The following was an email. Background: a non-political list was becoming politicized with neo-con and libertarian trash talk. One member tried to engage me off-list to continue the argument (that we have the best health care system available). This was my (long) off the cuff response. I thought it merited sharing - but you can judge for yourself. To begin with, the individual claimed that I favored socialized medicine....hmmm. His other key argument seemed to be that government is corrupt, so should be allowed to do as little as possible.
Dear Xxxxxx,
Fair enough. I am in favor of socialized medicine - not the least afraid to say it or use that term.
Our society and government has become bigger and more complex than the founding fathers ever considered (at least from what I've read). Making any system (medical or otherwise) difficult.
To suggest that all government is corrupt is a bit broad from my perspective - and makes it hard to identify and correct the problems. I think the corruption in government varies, and that corruption is at least as controllable as the problems with our current system of medicine.
As background: I'm not an expert, but I try to keep up with the news, outside reading, and refer back to my studies (BA Political Philosophy, MBA Finance/Marketing).
I think our federal government has become significantly more corrupt since the republicans started to take over Washington. Boy, talk about running away from your beliefs, eh? BTW, either you get that statement or you don't. I no longer try to convert die-hard republicans.
Either one believes in the basic social compact theory of government or one doesn't. In the latter case, one can try to achieve a dictatorship or the like that drives ones own interests, or one needs to turn to anarchy (which I consider to be the libertarian model without cheating). Anarchy sometimes works - in small groups where resources are not in short supply. I think that it has yet to succeed in any sort of large group much less a nation. I don't believe in dictatorship - although some of the right wing-nuts seem to. Often in the guise of a Christian government. So, yes, I believe in the social compact theory of government.
That inherently supposes socialism. That is, the social compact requires us to consider the needs and interests of those around us. We have to balance our needs and wants against those of our peers, friends, colleagues, leaders, followers, enemies, and assorted low-lifes. BTW - what's so bad about that?
Fundamental to a social compact is a sense of justice. You know, things like where the constitution guarantees equal treatment under the law. One aspect of justice is to recognize that no system of distributing wealth is perfect. That some people fall through the cracks, and usually it is through no fault of their own. Hence, we have a need to provide some baseline quality of life for these individuals.
Now some people (like the dittoheads) would say I'm soft on lazy folks who want to live off of my work. Well, that's an interesting concept. I venture to say, none of those people have ever spent time living the life of these so-called welfare-cheats. If they did, I think they'd see that the lifestyle provides plenty of incentives for change, but few avenues. I do think that its possible to get trapped mentally as much as socially into poverty - and that it is largely the responsibility of the individual to fight the mental trap. But, these folks aren't generally in the position to fight the social traps - and if we don't take care of that, and their basic quality of life - then these individuals have no benefit from the social contract. Just as companies and rich people fight contracts which they decide are not in their best interests, those individuals left out by society have found ways to fight back over the eons.
It is irrational to think that this sort of unhealthy conflict will change unless these individuals are co-opted into the system - that is brought into the benefits of the social contract. Many people prefer to hate, disdain, whatever these individuals. It doesn't solve the problem - but seems to make these individuals feel better about themselves. Oh well...it's hard to fix shallow minds.
The constitution, the declaration of independence, the federalist papers, etc. don't talk about capitalism or free markets. Funny that so many people today (often influenced by the neo-cons [which is short for Neanderthal con-artists]) seem to think that democracy, capitalism and free markets are inherently related. They're not, ever hear of the term: Social Democrat?
Very few people can speak with any accuracy about what a free-market is, either in a classical sense or as the term has come to be defined by economists. Too bad, 'cuz that means that they just don't know what they're talking about. Thinkabaudit. Free markets sound like a good idea. Air travel isn't a free market, but is one of the closer examples currently at hand. Guess what, airlines can't make money in anything like a free-market. Nor can anyone else. It is only by undermining a free-market that business succeeds.
