Einstein and Compound Interest
Claim:  Albert Einstein once declared compound interest to be "the most powerful force in the universe." UNDETERMINED Examples:  [Sangillo, 2006] There's an urban legend that Albert Einstein once said compounding [interest] is the most powerful force in the universe.  Whether or not he really said it, that line has become my financial motto. I strongly suggest you adopt it.  [Hartgill, 1997] When asked to name the greatest invention in human history, Albert Einstein simply replied "compound interest." Origins:  Many homeowners who have struggled to meet their  mortgages month after month, only to find after years of making payments that most of their money has gone to cover interest charges, have felt like cursing whoever came up with the concept of compound interest. In that vein, around 1980 (when the neutron bomb and soaring interest rates were prominent news topics) Johnny Carson once quipped during a Tonight Show monologue that "Scientists have developed a powerful new weapon that destroys people but leaves buildings standing  it's called the 17% interest rate."  Perhaps that explains why many of us seem to recognize a kindred spirit in the declaration by one of the greatest intellects of our time, Albert Einstein, that compound interest is "the most powerful force in the universe" or "the greatest invention in human history."  (Since no context is ever offered for this purported quote, readers might also fairly assume that its intent was to praise compound interest as a wonderful device that allows thrifty savers to realize a significant, low-risk return on their money.) compound But did the eminent physicist really ever say such a thing?  The claim that he did appears dubious for a couple of significant reasons:  The attribution of this sentiment about compound interest to Einstein doesn't seem to have existed during the scientist's lifetime, first appearing in print only several decades after his death, and always repeated as something he supposedly said in some indefinite time and place.  (Albert Einstein died in 1955, but the earliest mention we could find of this item was in a 1983 New York Times blurb.)  Just what Einstein reportedly said about compound interest varies quite a bit from source to source: That it was "the greatest invention in human history" (or "the greatest invention of mankind," or "the greatest invention of all," or "the most significant invention of the nineteenth century"), that it is "the most powerful force in the universe," or that it is "more complicated than the theory of relativity."  (That last variation echoes another sentiment popularly attributed to Einstein which also began to appear only well after his death, to the effect that "preparing a tax return is more complicated than relativity theory" or "the hardest thing in the world to understand is the income tax.") We suspect that this perspective on the power of compound interest is a fairly modern invention, one which has been retroactively placed into the mouth of a prominent dead person to give it more punch. Last updated:  19 April 2011    Calaprice, Alice.  The New Quotable Einstein.   Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005.  ISBN 0-691-12074-9  (pp. 294-295). The New Quotable Einstein     Dorfman, Dan.  "Fundamental Advice, Phenomenal Success."   USA Today.  2 August 1991  (p. B4).     Hartgill, David.  "Power of Compounding."   The Advertiser.  15 September 1997.     Havemann, Judith.  "Uncle Sam's Dual Standards."   The Washington Post.  23 January 1988  (p. A1).     Langworthy, David.  "Einstein Was Right  So Is 'Wealthy Barber.'"   The Houston Chronicle.  1 June 1998  (p. A20).    Sangillo, Karen.  "All About 'Free Money' and How to Earn It."   Bucks County Courier Times.  5 November 2006.    Shapiro, Fred R.  The Yale Book of Quotations.   New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2006.  ISBN 0-300-10798-6  (pp. 230-231). The Yale Book of Quotations    Topolnicki, Denise M.  "How You Can Beat the Five Threats to Your Retirement."   The Buffalo News.  8 November 1993  (p. 12).
Debate has begun over a proposal by the new owners of the Pawtucket Red Sox to move the team to Providence, where they want to build a new riverfront stadium. The project is still in the planning phase, but the owners have said they intend to ask for some financial support from the state and the city, including possibly getting the state-owned land for the stadium for free. But would a new stadium be worth the price tag? Rhode Islands Republican National Committeeman Steve Frias says no. Ina Feb. 24, 2015 commentaryin The Providence Journal, he said giving away the valuable land, which was freed up by the relocation of Route 195, would be a mistake. Research performed by economists has shown no consistent, positive impact on jobs, income or tax revenues arising from stadiums or sports franchises, Frias argued. We thought that claim was worth checking out. When we contacted him, he immediately referred us toa 2008 summary of research in the fieldby economistsDennis Coatesof the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, andBrad Humphreysof West Virginia University. The authors reviewed more than 40 academic studies, spanning nearly two decades, that examined public subsidies for professional sports teams. Their findings were clear. There now exists almost 20 years of research on the economic impact of professional sports franchises and facilities on the local economy, they wrote, reporting that studies published in peer-reviewed economic journals show there is almost no evidence that professional sports franchises and facilities have a measurable economic impact on the economy. And that's for major-league teams. In this case, we're talking about a minor league team, said Humphreys when we contacted him by phone. For example, he and Coates found no difference in economic impact between the years when teams were playing their regular schedules and five time periods when they didn't, due to strikes. And in a subsequent analysis, they found that having postseason games did not affect real per-person income in a city. Money may shift from one part of the economy to another, but there's no net benefit. The evidence is overwhelming,Coates and Humphreys wrote. Economists reach the nearly unanimous conclusion that tangible economic benefits generated by professional sports facilities and franchises are very small; clearly far smaller than stadium advocates suggest and smaller than the size of the subsidies. They also noted that in 2005, when a random group of economists was asked if they agreed or disagreed with the statement, Local and state governments in the U.S. should eliminate subsidies to professional sports franchises, 28 percent agreed and 58 percent strongly agreed. That's a whopping 86 percent. Only 5 percent disagreed. There are special-interest reports that claim an economic benefit and contend that every dollar invested in a sports franchise generates a specific amount of money, Humphreys said, but those are never published in reputable journals because you can make them say whatever you want them to say by tinkering with the assumptions that influence how the numbers are crunched. We posed the question to other experts, including Rick Eckstein, professor of sociology at Villanova University and author of Public Dollars, Private Stadiums: The Battle