Issue 150 Evolution of language August 26, 2013

I base today's issue on "What Language Is" by John McWhorter (2011, Gotham books New York) and a science channel special on language. Here we will discuss the possibilities of how language may evolve (with a focus on English as that is my native language). So let's get started.

Evolution: The science channel special performed an experiment to show how language evolves over time. For the experiment they provided a series of pictures featuring colors, and objects and gave them made up names. Then they had an individual look at each picture, try to memorize the name and then after about 15 minutes of memorization try to look at the picture and say the memorized name. Of course most of what they said may have been wrong, but this experiment was to demonstrate on an accelerated scale how language evolves. So the next subject had to do the same thing in the experiment except for one difference. The mistakes on the names that the first person made became the new names. This process was repeated over and over until the names could be remembered by each following subject. What the experiment proved was that language over time simplifies itself through the errors that the language speakers make.

Using capitols: What if a language got rid of all of its silent letters. An example is "bite" with the silent "e" acting as a modifier to make the "i" say its name. But when we capitalize a letter it also says its name, and as such bite can be spelled "bIt" with the capitol "I" saying its name. That is one example, but how about another. "Bait", as in shark bait. Instead of the "i" acting as a modifier it would look like this "bAt" as "A" would say its name and thus make a similar sound compared to the existing word. It would not be confused with "bat" as the "a" here does not say its name (and is not capitalized to do so). Of course capitol letters may be removed entirely as well, so "bite" may turn into "bi`t" instead with the accent mark making the "i" say its name instead. Interesting right.

Removing silent letters and unneeded letters: "Quite" has a silent "u". So what if we got rid of the "u"? It would look like this "qite". It would still mean the same thing only because "q" comes from the sound that "kw" makes together. Of course "kwite" could also result as "q" comes from the combination of "kw". Thus there would no longer be a need for the letter "q". Likewise the letter "c" or "k" may disappear as they make similar sounds. So our language may remove two of them and just keep the one. Or it may even reassign the letter "c" to making the sound that "ch" makes together as another possibility making words like "channel" become "cannel".

Letters that make sounds they should not: Have you ever wondered why the "ti" in nation sounds similar to the sound of "sh". Well what if we did this: "nashon" instead. Or how about replacing the "gh" and "ph" in words where they make the sound that "f" makes with an actual "f". Part of the reason that English is so hard to learn is that different letters in combination make the same sounds as other letters. So you can spell "fish" as "ghoti" with "gh" the "f" sound from "enough", the "o" sounding like "i" from "women" and the "ti" the "sh" sound from "nation". Basically some people may just make the language more phonetic.

Word replacement: Some times we have words that are spelt the same or even spelt different but ultimately sound the same. So let us use the words "see" and "sea" and "bear and bear". It is possible to substitute words in English with words from other cultures like Spanish or Japanese. The reason is that English is very flexible when it comes to adopting new terms like "ghetto" or the name "Sean" as our culture takes in not just the immigrant but their language as well. So we may for example have bear (for grizzly bear) spelt as "kuma" which is Japanese for bear, while leaving the word bear to mean something along the lines of "bear skin". Likewise "sea" could be called something else entirely or just be replaced by the word "ocean". Though most languages tend to simplify words and thus smaller easier to say words take hold more often when describing something.

Conclusion: Stuff like slang terms from different cultures and groups of people may become common terms like "floordrobe" which has been added to the dictionary (found this out through national geographic magazine). Language is a communication tool that evolves to meet peoples every day challenges, but that is because mistakes made, like spelling "cat" as "kat" may become the new way to spell things. Even letters like "A" may loose its horizontal line in the middle or "K" loosing its vertical line to look like this "<" may occur. We really do not know what the future of our language is or how other languages may evolve along side it (or even fuse together for that matter). All I can say is that the possibilities are as endless as they are fascinating.

Issue 149 Gangs August 23, 2013

A gang is a group of individuals who come together for a common purpose. Or at least that is the least strict in terms of definitions. But what is a gang about, and why do they exist?

Safety: Some gangs form so that they can protect each other. As most gangs sell drugs and extort businesses, they need to protect their area from rival dealers, gangs and the police. So groups of drug dealers and hustlers come together with the common goal of mutual protection. A hierarchy typically develops with some one or a group of individuals giving direction to the rest. That individual or group is now responsible for the safety of the rest and directs how the rest of the gang in how it is to protect itself.