I keep meaning to look up a piece by one of the marketing guru's (not Drucker, but I can't think of who right now - a sign of old age). Anyhow, it defines what marketing (and therefore fundamentally the strategy) of companies should be. Funny thing, its almost a point by point description of all that is considered predatory or unfair trade and/or monopoly behavior. In other words, the marketing gurus fundamentally teach that business should actively undermine free markets. So, it should be no surprise that its hard to find any free markets.
In a related item, economists have concluded that in a fair stock market, no one can beat the system (that is average over-all returns) over time. Any short term wins are random chance. We know that some people are able to regularly beat the system - although most of us can't. Yea for free markets!
Capitalism. Hmmm, what can we say. Largely defined by the Marxists (no i'm not one of them - they're crazy). Understood correctly, I think a capitalist is someone who succeeds in undermining free markets in order to accumulate more wealth/material/capital/power for themselves than their contribution to society might otherwise earn. Is that what we're all about? Not me or most people I know. Capitalism is not the same thing as commerce or commercialism. Both are driven by greed (which is fairly instinctual), but the capitalists get ahead by cheating the social compact and fair play.
Unfortunately, many in this country don’t understand that distinction and fall for simplistic arguments - that convince them to support capitalism. The business leaders of this country drive this thinking, even though they intend for capitalism to be just as defined by the Marxists. Hmmm.... almost enough to make me want literacy standards for voters.
Going back to the freedoms thing... What rights to do we have? The constitution doesn't protect our right to be tax free. Being tax free isn't necessarily a good thing. It is arguable that as a nation we would be stronger and our economy would be stronger if business wasn't taxed on income (maybe not for real estate either), and that the general public picked up the difference. Now, that won't happen because there are too many people making too much money off of the current tax system. And, they're in a position to protect their interests in the social compact. Eh?
We also aren't free to opt-out of social welfare programs such as: 1) police and fire protection; 2) protection by armed forces; 3) national forests; 4) other national resources like the capital; 5) EPA standards (although shrub has made these largely go away); 6) FDA standards (shrub's tried to prune these); 7) public roads, airports, sea ports, etc. Why is health care such a hot button? We don't see most people getting upset about this other SOCIALIST solutions.
Healthcare is funny. Its often one of the most emotional purchases we make, and often with little time for research and comparison shopping. As such, we are particularly vulnerable the anti-free market forces. I hear folks say that they know someone from Canada and that person says Canadians come here for medical care all the time. Can we parse this a little?
First, only wealthy Canadians could possibly afford to come here for health care - we're too expensive and they aren't on our insurance plans - so ya gotta be rich. By the way, if you've spent much time with the rich - most of them need (that's need not want - just ask them) more of everything.
Second, I live in Illinois. Many people from Illinois go to Minnesota (Mayo Clinic) or Ohio (Cleveland Clinic) or other places out of state for medical care. Does that mean our medical system in Illinois is deficient? NO!!!!
Most of the people who go out of state are in a position to pay for their own health care comfortably, and have good health insurance. They fall into two categories: 1) hypochondriacs, who just aren't ever satisfied with a diagnosis. They travel from famous clinic/doctor to famous clinic/doctor seeking someone who will invest in their hypochondria. 2) legitimately seriously ill people who either are looking for THE sub-specialty expert to ensure that they get the best possible care - or looking for an astute second opinion. These folks can afford the best, have a serious condition, and know how to get business taken care of. Bully for them. But, the bottom line is that the available healthcare facilities in Illinois are extremely good across the board. Thankfully, because most of us don't have the option to seek out out-of-state health care.
I married into a medical family (funny thing to do. i named our dog doc. guess what happens on at a familhy gathering when I say "here doc!"). My wife is a clinical psychologist. Her brother is an orthopedic surgeon. Her mother was a GP. Her father was pioneer in emergency room medicine. Both her Grandfathers were surgeons. Her cousin is a rheumatologist in Canada. Her Aunt just retired as a GP in Canada. Now these are all people serious about taking care of patients. Guess what, they all think the Canadian system is much superior to ours. Cheaper, more streamlined, and more willing to let the Doctor make the decisions as to what is the proper course of treatment. Think about that last idea - it's not one the "anti-socialists" want you to think about. When insurance pays for your medical care, you get a form of socialized medicine where greed is the driver of all decisions related to the quality of your care. Makes me shiver.
