must qualify (police departments, not being the general public, can purchase them*). Rules on ownership, licensing, and registration were first established 88 years ago with the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934 (other weapons and devices, besides the machine gun were included). Some of the rules for ownership vary by state, but there are certain Federal rules that apply everywhere, since you need be Federally licensed. There are several restrictions on who does qualify, plus it’s a lengthy process—it can take several months (or more)—and there is a transfer fee.* Qualifying is a high standard, but I rarely hear complaints from the NRA or anti-gun control people about not being able to easily get a machine gun. And I never hear the NRA complain that the 1934 law was the first step in taking their guns away (although I am sure, some did complain). The government did not ban fully automatic weapons, they licensed them.
Several other acts have since passed that amended the 1934 act and brought us to our current situation. These laws include the Gun Control Act in 1968, and the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act (FOPA), The latter was signed by President Ronald Reagan in 1986, and it stated that no new machine guns can be sold to the general public, but existing ones manufactured before that date can be—but still under licensing rules already established. Currently, machine guns (and other devices, like silencers and sawed-off shotguns) are labeled as Title II firearms and are under the control of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). In 2016, further changes were made to the National Firearms Act, but the requirements for ownership are basically still the same. In general, all applicants must prove they are a “responsible person.” An application must be submitted and fingerprints taken, along with other identifying information. Both seller and the buyer must get approval before the weapon changes hands.** (For the sake of simplicity, this discussion will only cover the fully automatic weapons, like the machine gun, and not the other Type II weapons.)
What is an Automatic Weapon?
A machine gun is a fully automatic weapon that continues to fire by just holding down the trigger. The difference between a fully automatic weapon and a semi-automatic weapon is that you must keep pulling the trigger on the semi-automatic for it to fire. Both types auto-load the next round when you fire a round, so both types reload automatically without any extra action on the part of the shooter. The AK-47—the weapon of choice for many—has a “fully automatic setting,” but that model is not allowed to be sold in the U.S. to the general public. Only the model with the semi-automatic capability can be sold to the public.
A fully automatic weapon can fire about 400 rounds per minute and a semi-automatic can fire 60-120 rounds per minute (1-2 per second). The Highland Park shooter on the 4th of July 2022 used an AR15-like rifle, a semi-automatic weapon. He fired 70 rounds. Anyone who listens to the tape of the shooting will quickly realize that the shots sound continuous—as fast as you can imagine what it sounds like with one shot immediately following another; it sounds like an “automatic” series of shots. In other words, from the point of view of people being shot in a crowd, there is no major difference. In other words, both are extremely dangerous. To say that one is dangerous and the other is not, is plain stupid; they are both extremely dangerous.
How many of these “used” machine guns are out there in the U.S.? According to the 2015 report by the ATF, there are 543,073. that’s about one machine gun for every 600 people. Estimates for the number of AR-15s is around 20 million (as of 2020). That’s about one for every 16 people.
The Supreme Court Second Amendment Ruling in 2008
So, why doesn’t the NRA and the anti-gun control crowd complain that licensing of Type II firearms—like the AR-15—is infringing on their constitutional rights? This is partially because, in 2008, in the first major decision by the court on the 2nd Amendment in almost 70 years, Justice Scalia, in writing for the majority, wrote: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. [It is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
In the decision the Court gave examples of what they considered lawful control:
Prohibiting dangerous people from possessing firearms
Prohibiting firearms in “sensitive” places, like government buildings and schools
Laws that impose conditions on the commercial sale of firearms.
I imagine there were many diehard gun control opponents who broke down and cried like babies when they heard about the above acceptable legal controls on guns that the Supreme Court declared. (But then again, those who cried like babies, while owning these weapons, should not have guns of any type.)
Essentially, what that means is that the government has the right to control guns. How much control is allowed will be decided in future court decisions, but it currently allows gun control. In other words, we don’t have to ban semi-automatic weapons like the AR-15, we can license them—or just reclassify them as Type II weapons.
“Dangerous” People and “Dangerous” Weapons
Prohibiting dangerous people means licensing people by means of checking to ensure gun buyers are not dangerous people. That is exactly what the laws that restrict the ownership of fully automatic weapons do. And the fact that these laws exist for weapons like machine guns is testimonial to the fact that how dangerous a weapon is can be used to determine if someone can own one based on the weapon alone.