Initiation: Some gangs don't start out as gangs. They start as individuals being friends. A person may be friends with another and thus that friend slowly pulls them into the gang by introducing them to the other members. And this friend who was originally not part of the gang begins hanging out there while trying to get a sense of belonging. Then this individual goes through some sort of initiation. Initiations range from just being accepted, to petty theft, to murder and rape. For some gangs like the Crips, their initiation is to kill a member of their rival gang the Bloods. Though the California Crips and Bloods have generally made peace, initiation rights vary from region to region and from gang to gang.

One other form of initiation is putting the person in debt with the gang. The recruiter will buy them gifts, but then finally have the recruited individual pay them back in some way. Usually this is done by selling drugs, but can include killing and/or kidnapping some one. Once the job is done they are either let go to be arrested by the police or make it so that the only place to turn is the gang itself. From there they become a new member who will do the gangs bidding.

It is all about money: Gangs do not really care about their members. In fact most are expendable foot soldiers that are easily replaced. Not even the other leaders are safe as the gang members are corrupted by greed. Remember that gangs exist to fend off rival gangs and in some instances take territory from other gangs by force. Money is to be made through extortion, drugs, sex slavery and even sometimes an assassination business. Comradely is fictional as long as money is in the picture. Remember, they do not care who you are, for if you are in the way of their money making business they will remove you.

They help the terrorists: Yes these gangs that sell drugs may be involved with terrorist groups. They may be involved with Al Quada, or even government sponsored gangs like MS 13 which is supported by the Venezuelan government. Gangs do not care where they get their product from, they just want the cash. So they will buy and sell for these terrorists to make a profit, while terrorists get money from this partnership to fund their operations. Very scary isn't it.

Conclusion: Gangs are the modern day mafia. They can be as powerful as the drug cartels in Latin America, to as lowly as a street gang. Some are peaceful like the anti-drug groups like "strait edge", but they are an exception not the rule. The only thing they have in common is a desire for money. Members are recruited regularly to carry out new crimes and to act as drug mules. In some cases, if you do not comply you are killed. This is a problem facing every country all over the globe as these gangs no matter there origin corrupt the young and turn them into criminals. Sure we can fight back by legalizing Weed, (60% of the drug cartels revenue comes from "pot") or trying out new policing techniques. However, the only sure fire strategy is to improve education and opportunity. If there is no alternative to the gang that is more appealing, then the members will stay in the gang. We can take our cities and our countries children back from criminality and turn peaceful examples of gangs like "strait edge" into the norm.

Issue 148 Future of Pharmacy August 22, 2013

With how technology is progressing, the pharmaceutical industry is changing. Most particularly, how medicine is made and where it is sold will change. Let's get started.

Doctors, the pharmacist?: With the advent of 3D printers, along with other devices, doctors may try to cut out the middle man in their patient’s life. Some doctors will start producing medicine in their offices and selling it there. 3D printers can print pills customized toward individual patients on demand. Same with liquid medications, they can be produced on demand if the appropriate chemicals are available. This will mean that doctors will be getting raw materials for making pills and liquid solutions to their offices so they can make the medications as needed. What is interesting is that this will reduce or eliminate the need for many forms of prescription drug insurance as the medical portion of the insurance that covers doctors will also cover the cost of the drugs being bought (if made in the office). What is also good about this is that those drugs will be cheaper as they no longer have to factor in the cost of manufacturing the drug itself, just the cost of the chemicals, shipping cost, and the cost of the power used to make the medication.

The Pharmacist: The role of a pharmacist will generally not change. Only hospitals and doctors who have a licenses to make their own medicines (and if they can afford the cost of the equipment) will make custom medication in house. As such, the pharmacist (especially retail pharmacists) will have the 3D printers, and solution mixtures to make custom medications. They will inevitably sell custom drugs along side traditional prescriptions made by pharmaceutical companies. Even then the pharmacist may just have to input data into a computer, to make and dispense medications. They then have to simply know drug interactions so as to avoid any negative effects that a patient may suffer.

Heck, they may even do this through a video phone, but that remains to be seen.