People want to blame Americans' eating and exercise habits for all the shortcomings of our healthcare system. Well, both are factors in our overall well being. But, Canadians (and arguably Australians) are much like us and report better health statistics for a lower cost. So.... the argument doesn't pass the smell test.
I have a friend, an investment banker, who is convinced that our health care system is the envy of the world. But, he doesn't get that opinion from foreigners. He points out that in England, the national health trust wouldn't give his wife the care she gets here for her MS. Its true. On the other hand, she gets her treatment from a doctor who works outside of conventional protocols. And, my friend has the position and insurance policy to make this work. Most Americans with health insurance couldn't get this protocol. Those without a policy can't get any protocol. I think the English system is more effective and more equitable - even if nimrods don't have the opportunity to opt out. Meanwhile, people in my friend's position are able to get supplementary healthcare both in and out of country. So - the rich don't get shafted - they just get to uphold the social compact with the rest of us. Now, call it socialized, call it bongo medicine, call it anything - but it sounds like an idea that merits serious consideration by every American.
Then there's the subject of intellectual property rights. That's a biggie, which I can't do justice to right here. 1) How much intellectual property, owned by the drug and related companies, was created by themselves with their own funding vs. how much comes directly from government research or their own research funded by the government? Check it out, you might be surprised at the answers. 2) If you think of an idea before I do, what about that sequence is other than luck? And, if its only luck, why should you get exclusive rights to the idea? 3) What particular societal benefit accrues to having a corporation have IP rights? And, how do IP rights actually play out in business (if you check you'll probably find it serves only to exclude new/small players - big players trade rights back and forth all the time - IMHO all of IP law [globally] needs to be seriously revisited starting with questions like: what do we want to accomplish?). Have you ever discussed with anyone knowledgeable how effectively rights are protected in the courts [even for big business]? I think you'd find that even for simpler technologies, it’s a total crapshoot. Things that don't deserve protection get it, and things that do deserve don't. I remember a business law professor talking about a patent having to do with a paper mill. A roller had a groove and was described as such in the patent. The competition simply claimed that they didn't use a groove, they used a slot (which had the same shape, location, dimensions) and they won. ERGH!!!
There is no system that can ensure that citizens get what they deserve, and deserve what they get. At least no one has come up with one yet. This probably is related to Arrow's Theorem (which I think is now proved so no longer a theorem). Basically it states that given three or more alternatives to rank, and three or more voters, no voting system can be devised that ensures that the collective preferred option is selected. If you've never heard of this before, stop and take a second to think about it - the idea should blow your mind. Start with the fact that there are generally a lot more than three issues in voters minds when they go to a poll - hence no voting system is guaranteed to reflect the collective voters wishes. Then, consider that we "vote with our $" every day, and again each decision involves more than three factors (like, which color do I like, which will get me in the least trouble with my wife, and what can I afford). As a society, we may be buying something other than what we want. The good thing is that most voting systems work most of the time. But, not always - and this is before we get to issues like: lying politicians, brain-dead or brain-washed voters, limited and skewed information in the marketplace of ideas.
Back to IP. Historically, there seems to be a big disconnect between those who innovate and those who profit from innovation. Now, there are all sorts of silly arguments that its not really innovation but risk taking that drives profits. And, that the innovator doesn’t encounter risk, but that the firm that owns the IP does. BS! Firms don't engage in risky behavior. Why? Cuz managers don't engage in risky behavior - it puts their bonus at risk.
In a slightly different vein: an attorney I know specializes in class-action lawsuits. This might upset me, but it does seem to be the only mechanism to get businesses to change shoddy behavior. Anyhow, he was explaining to me one time how this works. First, they look for a case where there's already been a criminal conviction. A criminal conviction has a much higher standard of evidence, and therefore all but assures them that they will prevail in the civil litigation. At the end of trial, there is a form of fact finding to determine how hard the case was to win. You see, they get paid contingently. So, if they only win half their cases, they only get paid half the time. The system is set up to apply a multiplier to their hourly fee (which is very similar to that of the corporate atty's on the other side of the aisle), based on the difficulty of winning the case, to ensure that at the end of the year they get paid as if they won all of their cases (in other words they didn't suffer from contingent pay). As I said at the beginning, these guys (with some notable exceptions) generally only take shoe-in cases. Yet, they often argue successfully to receive up to treble their hourly rate. No wonder legal fees take such a big dent out of settlements. What's this all about? Everyone tries to beat the system by getting paid for risk that doesn't exist.