over Building Sports Stadiums. There are absolutely no publicly subsidized stadiums and arenas that generate enough direct or indirect tax increases to balance the initial (and ongoing) public outlay, he said in an email. In fact, some research suggests that sports stadiums actually decrease economic activity and tax revenue in areas where they are built, said Eckstein. However, strategically placed stadiums and arenas can sometimes ride existing redevelopment trends, but they are never the cause of these trends. Coates and Humphreys said there are several reasons to explain a lack of economic benefit. In many cases -- and this would be particularly true in Rhode Island -- the state would simply be transferring the economic activity from one city to another. And even if more people went to see the Sox in a new stadium, when people spend to go to a ballgame, local entertainment spending on sports increases and local entertainment spending on other activities like movies, bowling, etc. decreases. There are other costs people need to weigh, they wrote. For every individual who derives enjoyment from the presence of the sports franchises in the community, there are likely to be other individuals who are uninterested in sports or even resent being taxed to subsidize an activity they have no use for. And the money used to subsidize a move might be better spent for other public projects with higher social rates of return than a stadium such as construction and maintenance projects, or even reducing taxes. Supporters of public support for professional sports teams often point to intangible benefits, such as boosting civic pride. But that argument is beyond the scope of this item. So here's the box score. Steven Frias said, Research performed by economists has shown no consistent, positive impact on jobs, income or tax revenues arising from stadiums or sports franchises. It appears that he belted this one out of the park. We rate his claimTrue. (If you have a claim youd likePolitiFact Rhode Islandto check, email us at[email protected]. And follow us on Twitter: @politifactri.) Claim:  A miraculous car that gets 200 miles to the gallon is sold by mistake then reclaimed by the factory and is never seen again.  Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, 1999] A retiring General Motors employee, after many years of service, receives a car as a retirement gift. (as well as a nice pension, etc.). So he is given permission to select a car from the lot there at the factory. He selects a Chevrolet Caprice, a big, luxury car. After receiving it, he is satisfied with his choice. After all, who wouldn't enjoy driving around in a roomy, comfortable car. After driving it for a while, he noticed something quite odd ... a car like this usually consumes a substantial amount of fuel, but the gas gauge hardly moves at all.  After a few weeks, he gets suspicious. Things like this don't happen. Being the company man he is, he returns it to the factory. Explaining this to the service tech must've caused some strange looks, but they took it in anyway. After he got his car back, he noticed it got the typical gas mileage of a comparable car. Could've this car had some secret "modifications" that allowed him to drive for weeks, on the same tank of gas? Detroit's automakers have purportedly seized, er.. bought out patents of items that improve gasoline mileage like the 100 mpg carburetor, etc. Maybe the R&D department at GM put this theory to practice, and this was an example.  [Collected via e-mail, 1997] A couple journeys from Western Canada to Detroit to buy a new car and presumably save shipping costs while having a vacation in the States at the same time.  Driving back to the prairies, they find to their astonishment that the gas gauge is not moving down to "empty" even though they've been driving for hours.  Arriving home some thousands of miles away from Detroit, they have only refilled the tank once or twice. A few days after returning, the husband looks out at his driveway in the morning to find two mysterious men tinkering with his car (the hood is up).  Running out, they race off; he checks under the hood, finds nothing amiss, and concludes it's just vandals or would-be thieves whom he was fortunate to apprehend before any damage was done.  BUT, when they drive the car, they find their gas mileage is now normal. Variations:  The miraculous car legend ends one of four ways:    Mysterious men appear and tinker with the engine, rendering the car no different than any other.   The car is reclaimed by the factory. If the owner afterwards gets the same car back (sometimes it's replaced outright with another vehicle), it now gets ordinary gas mileage. No-nonsense business types show up to make a fabulous offer for the car, which is accepted. The owner wakes up one morning to find the car vanished without a trace. Origins:  The legend of the miracle high-mileage automobile has been around longer than most of our readers, with a version set it Philadelphia having appeared in a 1948 newspaper. (Even at that time, the story proved unverifiable, with the article's writer identifying it as such and passing it along only as an example of a current rumor   sweeping through the community.) Since that early sighting of more than half a century ago, the legend has gone on to enthrall audience after audience as each couple of years sees it pop up anew. Its origins are as strange as the story itself. Between 1928 and 1935, Charles Nelson Pogue, an inventor from Canada, applied for numerous patents for what he claimed was a new type of carburetor that supposedly completely vaporized gasoline before introducing it to the cylinders, thereby extracting a great deal more energy from the fuel. According to the Pogue patent description, fuel was introduced into the engine in this vaporous "dry" state rather than in the normal droplet-laden "wet" state, thus combining more readily with air, making it burn with far greater efficiency. Better combustion combined with the raising of the engine's operating temperature from 160F to 180F were said to be responsible for vastly improved fuel economy.  So much for the techno-talk. The Pogue carburetor was touted as getting 200+ miles to the gallon. Glowing reports about this miracle of ingenuity's making a 1,879 mile trip on 14.5 gallons appeared in the May 1936 issue of Canadian AutomotiveTrade magazine, reports which Pogue later denied.  A manager of a Winnipeg auto dealership claimed he had driven a Pogue-equipped car 217 miles on a gallon of gasoline. A different dealer principal claimed to have driven 26 miles on a pint of fuel.  The story snowballed onward from those breathless testimonials as one rumor quickly followed on the heels of another. Thieves were reputed to have broken into Pogue's shop and made off with three of his carburetors. There was talk of armed guards and wolfhounds guarding the shop and the now-famous inventor. Wealthy backers (from Winnipeg or Toronto, depending on whom you heard the story from) were rumored  to be bankrolling Pogue, but the arrangements mysteriously fell through. Ford of Canada was said to have bought the invention outright. All in all it was a very exciting time. Alas, one can get by on mere smoke and mirrors for only so long. Those with sense enough to not be deafened by the hyperbole were not long kept at bay with tales of wolfhounds, thieves, and mysterious briefcase-toting moneymen. They wanted to see the carburetor. That, of course, was never permitted. No one reputable was allowed to see the mechanical miracle in action, let alone have a chance to measure its results. After the initial excitement over Pogue's 1936 announcement had faded, more serious types began to openly doubt that the carburetor would work as described.  