The Supreme Court has not ruled that the 1934 law that requires the licensing of machine guns is illegal. The mere fact that the law puts machine guns in the category of weapons not allowed to be easily acquired without extensive licensing verifies that how dangerous a weapon is can be the determining factor in limiting the ownership of certain firearms because they are dangerous. In other words, you could say that lawful gun control “prohibits dangerous people from possessing dangerous firearms.” It’s really the same as saying that the Supreme Court says that it is acceptable to control the ownership of dangerous firearms.
So, the big question becomes obvious: Is a semi-automatic weapon, like the AR-15, a dangerous weapon? The answer is a simple yes, although I guarantee you will find people who will say no, just so they can affirm that the AR-15, and all semi-automatic weapons, are not dangerous enough to fall in the same category as a machine gun, a fully automatic weapon, and therefore should not be classified as a Title II Firearm. Calling a semi-automatic weapon like the AR-15 not as dangerous as an automatic weapon like a machine gun is like saying an atomic bomb is not as dangerous as a hydrogen bomb (technically, the latter is more dangerous). In other words, they are both extremely dangerous. They are both nuclear weapons.
Semi-Automatic weapons are dangerous enough, and the fact that they have killed hundreds of innocent civilians in America in mass shootings easily proves this fact, and we should classify them as a Title II Firearm. When that happens, the country will have solved the current two problems of semi-automatic weapons like the AR-15: We stop them from getting into the wrong hands, and a citizen can still own one—after they prove they are responsible enough to have one.
Licensing and Registration
Controlling semi-automatic weapons like the AR-15 is certainly more acceptable than banning them. But to change their classification to a Type II firearm will still be an uphill battle. There are a few big problems to overcome. Gun owners have been fighting gun registration for a long time, and licensing and registering these semi-automatic weapons will be difficult—but not impossible. Registration is already partially there for fully automatic weapons; there’s just a few more steps to make it happen for semi-automatics like the AR-15. Most likely, this will not be a major hurdle. This is because the public wants it. A minority doesn’t. Plus, the Supreme Court supports laws that control dangerous weapons.
The higher hurdle is registering existing weapons and making that universal for all guns is unrealistic. But our main goal here is about registering all dangerous weapons, like the automatic and semi-automatic weapons. You cannot own or buy a machine gun that is not registered or manufactured before 1986. (Machine guns are not available for sale to the public if they are manufactured after 1986. An interesting note is that no legally owned machine gun has been used in a crime since 1934). But we might be able to create some conditions that will overcome this current ownership problem.
For example, some ideas:
Make it easy to register, but not mandatory if certain requirements are met. For future purchase of semi-automatic weapons, the Federal Government should create a more expanded or new section of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF)—for registration of both existing weapons and new purchases—to manage applications, speeding up the ownership and registration process. Plus, the goal should also be to license every existing semi-automatic weapon like the AR-15. The goal should be to do so over a lengthy period, meaning years. This will be a tough sell, but rules could be set that give current owners sufficient time to be approved for ownership—or to not register at all. The big problem is that there’s about 20 million AR-15s and AR15-like weapons out there.
Laws can get creative to help protect gun owners and the public. The law could state that those who do not register their weapons will be punished if their unregistered weapon is stolen, they do not report it “immediately”—and if it is used in a crime. If used in a crime and its theft was not reported, they could be banned from owning any weapons for a period of time. And if their stolen, unregistered weapon is used to kill someone, they will be banned for life from owning any weapons. Of course, gun owners are still responsible for any negligent action. Existing, responsible gun owners would then not be forced to register their weapons. Rules would also have to be set that require registration and approval if the weapon is sold or inherited.
All of this would be a hard sell, but it’s far more palatable to license these dangerous semi-automatic weapons than to ban them. And perhaps a state should try classifying all semi-automatic weapons in their state as Type II firearms and see how far they get. It could be the beginning of a movement.
**************
*Private security companies can purchase new machine guns for certain situations. Most that do so can only use them outside of the U.S. An example would be a private security firm hired to protect embassies and embassy personnel in other countries. I have also heard that private security firms protecting nuclear power plants can also purchase them.
** Click here for a good description (by a private organization) of the licensing process . Click here for the government-written rules with all the details.
Trump does not really believe he won the election; he knows he legitimately lost. So why is he so fervently fighting the loss?
To put it in simple terms: He doesn’t want to spend the rest of his life known as a loser. To Trump, being a loser is the worst thing you could possibly be. Yet he lost the popular vote in 2016—and again in 2020. That’s a two-time loser, his worst nightmare. And both times, he said he was cheated. Even after the 2016 election, he said he received more votes than Clinton because millions of votes for Clinton were illegal votes.