Pharmacy staff: As some one who works as a technician in a pharmacy, I know I will be replaced by a robot. That robot will act in the same way as an Automated Teller Machine (ATM). All you do is put some form of identification in the machine to find your medication (or the medication of the person your picking up for) and then pay for it. Insurance will be scanned with bar codes or radio frequency identification chips (RFID chips) to bill the insurance companies. From there it will tell you your co-payment. As to whether the insurance will cover your medication or not is another matter. From there you pay and take your medicine home.

More freedom: Currently (or at least in NY) pharmacy staff cannot give a person an equivalent drug to a patient if they are out of stock, or the insurance does not cover the medication. The patient needs to get a new prescription to get the other drug. Thus, future pharmacies will be able to dispense such medications if they are the exact formula or in the same class of medication. More so if the insurance will cover the other medication more and the patient is not allergic to it. In fact, insurance data bases, doctor’s medical files and patient drug files may become linked so that everyone at every level of the health care system can see what is going on with the patient. So we at the pharmacy will finally be able to answer the question as to if a certain drug is covered by their insurance. Not to mention pharmacists will be able to ensure that there will be no negative drug reactions as they currently cannot see if you the patient filled at a different pharmacy or not, and what medications you are getting at that other pharmacy.

Home made: Some medicines may be allowed to be produced at home. 3D printers and similar devices may become as ubiquitous as the cell phone. As such, those devices may be allowed to be used to make medications at home. This means more people can self medicate themselves more. There may even be a function that allows you to scan your prescription and input the chemicals into the hopper to make your medications right there and then. It is more convenient, but certain regulatory hurdles will still have to be overcome (not to mention those who will use the technology for illegal purposes).

Conclusion: Most of this is hypothetical. How medicine evolves is really up in the air. Regulations may prevent the spread of the technology. Fear of a computer glitch causing the medicine being made turning into a poison may be too strong and thus shut down the idea completely for a period of time. Also, many businesses prefer to have people working for them at registers and filling prescriptions because of that human element. As such, people will be removed from the positions of insurance billing, and selling the medication if the costs of paying an individual, and other burdens become overwhelming. No one knows what the future really holds, and the field of medicine is slow to adopt changes in practices out of fear of other portions being outmoded. It remains to be seen how our medical field evolves, but when it does it will usually be for the better.

Issue 147 The Tricorder August 21, 2013

If you have ever watched Star Trek then you will know of the tricorder. For those who do not know, the tricorder is a futuristic device meant to take readings on various phenomena. So it could be used to scan for people and other life forms in an area, radioactive material, various minerals and elements along with energy signatures. But the most important version was the medical tricorder. And you know what? The medical tricorder may just become reality.

Behind the scenes: The "X Prize" program has set up another one of their contests to make the tricorder real. "X Prize" is a foundation where a person or business puts up money as a prize for creating a successful invention. In this case a tricorder. The contest rules dictate that the "tricorder" must be able to perform 3 medical functions. With the contest open toward everyone, ideas were a plenty. In fact the successes at the contest have led to interesting innovations.

Results: Some of the tricorder designs were not tricorders in looks of Star Trek, but smart phones with additional functions. One version had an attachment that allowed it to perform a sonogram. Another was able to monitor for a person's vital signs like their heart beat. There was even one that could monitor a person’s blood sugar for diabetes patients (it had a mechanism that allowed the test strips to be inserted). This got many people thinking about how the smart phone can be a true to life tricorder. Other types spawned from the ideas of the "X Prize" teams were an App that acted in the same way as Web MD allowing you to help diagnose your own medical issues. Currently in Africa, a smart phone equipped with a blood sample reader can test for malaria and a few other diseases like dengue fever. Smart phones are becoming a common tool for people to help themselves diagnose themselves or doctors to have access to cheap alternatives to medical equipment. The perfect example of this is the sonogram function which costs $300 as opposed to the one thousand plus dollar pieces of equipment already in service. Also in the works is a smart phone that not only monitors vitals, but has a test tube you spit in. This tube has test strips to test for certain chemicals which only show up when you are sick. So the device will also be able to test for a multitude of deceases at the same time. The result may be a true tricorder.