In the December 1936 issue of Automotive Industries magazine, its engineering editor, P.M. Heldt, said of a sketch of the Pogue carburetor: "The sketch fails to show any features hitherto unknown in carburetor practice, and absolutely gives no warrant for crediting the remarkable results claimed." Other journalists were beginning to voice similar opinions. In response to calls to put up or shut up, Pogue's miracle carburetor was heard of no more. Faced with the choice of believing someone had made claims his invention couldn't later live up to or that a monied bad guy had bought up a technology to forever keep it off the market, at least some chose to believe the suppression theory. That the carburetor never made it to the public, they said, was proof enough of its existence. Those 1930s news stories breathlessly trumpeting Pogue's miracle of technology form the basis of the economical carburetor legend now before us.  As gas prices  fluctuate, our dependence on fossil fuels is driven home time and again. Who wouldn't long for a miracle of engineering that would free us from the tyranny of the gas pump? And thus the groundwork for belief is laid. As sometimes happens in the world of urban legends, desire for something to be true transforms a rumor into certainty that this very thing is fact. Over the years, our legend about a 200 mpg car has bobbed to the surface in community after community, been debunked in numerous respected publications, and bobbed right back up in the wake of those debunkings. The need to believe in this wondrous technology and the evil car manufacturers who are deliberately withholding it from the market appears too strong to combat. A bit of rational thought should be all that's needed to lay this legend to rest. Why would the car manufacturers at all care about keeping such a technological advance away from consumers? Unlike the petroleum companies, they've no vested interest in how much fuel a car uses. An automaker's self interest is best served by getting the newest irresistible technology to the consumer before his competitors do. If any one of them possessed the secret of the 200 mpg car, he'd have rushed it into production, hoping to beat his competitors to the punch. Those who are tempted to believe the Evil Government is responsible for keeping this miracle out of our hands should reflect for a moment on the current state of world politics. The government of the United States would like nothing better than to throw off the yoke of dependence upon foreign oil. A miraculous carburetor would grant that freedom, allowing Americans to continue to enjoy current levels of use without the need to go hat in hand to OPEC or even those dastardly Canadians. The domestic supply would be more than enough. Though rarely is this tale told about anything other than a gas-miserly carburetor, this version describes a miraculous lightbulb: It was around 1920, shortly after he had married, when the old man originally purchased the light bulb from a small store in town. It appeared to be a normal light bulb. However, when after sixty years it was still going strong, he decided to write to the manufacturers and tell them of this remarkable phenomenon. By return a reply came from the company indicating that they were very interested in the bulb and would like to send someone to see it. Eventually, one of the directors of the firm called and, instead of just showing interest, offered to buy it for 1,000. The old man, of course, refused, as the light bulb had given him good service. However, his curiousity was certainly aroused  why so much money for his light bulb? The director could provide no plausible explanation as to why they were willing to offer so much for the bulb, so the old man decided to explore this mystery further. With the help of a solicitor friend he did a little investigating and discovered that in the 1920s this particular light-bulb manufacturer had bought and tested the patent for an everlasting bulb. Only a few of these bulbs were made and the company, finding the invention worked, destroyed the bulbs and suppressed the idea  after all, it would have put them out of business. Unknown to the company one of the lights had accidentally become mixed up with a batch of ordinary bulbs and this was the light bulb which had lit the old man's kitchen for the past sixty years. (Sometimes lore collides with reality: A long-lived light bulb has been burning since 1901 and currently lights a fire station in Livermore, California.) light bulb Barbara "gasoline allied" Mikkelson Origins:  The legend about the need to suppress the steam-driven carburetor that can produce 200 mpg to protect the oil industry surfaces in an episode of the TV series Spoils of Babylon ("The Foundling: The War Within; original air date 9 January 2014). Last updated:  26 June 2014 The Mexican Pet    Brunvand, Jan Harold.  The Vanishing Hitchhiker.   New York: W. W. Norton, 1981.  ISBN 0-393-95169-3  (pp. 175-178). The Vanishing Hitchhiker    Dale, Rodney.  The Tumour in the Whale.   London: Duckworth, 1978.  ISBN 0-7156-1314-6  (pp. 114-115). The Tumour in the Whale    Dorson, Richard.  American Folklore.   Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1959  (p. 253). American Folklore    Ellis, William and Alan E. Mays.  "Art Linkletter and the Contemporary Legend."   FOAFTale News.  June 1994  (pp. 1-10).     Morgan, Hal and Kerry Tucker.  Rumor!   New York: Penguin Books, 1984.  ISBN 0-14-007036-2  (pp. 123-125).  Rumor!    Smith, Paul.  The Book of Nasty Legends.  London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1983.  ISBN 0-00-636856-5  (pp. 9, 67).  The Book of Nasty Legends    Vance, Bill.  "Was Winnipeg Inventor Victim of Oil Barons?"   The Toronto Star.  17 April 1993  (p. H2). The Complete and Totally True Book of Urban Legends    Holt, David and Bill Mooney.  Spiders in the Hairdo.  Little Rock: August House, 1999.  ISBN 0-87483-525-9  (pp. 85, 106). Spiders in the Hairdo   The Big Book of Urban Legends.  New York: Paradox Press, 1994.  ISBN 1-56389-165-4  (p. 22). The Big Book of Urban Legends In January 2022, a number of trucks participated in a convoy across Canada in protest of the country's requirement for cross-border truckers to be vaccinated for COVID-19. As videos of the so-called "freedom convoy" spread on social media, so did a number of claims concerning just how many trucks were participating in this event. These claims ranged from a few hundred to more than 50,000. Some even claimed that the freedom convoy had set a Guinness World Record for the world's largest truck convoy.  country's requirement for cross-border truckers to be vaccinated for COVID-19   As of this writing, the freedom convoy has not earned a place in the Guinness World Records book. Furthermore, the claim that this convoy involved 50,000 trucks appears to be a gross exaggeration that goes against all available evidence.  