We need a little background to understand his actions.
Trump planned for years what he was going to do if he lost the 2020 election. He made plans so that no matter what happens in the election, it will be looked upon by his followers—and himself— that he won. If he had won, he would have claimed that all his talk of illegal votes is what caused the election to be fair and legitimate. If he had lost, he would have claimed that the election was illegal, and he really won—which is exactly what he did.
Laying Out the Groundwork in Case He Loses the Election
Trump is a con man—and what all con men do is they always lay out the groundwork ahead of time for their con, so that they will be believed when the time comes. In other words, he created a “win-win” situation for himself. And Trump knows he has to portray himself as though he sincerely believes he won the election.
He laid out this groundwork for at least four years. You could say it started right after his election in 2016 when he claimed that he won the popular vote, which Clinton won by more than three million votes. Trump’s claim was that the voting was fraudulent and that millions illegally voted for Clinton—and that he actually won by several million. He never backed off this claim. He promoted this theme for the next four years, increasing his claims of illegal voting right up to the 2020 election. His main motivation? He didn’t want to live the rest of his life being labeled a loser.
Insurance So It Looks Like He Won the Election
The entire scheme was insurance. Insurance that if he lost, he could make the claim that he won, and his “True-Believer” followers—the 5th Avenue voters—would believe whatever he says without question. How better to ensure that your followers will continue to support you—and do so for the rest of your life? Plus, you can claim—for the rest of your life—that you actually won because your followers will believe there was cheating in the counting, that there were voting machines that were rigged and, on top of that, there were millions of illegal voters—all of which voted for Clinton.
In other words, Trump was setting the stage that no matter what happened, he wins the election—regardless of whether he legally and formally no longer holds the office. Since the results came in from the 2020 election, he has been stalling, working behind the scenes to bolster up this claim that he really one. He’d been working on the plan for the last few years. All he had to do was continue to make his false claims.
Trump Insults His Followers — the Fifth-Avenue Voter
Trump doesn’t like to govern. He leaves that to others around him. As president, he did what he always does: he talks (and that includes “talking” on Twitter). He believes he can talk his way into or out of any situation. He seeks power and if he can’t have it the way he wants it—which he couldn’t get as President because of the limitations of the office—he’ll take it in another way: By having a following of die-hard, cult-like followers who will support him no matter what he says and does. He called them out in January 2016, in Sioux Center, Iowa. Trump then stated, “You know what else they say about my people? The polls, they say I have the most loyal people. Did you ever see that? Where I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose any voters, okay? It’s like incredible.” The audience laughed, even though he had just insulted them by suggesting that they are blind, unthinking sheep who will follow him no matter what. They didn’t care—and they knew it was true, anyway. Essentially, he was right; His followers to this day have followed him—like blind, unthinking sheep who will follow him no matter what—the “fifth-avenue voters.”
After the Election Trump fervently Continued the Claim That he Won the Election — Why?
Trump knew, if people were to believe his claim, that he must continue after the election to fight to the end that he actually won. Otherwise, his supporters would never believe he really believed it. If he were to just accept his loss and move on, it would be like admitting he was wrong all along. After all, if there really was cheating in the election to elect the President of the United States, and the person who lost actually won, that would be the crime of the century. The loser would have to fight to the end to prove his credibility. And that’s exactly what Trump did—and continues to do. He will make this claim as long as he is alive. Does anyone really believe that he will ever call himself a loser? And what has he got to lose by promoting this lie forever? He has his 5th-Avenue voters who believe whatever he says. And the thing is, his strategy has worked. People fell for the con. They all drank the Kool-Aid and will be his supporters—even if it kills them—until they day they die.
What Trump Really Likes
He likes to be at the head of a crowd that adores him and cheers him on as the greatest leader and solver of all problems; “only he can fix it.” He loves an adoring crowd more than anything—more than being President. I don’t believe he likes being President as much as he likes being able to draw a crowd that adores him. It’s really no work. Being President requires work. When he goes before a crowd, he never really says anything of substance. When he is on the stage, he just claps his hands for himself, talks about how popular he is and criticizes others. When he reads a teleprompter—the closest thing to him making a speech—it’s obvious it was written by someone else. If he runs for President again, it will not be serious, it will be a façade. He’ll do it to promote himself and his following. He’ll make it look like he is running, so that the crowd will get excited. He might use the excuse that it’s rigged, and that he won’t run under those conditions.*
He’ll hold rallies and make speeches, clapping for himself when he has nothing to say to his adoring followers. And Trump will continue to claim he won the 2020 election and that he is really the legitimate president. He’ll claim he won until his last breath. With such fervent dedication, Trump will continue to lead people to believe that he won the election.