OK, now some game theory. Why the social compact? Cuz we're all better off working together rather than each on his/her own. Individual homo sapiens aren't very successful in nature. However, we are all better off (at least to the degree that we're motivated by greed) if everyone else has to follow the rules of society - but we don't. Whether this means coming to a full stop at an intersection, or engaging in business by the rules, there is this fundamental conflict. We need everyone else to obey and believe that we obey, but we want to cheat. Guess who succeeds best at this play? How about the people with the top 1% of personal income? But, of course, they claim that capitalism or some magic hand ensures that they only got what they deserved for their contribution. In fact, they'll all argue that that they've been shafted.
Well, I got a right fine rant going here. :)
Xxxx, your points seem to be: 1) you don't trust government and that nothing can be done to improve it; 2) you don't like socialism (it's not clear why, or in what context [ie should we get rid of the army too?]; 3) You're in favor of intellectual property rights; 4) Innovations are a function of profits which are based on IP.
If you believe 1, then don't vote - it won't help.
You probably have a narrow definition of socialism [and capitalism] that warrants some more thought - especially in light of the relationship between democracy and the social compact.
3 apparently is based on 4, but doesn't demonstrate analysis of the truth value of 4. I would suggest that most innovation occurs because some people are naturally innovators - not because of greed or profits. If so, then the social value of IP rights sinks quickly.
I welcome challenges to the above. But, I just can't let you get away with suggesting that we have something good going on here with our health care delivery program.
Friday, September 16, 2005
Monday, September 12, 2005
A short slice of life
Assume with me, if you will, that life is a fleeting part of the timeline of the cosmos. Moreover, that mankind fills only a short portion of the timeline of life, and that the life of any individual is almost imperceptible within that timeline. It's likely, then, that my life and anything I have to say is very small and perhaps meaningless in this context.
But, if you accept Freud's insight that "...Ontogeny recapitulates Phylogeny..." - them maybe that short life of an individual, any individual, can be a source of learning. We live in interesting times. Throughout most of my life, I have regarded this as a blessing. Of late, those issues and forces that make our times interesting, seem more of a curse to me. Moreover, many of these forces appear poised to come together in ways that will reinforce the scariest elements offered by each.
Science is under attack, as it has often been in the course of history. Any locus of political power can be undermined by true facts widely disseminated - and so various powerful, or would be powerful, individuals constantly "spin" the facts. As mankind's knowledge becomes greater, the wiggle room for the powerful shrinks - "...the truth shall set you free...." if it is commonly understood.
Science also carries an implicit burden. That is, science is of little use without its handmaiden: technology or the application of science. Technology is the use of knowledge to create or do what could not otherwise be: move produce, manufacture tools and machinery, create goods, blow-up enemies. But there is a subtler burden in the sense that science ultimately leads to the evolution of societies and their peoples, which over the course of many steps brings them to a point of dependency on technology.
There are infinitely more people on the face of the earth today than there were 2,000 years ago. I would be willing, however, to take a bet that there are fewer sailors today than 2,000 years ago, who are capable of navigating beyond the sight of land using only the sun and the stars. So, if we lose the navigation technologies of today, would we be able to replace them with methods sailors used 2,000 years ago? And if not, what would happen to us?
Science has taught us many things, some of which we have difficulty absorbing and using. A trivial example is the continuing argument about Evolution in the classroom. But another example, which may be more important because it is more subtle is this: science has proven intelligence in other forms of life apart from man. And at least some of this animal intelligence could be of use to us if better recognized - but that might force us to alter our relationships with nature. The idea of becoming one with nature may not really be a romantic concept - it may be the recognition of our own limitations and the benefit of leveraging all that is around us.