The largest truck convoy on record was set in November 2020 in Cairo, Egypt. That convoy involved 480 trucks and stretched 7.5 km (4.6 miles). Guinness writes: Guinness writes The largest parade of trucks consisted of 480 trucks and is achieved by Tahya Misr Fund (Egypt), in Cairo, Egypt, on 20 November 2020. With a length of 7.5 km, Tahya Misr Fund was able to organize a parade of 480 trucks, amid the harsh weather and heavy rain, breaking the Guinness World Records title for the largest parade of trucks, which was achieved 16 years ago in the Netherlands with a parade size of 416 trucks, thus the Tahya Misr Fund became the ne record holder. This Guinness World Records entry provides a data point that makes us skeptical of the 50,000 truck claim. If a 500 truck convoy stretched 7.5 km, a 50,000 truck convoy would stretch 750 km (about 460 miles). We have seen no evidence to support the idea that the freedom convoy is anywhere near 460 miles long.  So just how many trucks participated in this freedom convoy? There's no official count for the number of trucks participating in this convoy. Estimates are also difficult because this big rig convoy also includes a number of cars and other smaller vehicles. Furthermore, the "freedom convoy" has been a multiple-day event and some trucks may only be participating for a portion of the journey.  These variables make it difficult to estimate just how many trucks are participating. We reached out to the Canadian Trucking Alliance for more information and we will update this article if more information is made available.  Many Canadian news outlets have used the word "hundreds" to quantify the number of trucks in this convoy. The CBC, for example, reported: "Hundreds of truckers set off from British Columbia to Ottawa on Sunday to protest a federal vaccine mandate despite the urging of the country's largest trucking federation to comply." reported Adrian Ghobrial, a reporter for the Toronto news outlet City News, said that while thousands of people have come out to watch and support the truckers as they drive by, he was skeptical that the convoy consisted of more than 100 trucks:  David Akin, the chief global correspondent with Global News, cited a report from the Ontario Provincial Police that 113 trucks (as well as 276 personal vehicles) were recorded coming into Thunder Bay from Winnipeg.   On social media, the estimate of trucks involved in this convoy has grown by the tweet. A post from Fox News host Sean Hannity, for example, claimed that the freedom convoy consisted of 10,000 trucks. Others claimed that this number was in excess of 50,000 trucks.  freedom convoy consisted of 10,000 trucks   The claim that 50,000 trucks are participating in this convoy appears to have originated with one of the protest's organizers. The organizers may not be the most reliable source for this figure, however, as they have reason to inflate these numbers.  originated with one of the protest's organizers The number also seems implausible due to what we know about the trucking industry in Canada.  According to the Canadian Trucking Alliance, the cross-border vaccine mandate would impact about 15% (or about 16,000) of the country's truckers. If the 50,000 truck claim is to be believed, that would mean that not only would every one of those 16,000 truckers have to participate in the event, but they'd also need to be joined by 34,000 additional trucks who weren't impacted by the mandate.  Canadian Trucking Alliance The Canadian Trucking Alliance said in a statement that the "the vast majority of the Canadian trucking industry is vaccinated with the overall industry vaccination rate among truck drivers closely mirroring that of the general public. Accordingly, most of our nations hard-working truck drivers are continuing to move cross-border and domestic freight to ensure our economy continues to function." statement   Canada Police Fear Violence at Trucker Vaccine Protest. ABC News, https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/canada-police-fear-violence-trucker-vaccine-protest-82497084. Accessed 27 Jan. 2022. Canadian Trucking Alliance Statement to Those Engaged in Road/Border Protests - Canadian Trucking Alliance. https://cantruck.ca/canadian-trucking-alliance-statement-to-those-engaged-in-road-border-protests/. Accessed 27 Jan. 2022. Hundreds of Truckers Headed to Ottawa in Freedom Rally Convoy against Vaccine Mandate | CBC News. CBC, https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/freedom-rally-bc-jan-23-1.6324942. Accessed 27 Jan. 2022. Largest Parade of Trucks. Guinness World Records, https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/largest-truck-convoy. Accessed 27 Jan. 2022. If the nation hits the debt ceiling later this month without it being raised by Congress, economists predict a wide spread of economic harm: higher interest rates, lower economic growth and plunging consumer confidence in the United States and overseas. One particularly high-profile sign of economic distress would be a plummeting Dow Jones Industrial Average. During anappearanceon ABCsThis Week With George Stephanopoulos, Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., cited that scenario as one of the reasons why Congress should take action soon. Stephanopoulos asked Schumer whether both sides were posturing and playing with fire on the debt ceiling, which is the legal limit to how much debt the government can shoulder. Schumer said, You don't negotiate over something like the debt ceiling because -- at which point Stephanopoulos interjected, Other presidents have done it. Schumer responded, No. The one time that it was really done in this kind of way, (when it wasnt just) a deadline and you had to decide (on) abortion or something else, was in 2011. We went right up to the deadline. The stock market lost 2,000 points, $18 billion was lost by the American people. We wondered whether Schumer was right about the stock market losing 2,000 points. So we looked at historical data for the Dow Jones Industrial Average, the most popular measure of the stock market. On July 21, 2011, the Dowreached12,724 -- its high point in the months immediately preceding the debt ceiling fight. For the next 10 days, Congress squabbled over raising the debt ceiling. Then, between July 31 and Aug. 2, the White House and congressional leaders reached and implemented a deal that became known as the Budget Control Act of 2011. By Aug. 2, when the crisis was effectively over, the Dow stood at 11,866, a drop of 858 points. Thats less than the 2,000 points Schumer cited. However, the Dow continued to tumble for another two months, due in large part to repercussions of the debt ceiling debate, particularly the downgrading of the United States credit rating byStandard & Poorson Aug. 5. By Oct. 3, the Dow had bottomed out at 10,655 -- a decline of 2,069 points from its pre-debt ceiling peak, and its lowest level in about a year. So if you include the aftershocks of the debt ceiling fight, Schumer is correct that the Dow fell by 2,000 points. (You can see the decline as a line charthere.) That said, its also worth noting that the recovery was almost as quick as the decline. It took only until Jan. 25, 2012 -- about three and a half months after the low point -- for all of the pre-debt ceiling losses to be recouped. By Jan. 25, the Dow hit 12,758. And as Schumer was speaking onThis Week, the most recent Dow close was 15,072 -- an 18 percent increase over the pre-debt ceiling high, which had been about