What to expect: The technology is actually in its infancy. As computers get smarter and are able to store more memory along with processing power they will be able to do more. It will not be surprising to find a doctor taking out his smart phone to help diagnose his/her patients. On top of that, the doctor will be able to send prescriptions based on the diagnosis (which may be aided by, or even done by the smart phone itself). Already doctors are using digitized records with ipads and tablet PCs to save on cost and also to email prescriptions, but with a "tricorder" it may become a whole lot easier to do. For instance doctors do not always know of what new drugs are on the market. But with the "tricorder" they will have access to all the information on all the drugs that will help heal their patient. In fact, they will be able to see which drugs and treatments will be covered by their patients insurance and at what cost. However, patients may take on a greater role in treating themselves for minor things like small colds and fevers. This will disturb some doctors, but that has become the goal for some of the innovators behind real life tricorders. These people want individuals to save time and money by being able to treat themselves when and where they can. Mean while doctors are hesitant about being replaced by a computer. Yes the tricorder will be capable of doing much more with far little cost, but development and approval by agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are slow. So our neighbors in Africa and other nations with not so strict regulations will get to use this technology first.

Conclusion: Tricorders, or tricked out smart phones, are going to be the future of medicine. The goal of creating the ultimate medical muti-tool as seen on Star Trek is just too tempting to pass up given all its advantages. So the real question is how long it will be before your doctor is using one. As a matter of fact, it is a question of how long until you can buy one for your self.

Issue 146 What is a Theocracy? August 20, 2013

 
Well a theocracy is a government that is "blessed" by God. Its rules and conduct are shaped by the religion in which it emerges from. So countries like Iran have Islam (their version) acting as the basis for their right to rule and how the people should act. By what are the qualities of a theocracy?

First Quality: It must have a religion. Without a religion it would not be a theocracy. For within the faith are the rules upon which people are to act. So the religious rules of the faith are then enforced by the government. So if the faith says a persons hand must be chopped off for stealing, then it is chopped off. If you convert to a different faith, but the rules in the theocracy say you can't then you will suffer the penalty. Basically all religious law becomes legal law.

Second Quality: For situations in which the faith says nothing, such as a circumstance not mentioned in the holy books, religious leaders or the head of the religious faith are turned to. So let us say the faith says nothing on how to deal with the punishment of a group of religious adherents who differ slightly from the faith in terms of worship. The religious leaders will then have to decide based on the already established rules if such conduct is allowed, followed by an appropriate punishment. Although, the conduct may itself be ignored.

Final Quality: Typically, a theocracy is a type of dictatorship. The faith and its rulers control people’s lives with an iron fist. Toleration of certain behavior is approved only in the interest of maintaining stability as they slowly remove elements they do not approve of. Basically, those who control the faith control the populace and thus use faith to bend them to their will.

Who rules: There is two methods of government upon which theocracy's are run. They can be run like Iran's government. In Iran they have a religious council that maintains the integrity of the faith and advises how the government should act. The government portion is a false democracy with elected leaders manipulated into power through the religious councils influence. However the government portion will seek greater power.  As such, the government and the religious institution will fight for power and control.

However, the alternative is that the head of State: the president, king, or equivalent is the head of the faith. A good example is the old kings and queens of England who were head of the Protestant Church. Usually, this gave legitimacy to the government as being run by a person directly endorsed by God. Also, these rulers typically could do whatever they wanted in the name of God with all those who disagreed forced to comply or face harsh consequences.

Conclusion: A theocracy is by far not a perfect government. In fact, the morality of faith is ignored by those in charge. The faith is not at fault for the conduct of the rulers, but the perversion of the faith is caused by those rulers. In the United States, the Federal government is not allowed to establish a religion or make rules/ perform actions favorable to one faith or another. This is enshrined in the 1st Amendment in the U.S. Constitution. Our founding fathers saw how faith was used as a tool of tyranny over in Europe and decided enough was enough. They would not allow the Judeo-Christian values be tainted by the corruption of government power. As such, no theocracy is safe from corruption and self destruction, in the same way no government is safe from collapsing under its own weight.

Issue 145 A Postal Bank? August 19, 2013

I had previously mentioned in a previous issue (issue 132) about some countries converting their old postal services into banks designed for low income individuals. I personally think it is a fantastic idea that could help many poor individuals have access to a financial institution which they can store and save their money while saving one of the oldest governmental functions the United States government is constitutionally allowed to do. But how would it work?