For example, think of herding animals, be they zebras, deer, or fish. Some herding behavior appears more instinctual or programmed, some seems more socially dependent, but in any case it serves many of the same purposes. In fact herds act much like the convoys of WWII and for many of the same reasons. But, did we figure out convoys from herding behavior, or did we have to reinvent the wheel for ourselves?
The United States was once capable of standing with some autonomy in the world. This is not to suggest that we have not been a trading nation from the beginning. Rather, there was a time when sufficient knowledge and natural resources combined in ways that we could have cut off ties from the rest of the world. Moreover, we had no natural enemies save those separated from us by oceans.
As isolationist as we have believed ourselves to be, we have always been an expansionist power. And, while we may not have believed that we were doing so, we have used our combination of knowledge, natural resources, and attendant wealth to further build our power and wealth by extracting resources and production from the rest of the world. We have refused to accept limits set by man or nature. But, as McGeorge Bundy once said: "There is no safety in unlimited technological hubris"
In Northern Minnesota lies what remains of the Mesabi Range. The Mesabi Range is/was the chief deposit of iron ore in the United States. It largely was used up (at least the high quality deposits) during WWII. To say that the Mesabi Range is vast is to employ a term over-used by the press, politicians, and PR clowns. But, if one considers that much of the allied war effort for WWII was based on this deposit, and that it played a major role in the success of the US steel industry (for machinery, buildings, appliances, and transportation) in the many decades leading up to, and immediately after, that war, it should be clear to even a casual reader that "vast" is indeed the term to describe the Mesabi Range.
I owe my knowledge of the Mesabi Range to growing up in Minnesota during the '60s. That was an exciting time; one in which most of us felt more optimism. The town and the era of my origins represents an interesting core sample of sociological and anthropological strata related to the maturing of our country. Computers became real, jet and space flight were rapidly advancing. As a nation we felt our success, and along with that our responsibilities. My home town shared in all of that and more.
The changes in the Mesabi Range were just one deposit in the sediment of our society. Despite its size, the high quality ore eventually played out. Northern Minnesota was (and still is) a poor part of the country. Apart from mining, it is home to lumber & pulpwood operations and tourism. The later consists largely of fishing, taverns and snowmobiles - with at least two of the three being available in any month of the year. The closing of mines was a great hardship for the folks that lived up there. Farming wasn't especially viable, and the weather discouraged most sorts of industry from migrating "...up North..." unless absolutely necessary.
The good scientists at the University of Minnesota were tasked with finding a solution to this problem, knowing that there were widespread deposits of low quality ore. And the scientists responded with something called Taconite. This was all part of our education as good junior citizens of Minnesota, but to be honest, I never learned what the heck Taconite really was or how it was made (I think that it required lots of water and electricity). In essence low quality ore is refined into pellets that are somewhat purer than the ore from which they come. Further, these pellets can be easily used in place of high-grade ore for the manufacture of steel. For our purposes this explanation is sufficient.
As we noted, to survive WWII we developed the herd approach (aka convoys) to safeguard our shipments across the ocean. And both the ships, and the non-human cargo that they carried played a major role in depleting the Mesabi Range, and therefore the eventual development of Taconite.
It should be noted that the Taconite business seems to be largely gone - its no longer a cost-effective way to make steel. Now days we buy foreign steel or repurpose old steel. But for a while, science and technology offered the promise that Mesabi Range would keep functioning long after its good ore was gone.
The place I grew up was a suburb of the twin cities. It was a railroad town, but by the time I was born it had no passenger service and there were only a limited number of freight trains that went through. The "train station" was intact and seemed to be well maintained but it wasn't any longer staffed.
Our town went through its share of ups and downs, like many Midwest towns that rode on the larger trends of commerce, industry and the economy. Like the rest of the country, my town endured and grew through the Gilded Era, WWI, the roaring-twenties, the depression, WWII, my eventual birth, and so on.