two years and three months earlier. Matt House, a spokesman for Schumer, said the Dows subsequent recovery is irrelevant. Of course (the Dow) came back, but that is of little comfort to anyone who was at or nearing retirement during those several months, he said. With 10,000 baby boomers retiring a day, that drop is incredibly important, and not to be trivialized. .... And this is all from a default that didnt happen. Still, we think its important to note that the 2,000 points the Dow lost didnt stay off for years, or even permanently, as some viewers might assume. Our rating Schumer said that because of the 2011 debt ceiling fight, the stock market lost 2,000 points. If you count the aftermath of the deal that avoided a debt ceiling breach, which included a historic downgrade of the United States creditworthiness rating, then Schumer is right that the Dow fell by 2,000 points. Still, Schumer makes it sound as if the drop happened right away. Actually, it dropped at the time of fight and continued to drop for another two months after the United States' credit rating was downgraded. We rate Schumers claim Mostly True. At the end of June 2019, a video supposedly showing a large cloud of pollen dropping from a fallen tree went viral on social media, with one iteration posted by the Facebook page BigDawgsTv racking up several million views within a week of its upload date: https://youtu.be/u7JHwplUAnESome viewers were so shocked to see so much pollen emitted by a single tree that they were skeptical of the clip and questioned whether or not it had been doctored. With our sympathies to those who suffer from allergies, we note that this video is authentic. This video was first posted to the Facebook page of the Washington-based company Matts Tree & Landscape in May 2019, along with a message announcing the start of "allergy season":  A small portion of a company sign can be seen at the start of the video displaying the first three digits of a phone number (425, a Seattle area code), a logo, and the first two letters of the company name ("MA"). The same sign can also be seen in a photograph posted to the company's Facebook page: photograph   While this video may have been shocking to some viewers, this wasn't the first time that an online video captured a large pollen cloud falling from a tree. In May 2018, a Kentucky Facebook user posted a similar video showing a machine shaking the pollen off of a tree, and that clip was picked up and shared by several local and national news outlets: posted picked shared local  Sheila McCormick, an adjunct professor of plant and microbial biology at the University of California, Berkeley, talked to Live Science shortly after the latter video went viral in 2018 and explained that while the scene may have been unsettling to some viewers, such pollen clouds aren't unusual: Live Science Pollen is a grainy, plant-produced substance that carries the tools that seed-plants need to create male gametes  aka, sperm. While pollen is not actually sperm itself, pollen grains do contain the cells necessary to transfer the male half of the plant's DNA to a compatible plant's female counterparts (like the pistil and female cones). You could say, as Live Science writer Natalie Wolchover once did, that pollen is plant sperm powder ... "This [scene] is not unusual," Sheila McCormick, an adjunct professor of plant and microbial biology at the University of California, Berkeley, told Live Science. "In general, most plants produce much more pollen than is needed. For example, a single corn plant produces 2 [million] to 5 million pollen grains, and an ear of corn has a few hundred seeds. This is especially true for plants that are wind-pollinated." Pine trees, like the ones in the video above, are no exception. Some species of pine can produce up to 5 lbs. (2.2 kilograms) of pollen in just a few weeks, according to Robert Bardon, associate dean for extension in the department of forestry and environmental resources at North Carolina State University. Why make so much pollen? Call it offspring insurance. Specktor, Brandon.  "Watch a Massive 'Pollen Cloud' Explode from Late-Blooming Tree."
  Live Science.  9 May 2018. Katz, Brigit.  "Watch This Pine Tree Unleash a Huge, Fluffy Pollen Cloud."
  Smithsonian.  10 May 2018. Claim:  President Obama has proposed a constitutional amendment to make voting mandatory in the U.S.  Example:  [Collected via Twitter, March 2015] Obama believes voting should be MANDATORYGovernment TELLING you what to do#WakeUpAmerica    Now Obama wants a Constitutional amendment to make voting mandatoryThink about it. Why? Don't mess with my Constitution, just obey it.   Obama proposes a constitutional amendment, making voting mandatory. I wish this were fake, but it's very real.   When a right is forced upon people by law it is no longer a right, but an infringement upon their rights as free citizens #mandatoryvoting  Origins:  On 18 March 2015, President Obama appeared before the City Club of Cleveland at the Cleveland Convention Center to discuss civic issues such as middle-class economics and manufacturing.  In the course of a discussion about the how money influences elections, President Obama mentioned that mandatory voting was one strategy that could be employed to try to offset the of political spending: appeared "Other countries have mandatory voting," Mr. Obama said at a town hall-style event in Cleveland, Ohio, citing places like Australia. "It would be transformative if everybody voted  that would counteract money more than anything." The president continued, "The people who tend not to vote are young, they're lower income, they're skewed more heavily toward immigrant groups and minorities ... There's a reason why some folks try to keep them away from the polls." Although he suggested that adopting mandatory voting rules could be a feasible "short-term" solution to the problem of money in politics, President Obama stopped short of actually calling for a constitutional amendment to bring that requirement about, saying only that in the long term it would be "fun" to go through the extensive process of adopting a constitutional amendment.  Nonetheless, "news" outlets such as the Washington Times published superficial reports of the President's remarks under misleading headlines such as "Obama calls for mandatory voting in U.S." published As of November 2014, there are 11 countries that have and enforce mandatory voting rules, most notably Australia: Australia adopted compulsory voting in 1924 after turnout plunged from more than 70 percent in 1919 to less than 60 percent in 1922. By contrast, recent turnout by eligible voters in U.S. presidential election years has barely cracked 60 percent; in midterm elections, it has been hovering in the low 40s. Australians who fail to vote can be fined (or, in theory, jailed for repeated no-shows). Interestingly, the mandate to vote is overwhelmingly popular, with about three-fourths of those polled supporting the requirement. Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus opined in a column on the subject that it was unlikely the United States would follow Australia's example: unlikely The United States is not about to go the way of Australia. The same partisan forces that agitate for voter ID laws or less opportunity for early voting hours would block any change on the assumption that it would work to their electoral disadvantage.   