One thing is for certain: He will not, under any circumstance, take the chance that he might lose another election, which means he will not really run. He’ll pretend he’s running.
And the fifth-avenue voters will continue to give him money to pay for it all—and enough to put lots of money in his pocket.
************************
* UPDATE (August 30, 2022): Facing a threat of an indictment—and possible conviction—for stealing classified documents that belong to the people (or at the least, conviction for obstruction of justice), Trump could find an opportunity to possibly blame a conviction on his inability to run for President in 2024, because if he is convicted, he will not be allowed to run. And I believe he will not run under any circumstance. He will pretend to run and then either never announce it officially or withdraw for some made-up reason. But he will not take the chance of being a loser for the third time—and his main goal is still the same: he does not want to spend the rest of his life known as a loser.
He could get a conviction without any jailtime, since others, General Petraeus being a good example, have taken classified documents, were convicted and never faced jail time. Petraeus was convicted of mishandling classified information and was just fined, along with two years probation—after pleading guilty. But Trump might have to plead guilty to stay out of jail, like Petraeus did—and Trump will have a real problem ever admitting guilt.
Trump doesn’t want to be President, he just wants the power he yields over people who follow him blindly. The possibility of him trying to run for President and not being able to because of a legal reason, ie, he’s been convicted, or even just indicted, gives him a great opportunity. It will be a perfect situation for him; he can claim for the rest of his life that he won and was not allowed to run for President because people knew he would win and it’s all a political persecution. If it happens, It’s almost as though he couldn’t have planned it out better.
Are the real job creators the top 1 Percent or the 99 percent? Turn on CNBC—the NBC business channel. You can be pretty sure that just about everyone you see who works for the channel makes an annual salary at least in the six figures (and that includes all the benefits). You can also be assured that the majority of those they interview are certainly making annual incomes in six figures and many in seven figures—and a few in eight figures (or more) The last item means $10-million and up. And how much of the wealth in the U.S. does the top 1 percent have? Don’t change the channel just yet. Watch it for a while. You will see that all they talk about is what company is succeeding, which is failing, who’s paying dividends, what the stock is doing, who’s making money, going broke—or whatever. It’s all about the rise and fall, and the failure and success of business.
As you watch all this, keep one thing in mind. All these people and all these businesses they are all talking about—they are all dependent on one central fact: Everything is dependent on whether the public will buy the products and services of these companies. And the public is the great majority of people out there. Some might call them the 99 percent. Others might call them the masses, and others might call them the majority. And if it’s just the majority, it’s far beyond 51 percent. If it’s not the 99 percent, it most certainly is the 90 percent.
That’s right, the success and failure of all these businesses is dependent on the consumer buying the products and services these companies provide. Without that consumer, the companies are nothing.
For the sake of simplicity, let’s call them the 99 percent, even though it is probably just the 90 percent (we are generalizing). Plus, 99 percent has a nice ring to it.
That leaves the one percent. Who needs who?
What Would Happen if the One Percent Disappeared?
Suppose that by some magic wave of a wand, the one percent just disappeared. What would happen? Certainly, a new one percent would arise out of the 99 percent. And life and business would go on. There would be many bumps and hardships, but life would go on.
Now suppose that the 99 percent disappeared by that wave of a wand. What would the one percent do? They would lose everything they have. Money would inflate to being worthless. Even gold and diamonds would be close to worthless, as their value is also based on demand. Everything would come to a temporary stop and those who own cars, airplanes, boats—everything requiring fuel would grind to a halt.
It doesn’t take much of an explanation for everyone to see that the world would come to a halt. And one thing is for sure: If the one percent disappears, a new one percent will arise from the 99 percent. But if the 99 percent disappear, there is no new 99 percent that will rise up out of the one percent. The one percent will be screwed.
So—who needs who?
The one percent—along with many of the 99 percent who have been fooled—believe they are invaluable and irreplaceable—that they are the engine of the world and they make things happen, and without them, the 99 percent would be in trouble. This group, this one percent, calls everyone else the employees who work for them. In their minds, the 99 percent are employees who would be nothing without these “captains of industry” who really make the world go around and drive the economic engine that keeps the 99 percent employed. And without the one percent, this 99 percent would be unemployed and starving—without homes, cars, TVs, computers—the whole deal. This one percent even tells everyone that they pay all the taxes and most of the 99 percent don’t pay a thing—that even the government is financed by the one percent and without them, the government would fail.