Many years ago, a street car line ran from St. Paul to the far eastern end of the lake where there was an amusement park. Over time, first electric service and then gas came to the town. I can remember when the gas lines were laid in my neighborhood, but the street car and amusement park were gone before my time. Several boat yards succeeded along the lake front, and though the business was about to die, two of them still made wooden boats by hand when I was growing up. I was fortunate to have the opportunity to visit and tour both of them.
At its core, however, it combined tourism with being the commercial hub of an agricultural area that helped support the twin cities. Our town was unique in some interesting ways. It was located on a large and attractive lake - and early on developed a reputation as a place to "summer." The well-to-do came not only from the Twin-Cities, but also Milwaukee, Chicago, and other Midwestern cities, to enjoy life on the lake front.
Eventually, two areas predominated for these summer homes. There was a large island, one tip of which connected via short wooden bridge to the Western shore. My uncle had his first summer job there on an estate belonging to the Weyerhaeuser’s. His job was to dig up dandelions. He would start at one end of the lawn, and by the time he was done, it was time to start at the beginning again. Later, he moved up to caddying at the "Yacht Club" (where he recounts listening to the announcement of Lindy’s arrival in Paris over a loud speaker) located on the North shore of the lake - the other posh part of town.
The scale of these (as they were known) cottages was impressive. I remember one that had been offered for sale, it’s sign advertising 10 bedrooms and 7 bathes. On the island, the original cottages didn't have kitchens. This was not a sign of frugality. Instead, there was a communal kitchen where the staff would cook meals without heating up the owners' homes. Eventually, the central kitchen disappeared, and the cottages became year-around homes with all the amenities.
By the '60s, many of these homes (especially on the Northshore) were white elephants. People didn't want to pay for the heat and taxes - and consequently they were hard to sell. What had been mere summer cottages at one time became too extravagant for use as year-round homes.
Along with prohibition and the depression came the rise of criminal gangs. While they hadn’t been active in my town, it was a place where criminal leaders went to "chill" when the "heat" was on back in Chicago. They had their local spots including a nightclub on the Southwest corner of the lake.
My Grandfather (who was originally a harness-maker) ran a shoe repair shop. One day, a large limo pulled up in front and several people got out. I'm not sure exactly what he was thinking, but he felt it prudent to send my mother out the back door and on her way home. The visit turned out to be peaceful - one of the dancers at the club had broken the heel off or her shoe and needed repairs.
My town had a broad variety of religion, as long as it was Christian. We had Catholics, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans, and Baptists. And in hindsight, by their churches, one could tell who had the money. We had a growing, but still close community. Our version of a minority was someone of French-Canadian ancestry. Given that we had neighboring towns named Little Canada, and Vadnais Heights, the French-Canadian presence was strong.
I had one friend in my first years of school who was French-Canadian: Gordon LaBell. He wasn't much different from the rest of us, although he probably had more "woods sense". My mother seemed to think that he was OK, but I had the impression that she didn't approve of how the women in his family had pierced ears, and that this extended down to little girls. It had to be a moment of emancipation when my mother finally had her own ears pierced.
In my youth, the South side of town was beginning to be developed into suburbs, with neat grids of streets and rows of ranch and split-level homes. The area always felt a bit off to me. Today I realize that this was because it didn't have any trees. It was a source of growth, however, and by the time I reached High School our town's population was over 25,000.
Life was simpler than, as in much of the country. The Junior (ex-Senior) High was located on what had once been the grounds for the County Fair. One of the Fair Buildings remained: the Hippodrome. This was a large drafty building in which the floor was flooded with water for skating during the winter. It was better than skating outside on a dark cold night - but still plenty chilly. On the far side of the building were some sheets for curling, in the center was ice for hockey or free-skating. At one end was a simple room with benches and heat. As I recall, Friday and Saturday nights were popular for the Junior and Senior HS crowd.
Through all of these snippets, we’ve seen examples of technology, and its delivery, changing the course of life and society. My grandfather changed from harness maker (a high-status, high-economic-value profession) to shoe repair man (low-status and low-economic-value profession) because the gasoline engine came of age and replaced horses. The railroads helped develop my town, and then died away. The world became smaller when Lindberg crossed the Atlantic. And, technology was used to overcome the depletion of high-quality iron ore, for a time.