Last updated:  19 March 2015    "Mandatory Voting? Obama Says It Would Be 'Transformative'."   Associated Press.  18 March 2015. Claim:  A Canadian housewife penned the 'I'll care if . . ." polemic.     Examples: Could not have said this any better myself! especially today  The lady that wrote this letter is Pam Foster of Pamela Foster and Associates in Atlanta. She's been in business since 1980 doing interior design and home planning. She recently wrote a letter to a family member serving in Iraq. Read it! ===================== WHAT'S ALL THE FUSS? "Are we fighting a war on terror or aren't we? Was it or was it not started by Islamic people who brought it to our shores on September 11, 2001? Were people from all over the world, mostly Americans, not brutally murdered that day, in downtown Manhattan, across the Potomac from our nation's capitol and in a field in Pennsylvania? Did nearly three thousand men, women and children die a horrible, burning or crushing death that day, or didn't they? And I'm supposed to care that a copy of the Koran was "desecrated" when an overworked American soldier kicked it or got it wet? Well, I don't. I don't care at all! I'll start caring when Osama bin Laden turns himself in and repents for incinerating all those innocent people on 9/11. I'll care about the Koran when the fanatics in the Middle East start caring about the Holy Bible, the mere possession of which is a crime in Saudi Arabia. I'll care when Abu Musab al-Zarqawi tells the world he is sorry for hacking off Nick Berg's head while Berg screamed through his gurgling, slashed throat. I'll care when the cowardly so-called "insurgents" in Iraq come out and fight like men instead of disrespecting their own religion by hiding in mosques. I'll care when the mindless zealots who blow themselves up in search of nirvana care about the innocent children within range of their suicide bombs. I'll care when the American media stops pretending that their First Amendment liberties are somehow derived from international law instead of the United States Constitution's Bill of Rights. I'll care when Clinton-appointed judges stop ordering my government to release photos of the abuses at Abu Ghraib, which are sure to set off the Islamic extremists just as Newsweek's lies did a few weeks ago. In the meantime, when I hear a story about a brave marine roughing up an Iraqi terrorist to obtain information, know this: I don't care. When I see a fuzzy photo of a pile of naked Iraqi prisoners who have been humiliated in what amounts to a college hazing incident, rest assured that I don't care. When I see a wounded terrorist get shot in the head when he is told not to move because he might be booby-trapped, you can take it to the bank that I don't care. When I hear that a prisoner, who was issued a Koran and a prayer mat, and fed "special" food that is paid for by my tax dollars, is complaining that his holy book is being "mishandled," you can absolutely believe in your heart of hearts that I don't care. And oh, by the way, I've noticed that sometimes it's spelled "Koran" and other times "Quran." Well, Jimmy Crack Corn and  you guessed it  I don't care!" I don't give a sheet either about those sheet heads!!!!! [Collected via e-mail, December 2010] British Housewife Speaks Out Thought you might like to read this letter to the editor of a British national newspaper. Ever notice how some people just seem to know how to write a letter?. Here is a woman who should run for Prime Minister! Written by a housewife, to her daily newspaper. This is one ticked off lady. 'Are we fighting a war on terror or aren't we? Was it or was it not started by Islamic people who brought it to our shores in July 2002, and in New York on 11 Sept 2001, and have continually threatened to do so since? Were people from all over the world, not brutally murdered that day in London , and in downtown Manhattan , and in a field in Pennsylvania? Did nearly three thousand men, women and children die a horrible, burning or crushing death that day, or didn't they? And I'm supposed to care that a few Taliban were claiming to be tortured by a justice system of the nation they come from and are fighting against in a brutal insurgency. I'll start caring when Osama bin Laden turns himself in and repents for incinerating all those innocent people on 9/11 and 7/7. I'll care about the Koran when the fanatics in the Middle East start caring about the Holy Bible, the mere belief of which is a crimepunishable by beheading in Afghanistan I'll care when these thugs tell the world they are sorry for hacking off Nick Berg's head while Berg screamed through his gurgling slashed throat. I'll care when the cowardly so-called 'insurgents' in Afghanistan come out and fight like men instead of disrespecting their own religion by hiding in mosques and behind women and children. I'll care when the mindless zealots who blow themselves up in search of Nirvana care about the innocent children within range of their suicide bombs. I'll care when the British media stops pretending that their freedom of speech on stories is more important than the lives of the soldiers on the ground or their families waiting at home to hear about them when something happens. In the meantime, when I hear a story about a British soldier roughing up an Insurgent terrorist to obtain information, know this: I don't care. When I see a wounded terrorist get shot in the head when he is told not to move because he might be booby-trapped, you can take this to the bank: I don't care. When I hear that a prisoner - who was issued a Koran and a prayer mat, and 'fed special food' that is paid for by my taxes - is complaining that his holy book is being 'mishandled,' you can absolutely believe in your heart of hearts: I don't care. And oh, by the way, I've noticed that sometimes it's spelled 'Koran' and other times 'Quran.' Well, believe me!! you guessed it ...... I don't care!! If you agree with this viewpoint, pass this on to all your E-mail friends. Sooner or later, it'll get to the people responsible for this ridiculous behaviour! If you don't agree, then by all means hit the delete button. Should you choose the latter, then please don't complain when more atrocities committed by radical Muslims happen here in our great country! And may I add: 'Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference in the world. Our soldiers don't have that problem.' I have another quote that I would like to add, AND.......I hope you forward all this. Only five defining forces have ever offered to die for you: 1. Jesus Christ 2. The British Soldier. 3. The Canadian Soldier. 