Who Really Pays the Taxes and Who are the Job Creators
But really, who pays the taxes, and where does the one percent get their money to pay the taxes? They get it the same way they get everything the one percent has; by selling products and services to the consumer—the 99 percent. Every single penny the one percent pays in taxes comes from the consumer goods and services they sell, which means that the consumer pays 99 percent of the taxes, even if they pay nothing in income tax directly themselves. For without the consumer, there would be no money to pay the government.
Even the unemployed person on welfare or unemployment, who gets his money from the government, buys the products from the one percent business owner, who takes that money and puts some in his pocket and puts some into the taxes that pay for that unemployed person so he can buy products. Even in that case, the one percent profit from the government they give taxes to. But without that unemployed person, the one percenter would not be able to sell products and profit from it. The one percenter takes the money from the government in more ways the one—and always makes a profit from it.
So—who are the job creators? The one percent has many people who believe they are, but they forget one thing: The 99 percent are the consumers and the consumers are the real engine. Remember the CNBC show? It’s all about people discussing the businesses of the world who are all dependent on that one important fact: Will the public buy the products and services these businesses offer?
It’s obvious who the job creators are. The one percent are there only because the 99 percent put them there and kept them there and gave them wealth. Without the 99 percent, there is no wealth. All wealth comes from the masses of people. One person cannot become wealthy by himself. He needs to make money off others. If they all trade equally, then everyone will have equal wealth. Only when one person sells something to a LOT of people can he start to gain real wealth, but without large numbers of people, he cannot gain any wealth. He needs the masses of people and all wealth comes from the masses.
It’s the 99 percent who are the job creators, yet the one percent have them hornswoggled into believing that the 99 percent need them absolutely, while in reality, it’s the one percent who need the 99 percent absolutely.
Does the 99 percent need the one percent? Absolutely, but the one percent always emerges out of the 99 percent and there is always a continuous supply, making the one percent expendable. But without the consuming demand of the majority, the masses of people, there will be no wealth. Kill the consumption, the demand, and it all falls apart.
So, why doesn’t the one percent know this? Aren’t they smart enough to understand this reality? Of course, but after awhile, when they see themselves as having gained so much wealth, wielding power as employers, and controlling so many with the power of the purse, they begin to believe they really are superior, just like the royal ruling classes of the past—they start to believe that everyone else is there to serve them.
Who Really has the Power? The One Percent or the 99 Percent?
What’s most amazing of all is that, in a democracy, the 99 percent really have the power, yet they so often give it freely to the one percent and let them rule. A great number of the 99 percent go along with this belief that the one percent are superior and they are job creators. And very often, the majority of the 99 percent believe this, which means that the one percent get away with it. Essentially, the real reason the 99 percent allow the one percent to lead them around by the ring they have in their nose is because for thousands of years in human history, a small number of people have been telling the majority of the people that the small number are superior—and it’s hard to break old habits that have become traditions engrained deeply in human culture. Even democracy, which is where the masses have the power to rule, has not yet won it’s rightful place in humankind—not yet.
But a distinction of importance has arisen. The real question is: Who are the real job creators? Those are the ones who create jobs that enable them to consume most of the products and services that they produce themselves. And if they can’t, then they are not real jobs. The one percent are certainly job creators, but until the 99 percent demands it, they will not be real jobs. They will just be jobs—just basic employment.
This is what the United States had for a few decades after World War II, when the majority ran the country and the one percent at the top, who did not have such great concentration of wealth, had to live with what the majority wanted—until the world began to change and the one percent slowly gained a greater share of the wealth and started running the country.
What happened? The majority of the 99 percent became hornswoggled by the one percent, and the one percent realized they don’t need the 99 percent in America anymore. They can now hire and sell to the 99 percent of the rest of the world. There are more people out there to consume—and they are very cheap to hire. The 99 percent in America only need jobs, but real jobs aren’t necessary anymore.
To create real jobs is going to require that the majority of the 99 percent do their job and create them.
And if you don’t believe these facts, the next time you want to open a store—or build a bridge—go to a deserted island and see how far you get.
The answer is very simple: Everyone in America pays income taxes. How can that be?
Everyone—except for those small children who have not yet grown tall enough to reach up to the counter and hand a clerk some money—pays income taxes in America. That’s because every penny of income tax paid by the president of a huge corporation all the way down to the income tax paid by the employees of that corporation—and even the sole proprietor in a small business—comes from the sale of goods and services that the business provides. If someone buys a pack of gum for 25 cents, a portion of that money will go to pay the income tax of the president of the corporation or business that produced it. The money doesn’t come from any other source, not one penny of it.