Step 1: The current postal services would have to be amended. Basically, they would have to allow private companies to be able to deliver regular mail. In the U.S., letters, and magazine/advertisements are restricted to the United States Postal Service. To reduce post offices traditional work load and to make room for its new function, letting private carriers deliver any and all type of mail will go along way to making room. This would also allow businesses to have a cheaper alternative to the post office for delivering their ads and magazines. Traditional letters are slowly disappearing in the digital age especially as you can send an entire presentation digitally rather than through snail mail (this is also part of the reason the post office is failing). However, the traditional mail carrying functions will not disappear as there are still certain parts of the United States that private carriers may not go due to cost. As such the post office will be the letter carrier of last resort.

Step 2: Training in the basic functions of banking will be required. So the ladies and gentleman of the post office will also need the same basic training as a bank teller.

Step 3: A certain amount of infrastructure will be needed to alter the current post offices to handle the money such as safes, Automated teller machines (ATM) (which will reduce the number of actual tellers needed) and a bank card to access the account (which could be a State issued driver license or a non-drivers ID). Advantageously, the post office will also be able to gather old money and exchange it for newly printed currency rather than rely on private banks.

Step 4: The basic account structure will need to be created. As this system is geared toward people with low incomes who may not be able to maintain even a minimal deposit, minimal deposits and interest rates that charge people for taking out their money and even keeping it there would be prohibited. Of course a basic checking and savings account will be provided. As most low income individuals are on welfare, it becomes a lot easier to monitor when and where they buy so as to aid in preventing fraud (maybe make it a requirement to have an account in a postal bank if on welfare?). From here a modest interest rate that rewards individuals for saving their money or keeping a certain minimum in their checking account would be needed (I suggest a generous rate anywhere between 1 and 5 percent). In this system however, loans will be largely forbidden. Loans further indebt the poor and as such, either no loans or small one year loans that can be easily paid back with an individuals given income stream will be allowed under this system. I favor no loans as the temptation for the Post Office under this idea to make money off these low income earners is far too tempting.

Step 5: Alternate revenue streams need to be acquired to allow the post office to make the money needed to provide those generous interest rates mentioned in step 4. We already have the traditional role of the post office generating money, but other forms will be required. Therefore license renewals for Federal and State registered businesses and occupations can be done through the post office. Here the Federal and State governments would get their money for license renewals, with a portion going to the post office. In this idea people who are trained in navigating the complex license acquisition and renewal process will act in the same way a traditional bank agent does loans. Passports will also still be able to be acquired through the post office and any licenses or identification will also be able to be acquired through the Post Office bank (at a small fee, or kick back from the Federal or State governments). This would generate a good portion of revenue while saving money in the Federal and State levels of government as their traditional jobs in specialized institutions will be taken over by the Postal Bank. It is even possible to make it act as a small office for tax exceptions and some forms of welfare if needed.

Step 6: To ensure costs do not go too high, money can be saved where possible by hiring private companies or contracting with freelance agents who are paid per client to serve in certain portions and roles in the post office service. Namely lawyers to serve as license navigators who get paid when they help a client successfully get a license or a permit. Basically, it removes the need to provide retirement or health benefits if they are merely allowed to use the Post Office bank by paying a fee. Basically, saving money is key toward the success of this bank plan.

Step 7, the final step: This postal bank cannot be allowed to compete with private banks. If people hear how high the interests rates are (to keep your money in), and how it does not cost anything to use the bank, people will switch in droves to this Post Office bank. Therefore, if your account exceeds a certain amount of money there will be two options, you either leave the bank, or are now going to be charged fees for using the bank. This post office bank is for the poor and impoverished so that they may generate savings, not for the rich. As such, if your income exceeds 150% of the poverty level (currently around $20,000 in the U.S.), you will be charged an interest rate of around .5% to provide incentive for you to get out. In addition, the interest rate for keeping your money in your checking account will stop, and the savings account rate will be reduced to .05%. Likewise, every time you take money out of your checking for cash, spend it at a store or transfer money from your savings to your checking you will be charged .5%. Thus 5 cents of every dollar you spend will be taken out. Also, it is advisable that the higher amount of money in the account, the larger the penalties will grow. All this is to prevent private banks from loosing all their accounts which may in turn bankrupt them and put good banks out of business.