Today, the town where I was born cannot function without natural gas pipelines, electrical lines, automobiles and trucks. It doesn’t need horses, the farming is gone, and the train line is unimportant to the town. While there is some local manufacturing, even with the surrounding area, this town doesn’t come close to being able to be self-sufficient for its residents. It is a the end result of scaling and the global economy.
But, today, large and grand homes are no longer white elephants. Buyers in prosperous parts of the country seem to be competing for who can acquire the biggest, fanciest home. Modern residential architecture has evolved to Gablitis – which is the unnatural development of excessive gables on a home. Homes sometimes have gables stacked 3 and 4 deep on the front of a home and as many across – in a vain attempt to be distinctive.
Growing up, my parents never had air-conditioning, color-television, or cars with electric windows until they were in their 50s (about 25 years ago). This was true despite their being relatively prosperous and not ascetic or parsimonious. Today, the percentage of new cars sold without electric windows or the percentage of new homes sold without air conditioning must surely be in single digits. Some of this change is due to improved efficiencies in industrial and manufacturing processes. Some of this change is due to better leveraging the global economy (that is, paying someone in China or Malaysia starvation wages to produce our goods). Some of it comes the growing set of expectations that emerges from each new generation in our society. But these changes take our people, our communities, and our country further and further away from the possibility of being self-sufficient.
There was a time when we considered self-sufficiency a key strategy for the security and protection of our nation. A combination of poor quality in the auto industry and enticingly priced import goods have caused us to forget this strategy. Who would settle for a black & white TV made in the states when they could have a color model from China for the same price or less? But then, who wants to be dominated by China, either?
But, if you accept Freud's insight that "...Ontogeny recapitulates Phylogeny..." - them maybe that short life of an individual, any individual, can be a source of learning. We live in interesting times. Throughout most of my life, I have regarded this as a blessing. Of late, those issues and forces that make our times interesting, seem more of a curse to me. Moreover, many of these forces appear poised to come together in ways that will reinforce the scariest elements offered by each.
Science is under attack, as it has often been in the course of history. Any locus of political power can be undermined by true facts widely disseminated - and so various powerful, or would be powerful, individuals constantly "spin" the facts. As mankind's knowledge becomes greater, the wiggle room for the powerful shrinks - "...the truth shall set you free...." if it is commonly understood.
Science also carries an implicit burden. That is, science is of little use without its handmaiden: technology or the application of science. Technology is the use of knowledge to create or do what could not otherwise be: move produce, manufacture tools and machinery, create goods, blow-up enemies. But there is a subtler burden in the sense that science ultimately leads to the evolution of societies and their peoples, which over the course of many steps brings them to a point of dependency on technology.
There are infinitely more people on the face of the earth today than there were 2,000 years ago. I would be willing, however, to take a bet that there are fewer sailors today than 2,000 years ago, who are capable of navigating beyond the sight of land using only the sun and the stars. So, if we lose the navigation technologies of today, would we be able to replace them with methods sailors used 2,000 years ago? And if not, what would happen to us?
Science has taught us many things, some of which we have difficulty absorbing and using. A trivial example is the continuing argument about Evolution in the classroom. But another example, which may be more important because it is more subtle is this: science has proven intelligence in other forms of life apart from man. And at least some of this animal intelligence could be of use to us if better recognized - but that might force us to alter our relationships with nature. The idea of becoming one with nature may not really be a romantic concept - it may be the recognition of our own limitations and the benefit of leveraging all that is around us.
For example, think of herding animals, be they zebras, deer, or fish. Some herding behavior appears more instinctual or programmed, some seems more socially dependent, but in any case it serves many of the same purposes. In fact herds act much like the convoys of WWII and for many of the same reasons. But, did we figure out convoys from herding behavior, or did we have to reinvent the wheel for ourselves?
The United States was once capable of standing with some autonomy in the world. This is not to suggest that we have not been a trading nation from the beginning. Rather, there was a time when sufficient knowledge and natural resources combined in ways that we could have cut off ties from the rest of the world. Moreover, we had no natural enemies save those separated from us by oceans.