4. The US Soldier, and 5. The Australian Soldier One died for your soul, the other 4 for your freedom. YOU MIGHT WANT TO PASS THIS ON, AS MANY SEEM TO FORGET ABOUT ALL OF THEM. AMEN Origins:  Although the first example quoted above has come to be attributed to a Pam Foster who resides in Atlanta and the second to an unnamed British housewife, the article is actually the work of Doug Patton, a freelance columnist and political speechwriter who lives near Omaha, Nebraska. The first e-mail-circulated version left off his two opening paragraphs and added a closing "I don't give a sheet either about those sheet heads!" statement that wasn't in his original, but it is otherwise a faithful copy of his article, which was first published on the gopusa.com web site on 6 June 2005 under the title "Ask Me if I Care About 'Mishandling' of Koran" and which has since been reproduced on a number of other web sites. Doug Patton published Pamela Foster said this of how her name came to be associated with Doug Patton's article:     The item has subsequently come to be attributed to a variety of unnamed housewives, each of whom supposedly wrote the bit as a letter to the editor of her local paper. A version appeared in March 2007 that attributed the piece to one of them in New Jersey was prefaced "Here is a woman who should run for President!" The text of the original "I'll care if" polemic was shortened a little, and tacked onto the end was the bit about defining forces "which have ever offered to die for you" that also appears in two other Internet-circulated items: A variant of a 2005 piece about complaints made about the noise of a military fly-over in New Mexico and reaction to same, and a version of a pithy quote attributed to British Prime Minister Tony Blair. fly-over Tony Blair In March 2008, the (shortened) item once again circulated, that time attributed to an unnamed ("pissed off") housewife in the Canadian province of New Brunswick, with the forward prefaced with a "Here is a woman who should run for Prime Minister!"and the remainder of the original piece suitably altered to replace American references with Canadian ones. The "defining forces which have ever offered to die for you" enumeration was expanded from the previous twosome of "Jesus Christ and the American G.I." into a list of five: Jesus Christ, the Canadian soldier, the British soldier, the Dutch soldier, and the American soldier. In July 2010 the unnamed housewife was relocated yet again, that time to Britain, and again proclaimed as "Here is a woman who should run for Prime Minister!" Textual changes were once again made in the piece to replace American (or Canadian) references with British ones, and the "who will die for you" list was updated thusly: Jesus Christ, the British soldier, the Canadian soldier, the US soldier, and the Australian soldier. We're betting the unnamed housewife will next show up in Australia. Last updated:  7 August 2013 <!-- Sources:    Voight, Jon.   "An Open Letter to President Obama from Jon Voight."   The Washington Times.  22 June 2010.--> Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease.  fighting Find out Read Submit Become a Founding Member CDC WHO On July 16, 2020, as the U.S. recorded its single highest number of COVID-19 cases since the coronavirus health crisis began, U.S. President Donald Trump spoke at an event held on the South Lawn of the White House, ostensibly on the subject of "Rolling Back Regulations to Help All Americans." During his talk, according to a meme, Trump allegedly tackled the subject of energy-efficiency standards which have supposedly resulted in home appliances that do not function properly due to requirements aimed at conserving the amount of water and power they consume:  This was an accurate reproduction of a portion of Trump's talk, according to a White House transcript of the event: transcript Were bringing back consumer choice in home appliances so that you can buy washers and dryers, showerheads and faucets. So showerheads  you take a shower, the water doesnt come out. You want to wash your hands, the water doesnt come out. So what do you do? You just stand there longer or you take a shower longer? Because my hair  I dont know about you, but it has to be perfect. Perfect. Dishwashers  you didnt have any water, so you  the people that do the dishes  you press it, and it goes again, and you do it again and again. So you might as well give them the water because youll end up using less water. So we made it so dishwashers now have a lot more water. And in many places  in most places of the country, water is not a problem. They dont know what to do with it. Its called rain. They dont have a problem. This was far from the first time the president had riffed on poorly functioning appliances. In December 2019, as Trump spoke in the Roosevelt Room of the White House amidst an impeachment inquiry, he digressed into railing about toilets and other bathroom fixtures that allegedly frustrate their users due to the use of low-flow technology. CNN reported: digressed railing about toilets The President claimed Americans are flushing their toilets "10 times, 15 times, as opposed to once" and argued that they are having difficulty with washing their hands in what appeared to be a tangent about low-flow sinks and toilets. "We have a situation where we're looking very strongly at sinks and showers and other elements of bathrooms where you turn the faucet on -- and in areas where there's tremendous amounts of water, where the water rushes out to sea because you could never handle it, and you don't get any water," the President said during a roundtable with small business leaders about deregulatory actions. "You turn on the faucet and you don't get any water. They take a shower and water comes dripping out. Just dripping out, very quietly dripping out," the President continued, lowering his voice as he spoke about the drips. "People are flushing toilets 10 times, 15 times, as opposed to once." It wasn't entirely clear what he was talking about, but it appeared to have to do with bathroom fixtures with low-flow appliances. He said the Environmental Protection Agency was looking into the issue on his suggestion. "They end up using more water. So (the) EPA is looking at that very strongly at my suggestion," Trump said, though he did not give details on what suggestions, if any, he made. NPR quoted the Pacific Institute, a non-profit research institute with a focus on global and regional freshwater issues, as asserting that Trump's statements did not comport with reality: quoted asserting Peter Gleick with the Pacific Institute in Oakland considers this all to be Trumpian nostalgia for a time when showers were strong, toilets used 4 gallons a flush and lightbulbs burned your hands when you touched them. Gleick said these newer household items are part of an "efficiency revolution," doing the same tasks with less and halting the upward trajectory of water and energy consumption in America. And, yes, a dishwasher cycle takes longer, and incandescent bulbs are cheaper to buy upfront. But in the long run, "They're much more expensive, because they use a huge amount of energy, which we pay for over time and they burn out 20 times faster," Gleick said. Based on the way Trump talks about efficient lightbulbs, it seems his complaint is with compact fluorescent bulbs, which were the only low-energy bulbs widely available 10 years ago. But today, store shelves are full of LED bulbs with warmer-looking light and even longer life spans. Gleick suspects Trump's toilet complaints are outdated as well, because low-flow toilet technology has come a long way in recent years. "Some people got bad toilets, but that was 15 and 20 years ago," Gleick said. "And now the new toilets not only use a tiny fraction of the water the old toilets used to use, but the truth is they flush better  and if you have a bad toilet that doesn't flush, well, that's because you have a bad toilet." A video of the portion of the speech reproduced in the above meme can be viewed here:  Picheta, Rob et al.  "Trump Claims Americans Have to Flush the Toilet '10 Times, 15 Times, As Opposed to Once.'"