Conclusion: My one concern on this entire idea is that it may cause banks such as credit unions and even some large established banks to go out of business. Those institutions however, serve a purpose to make loans, and provide financial services that Federal and State governments are incapable of doing. If these private banks go out of business, those resources become scarcer and thus more expensive pricing more people out of the market and thus making more people poor. That cannot be allowed, and as such non-negotiable rules/penalties for depositors who achieve over a certain amount of money must be put in place if they are to keep their money in the Postal Bank and those penalties must hurt. With that thought in mind it is advisable that the penalties be actually determined by the private banks that have everything to lose (rather than my flimsy penalties suggested in step 7). Incentives are essential, and the best one is pain for keeping that money in. I am a libertarian, I want business, no matter how small to have a chance to thrive and grow, and as such financial institutions must be protected no matter what forms they come in. Yes, we can help the poor save, but at some point they may become dependant on that help. That cannot be allowed, for when that happens we no longer have poor people, but freeloaders.

Issue 144 National 401K August 16, 2013

What would happen if we created a national 401K? Would it help people to have a better financial safety net? Let us review the cost and benefits.

Benifits1: What is good about a national 401K is that it is an investment. Basically it is taking money and investing in businesses on the stock market. This allows for a high rate of return when it comes to investments (especially risky ones if done early on). A 401K type retirement system is already in place in Galveston Texas where they on average have a larger payout greater than if they would have been in the traditional Social Security system. Of course theirs is managed in such a way that they will almost never lose money on the market due to the use of safe investments like mutual funds and bonds. Of course riskier investments can be done early on before a certain age to maximize your financial investment in the short run. Then it would be converted at a certain age, such as 10 years before retirement, to avoid losing all the money. Here it is insured that you will get lots of money.

Benifits2: A second benefit is that by investing in the stock market through this approach you actually help businesses grow. Basically you now have an entire population investing in the market which in turn increases the amount of capitol a business has access to. As such the business grows and in turn raises the value of the stock, thus raising the amount of money an investor makes. As everyone would now be invested in the market that means everyone gets more money when the business expands and does well. It becomes a cyclical relationship. The more you invest, the better able a business can expand and thus make you more money.

Benifits3: Another great benefit is that your money is in an actual account and as such the government cannot take away your money like with the Social Security system in the United States. By the way, the money in the Social Security system does not actually belong to you, which is why they can do that (see Supreme Court case: Flemming versus Nester for details). Also, it does not take much to run this system as it would use the tax code to put a portion of your taxes into the 401K account and would be group managed with everyone else’s investments to insure finical security through a singe body of "experts." A very simple system indeed.

Costs 1: The investment can still fail. Even though the money to be invested will be divided up among a large group of investments, a market crash can still cause a lot of problems. Thankfully, such crashes usually occur twice in a person’s life time and if you are switched to a safe investment within the age window prior to retirement then you are less likely to be hurt, and also well in a position to recover. We as investors will also have to deal with poor performing businesses and bad management of a business, but with diverse investments, financial loses can be easily mitigated. Such financial collapses and bad CEO's can be hard to deal with and some money will be lost, but through stock diversification and changing over to safer investments as you get older help to reduce much of the risk involved our retirement money will be very safe.

Costs 2: We have one big issue however. It will be the government managing the system. As such it will be a compulsory system which you probably cannot opt out of. In addition, the experts needed to run the system may not be very good. Let us face it, politicians suck at picking people to run different aspects of government. Poor management can be mitigated by having strict standards for experience when finding people to run the system, but they are bound to make a mistake at some point, or face political pressure to invest in certain businesses that may riskier than what even private investors will not touch. As such it will need to be insulated from politics and that means full autonomy. Therefore the only possible true negative is that the government would make it a compulsory system to save. But if you are willing to live with that, then it should be a fairly safe system.

Conclusion: This idea is not entirely out of the realm of libertarian thought. But I am against it unless it is used to replace the current Social Security system along with those groups of people who are exempt like the rail road workers who have their own unique system. Government workers would also be forced to use this system as their sole retirement system as offered by the government so as to insure that their own self interest keeps our money safe both in the stock market and in business in general. They will not want anything to threaten their chances of a major payout at retirement. This may be the only viable replacement to any Social Security type programs as discussed repeatedly throughout multiple presidential elections in the U.S. So the question is do we switch to a system that costs almost nothing to run, with some risk for a high return, and run by government while the money belongs to us, or do we stick to the status quo? Your choice.