In the 2008 election campaign, Presidential candidate Mitt Romney said that “47 percent of Americans don’t pay income tax.” He failed to mention that all those who do pay income tax directly get the money to pay the income tax from the public, meaning the consumer, and that 47 percent help pay those taxes. (I guess we could say that people that steal everything they have don’t even contribute to paying those taxes, but let’s not be stupid.)
Romney’s comments brings the issue of who pays the taxes to the forefront, but they also intensify the debate about income inequality in America. I find it hard to believe that people hear how few people pay income taxes directly in this country and blame those who don’t, instead of seeing the problem as the canary in the coal mine. If so few people are paying income taxes, then shouldn’t we all wonder why there are so many people who are making such a small amount of money that they can’t afford to even make enough to qualify to pay income taxes, directly? That alone is a problem, but the truth behind what Romney says goes deeper than that and makes the situation even worse.
The Wealthy Think They Pay all The Income Taxes in America
What kind of country do we have when one of the two political parties in the country puts forth a candidate who talks about 47 percent of the people as though they are the commoners and the rest are the ruling class who take care of and support those commoners? (Romney speech 2012 campaign) And he did so in a speech to others who belong to this supposed ruling class and are paying $25,000 for a dinner to listen to this fellow member of that class? Isn’t that what existed before the revolution of 1776 when America revolted against the old European system of a ruling class of royalty? Does the Republican Party really believe that they represent the founding fathers whose number one goal was to end that type of society?
Although Romney’s comment that 47 percent of Americans don’t pay income taxes was entirely misleading, it also shows what Romney thinks—and what the people he was speaking to think. He didn’t just say those 47 percent don’t pay income taxes, he said they are dependent on the government, take government handouts, love government handouts and are a burden to the other 53 percent. He spoke as though the people who pay all the income taxes in the United States are the ones who contribute to the country and everyone else doesn’t contribute, but are a burden to them.
In other words, he believes that he and others are this country, finance this country and have rights to rule this country over that 47 percent—all he has to do is persuade a small percentage of people to bring him over the 50 percent mark to vote for him and he’ll be president. Even if he loses, he will continue to believe that 47 percent of the people are inferior and a burden to the rest.
In that 47 percent figure that Romney threw out, about 10 percent are older people who live only off Social Security and pay no income taxes. That’s besides the fact that these people worked all their lives and helped pay all taxes by being consumers. They also take that Social Security income and buy goods and services. That money trickles up to the top of the corporate world and goes to paying the income taxes who people Romney claim are the ones totally responsible for all the income tax paid in America. He speaks as though they got that income from some magical source that didn’t include the consumers. Who does he think he is?
Does America Have a Ruling Class of Wealthy People?
The problem with people who think like Romney is that they believe that all wealth and income comes from those with the most money and everyone else is there to serve them. They promote the idea of supply and demand and free enterprise, but say it is really a supply-side situation and that all money will trickle down from the top to those at the bottom—meaning those who supply the demand, meaning the consumers. But they won’t use the term trickle down because it sounds so bad, so they say supply-side economics is what makes the world go around perfectly. They are so blinded by this belief of superiority that they even have many of the consumers believing it, while in reality it is a supply anddemand system that drives free enterprise to thrive, where both trickle up and trickle down create a healthy and vibrant economy, not just trickle down.
Everyone pays income taxes in America. It’s just that some don’t do so directly, through the tax form. But everyone who does pay income taxes through a tax form gets every penny they make to pay those taxes from those who give them the money. And that includes all of the 47 percent, along with all of the 53 percent.
And the Democrats let the Republicans get away with this baseless claim.
Walking Naturally You Connect to the Ground with Two Points; With Poles It’s Four Points
The problem is that when a hiker with poles is ready to make a steep step down [a rocky trail], instead of using their body’s leg strength and natural balancing ability, they use the poles. When people walk without poles, they only have to find two points to connect to the ground: their two legs. With poles, they have to find four points, and two of those points are going to take some of the body’s weight, even most of it at times. This is one way that causes them [hikers with poles] to go slower.
All our lives, we learn to walk with two contact points to the ground. Then poles come along and make it four. You couldn’t design a more confusing way to screw up the walking and balancing habits that come from [a lifetime of] walking and from evolution. At some point, the body can’t go back to the normal way of walking; it’s too late.