  CNN.  7 December 2019. Keith, Tamara.  "Trump vs. Toilets (And Showers, Dishwashers and Lightbulbs)."
  NPR.  27 December 2019. WhiteHouse.gov.  "Remarks by President Trump on Rolling Back Regulations to Help All Americans."
  16 July 2020. Fresh off afive-day trade missionto Canada, Florida Gov. Rick Scott was eager to drop a few tidbits about the country's relationship with the Sunshine State. In a news conference with the Capitol press corps on June 16, 2011, Scott showed off his Florida-Canada knowledge, claiming that: Almost 10 percent of Canadians came to visit Florida last year. And, they buy 7.4 percent of our homes in the state. Interesting claims, eh? But true? The number of Canadians visiting Florida each year is collected by Visit Florida, the state's official tourism marketing corporation. Visit Florida bases its data on credit card information and statistics supplied the Canadian government. The agency found that about 3.05 million Canadians visited Florida in 2010. That's about 9 percent of thecountry's total population of about 34 million. The Toronto Starnoted in a recent story -- based on the Visit Florida data -- that the Canadian boost to Florida's tourism happened even as oil from the Deepwater Horizon disaster threatened Gulf of Mexico beaches. So Scott is right about the tourists. But what about Canadian homeowners? Scott's press office directed us to a2010 studyon Florida's international home buyers. The study is researched by the National Association of Realtors, which creates an annual report on the country's housing market and additional reports for states with a high rate of sales to foreign buyers. The national group takes a survey of Florida members each year, and that includes a question about foreign clients. Florida has the strongest international home sales market in the country. In 2010, foreign clients were responsible for 22 percent of existing home purchases in the state, according to the study. Florida has consistently been the No. 1 destination among foreign buyers, said Lawrence Yun, a National Association of Realtors economist. And Canadians are a big part of that distinction. They out-bought all international buyers in 2010, accounting for 36 percent of Florida's foreign sales in 2010. United Kingdom residents are the next-best buyers at 15 percent. Sure, residents of the Great White North love the state's beaches and toasty climate. What's more, Yun said, is that these slices of paradise don't cost nearly as much as they used to, and the Canadian dollar is stronger than its weakened U.S. counterpart. There's greater consumer confidence among Canadians, which is not a bad thing for Florida. It's absolutely helpful, Yun said. Anytime the market is down, one way to help alleviate the pain or help the healing process is for buyers to come into the market and absorb the inventory. We wanted to find the percentage of Canadians who bought homes in Florida in 2010. So we multiplied 0.22 (portion of Florida home sales to foreign buyers in 2010) by 0.36 (Canada's share of international sales among foreign buyers) to get 0.0792. That's 7.92 percent. Scott's office did not specify how he arrived at 7.4 percent, but he's close enough. He's right that there's a clear Canadian infatuation with Florida. As one Canadian-turned-Floridian-real-estate-agent joked in aNational Public Radio reporton the housing phenomenon, If there ever was an 11th (Canadian) province, it probably would be Florida. Scott has his Canada trivia down cold, and we were unable to find any statistics that contradict him. We rate his claim True. [green-label]Claim:[/green-label] President Obama has issued an executive ordergranting a $2,350 dollar tax rebateto every American who filed a tax return for 2014. [dot-false][/dot-false] [green-label]Example:[/green-label] [green-small][Collected via e-mail,November2015][/green-small] Some women at work were discussing the following: Apparently they saw on Facebook that, as an executive order by PresidentObama, the government is giving everyone who filed 2014 taxes a $2,350.00rebate/refund to be mailed out this month (November 12, 2015). I have lookedeverywhere (on the Internet) that I can think of. The only place I can findit is on a site called "United Media Publishing". Also, the only referenceto this that I can find on Facebook sends a person to this same article fromUnited Media Publishing. Is this true??? [green-label]Origins:[/green-label] On 14 August 2015 the web site United Media Publishing (UMP) issued an article titled "Obama Orders 2350 Dollar Tax Rebate In November" which reported that: The Obama administration has directed IRS director John Koskinen to have the agency prepare for one of the largest cash refund/rebate hand-outs in the history of the organization. The President has authorized by way of anexecutive order that a 2350 dollar tax rebate be issued to every American who filed a tax return in the 2014 fiscal year, irrespective of whether they paid tax or not. Update: A representative for the IRS confirms that the first tax rebate checks will go into the mail November 12th. WhileUnited Media Publishing's initial claim didn't attract much attention on social media, the highlighted portion in the above-reproduced excerpt breathed new life into the hoaxin early November 2015. Unfortunately for readers (hopeful that anunexpected $2,350 windfall was headed their way atChristmastime),United Media Publishing is nothing more than a fake news site, one that doesn't feature a disclaimer notice identifying its content as fake news. Prior fabricationsspread by UMP included aCharles Mansondeath hoax and a story aboutthousands of Christian couples filing for divorceinprotest of the Supreme Court's ruling on gay marriage. Charles Manson divorce  [article-meta] [green-label]Last updated:[/green-label] 11 November 2015 [green-label]Originally published:[/green-label] 11 November 2015