As isolationist as we have believed ourselves to be, we have always been an expansionist power. And, while we may not have believed that we were doing so, we have used our combination of knowledge, natural resources, and attendant wealth to further build our power and wealth by extracting resources and production from the rest of the world. We have refused to accept limits set by man or nature. But, as McGeorge Bundy once said: "There is no safety in unlimited technological hubris"
In Northern Minnesota lies what remains of the Mesabi Range. The Mesabi Range is/was the chief deposit of iron ore in the United States. It largely was used up (at least the high quality deposits) during WWII. To say that the Mesabi Range is vast is to employ a term over-used by the press, politicians, and PR clowns. But, if one considers that much of the allied war effort for WWII was based on this deposit, and that it played a major role in the success of the US steel industry (for machinery, buildings, appliances, and transportation) in the many decades leading up to, and immediately after, that war, it should be clear to even a casual reader that "vast" is indeed the term to describe the Mesabi Range.
I owe my knowledge of the Mesabi Range to growing up in Minnesota during the '60s. That was an exciting time; one in which most of us felt more optimism. The town and the era of my origins represents an interesting core sample of sociological and anthropological strata related to the maturing of our country. Computers became real, jet and space flight were rapidly advancing. As a nation we felt our success, and along with that our responsibilities. My home town shared in all of that and more.
The changes in the Mesabi Range were just one deposit in the sediment of our society. Despite its size, the high quality ore eventually played out. Northern Minnesota was (and still is) a poor part of the country. Apart from mining, it is home to lumber & pulpwood operations and tourism. The later consists largely of fishing, taverns and snowmobiles - with at least two of the three being available in any month of the year. The closing of mines was a great hardship for the folks that lived up there. Farming wasn't especially viable, and the weather discouraged most sorts of industry from migrating "...up North..." unless absolutely necessary.
The good scientists at the University of Minnesota were tasked with finding a solution to this problem, knowing that there were widespread deposits of low quality ore. And the scientists responded with something called Taconite. This was all part of our education as good junior citizens of Minnesota, but to be honest, I never learned what the heck Taconite really was or how it was made (I think that it required lots of water and electricity). In essence low quality ore is refined into pellets that are somewhat purer than the ore from which they come. Further, these pellets can be easily used in place of high-grade ore for the manufacture of steel. For our purposes this explanation is sufficient.
As we noted, to survive WWII we developed the herd approach (aka convoys) to safeguard our shipments across the ocean. And both the ships, and the non-human cargo that they carried played a major role in depleting the Mesabi Range, and therefore the eventual development of Taconite.
It should be noted that the Taconite business seems to be largely gone - its no longer a cost-effective way to make steel. Now days we buy foreign steel or repurpose old steel. But for a while, science and technology offered the promise that Mesabi Range would keep functioning long after its good ore was gone.
The place I grew up was a suburb of the twin cities. It was a railroad town, but by the time I was born it had no passenger service and there were only a limited number of freight trains that went through. The "train station" was intact and seemed to be well maintained but it wasn't any longer staffed.
Our town went through its share of ups and downs, like many Midwest towns that rode on the larger trends of commerce, industry and the economy. Like the rest of the country, my town endured and grew through the Gilded Era, WWI, the roaring-twenties, the depression, WWII, my eventual birth, and so on.
Many years ago, a street car line ran from St. Paul to the far eastern end of the lake where there was an amusement park. Over time, first electric service and then gas came to the town. I can remember when the gas lines were laid in my neighborhood, but the street car and amusement park were gone before my time. Several boat yards succeeded along the lake front, and though the business was about to die, two of them still made wooden boats by hand when I was growing up. I was fortunate to have the opportunity to visit and tour both of them.
At its core, however, it combined tourism with being the commercial hub of an agricultural area that helped support the twin cities. Our town was unique in some interesting ways. It was located on a large and attractive lake - and early on developed a reputation as a place to "summer." The well-to-do came not only from the Twin-Cities, but also Milwaukee, Chicago, and other Midwestern cities, to enjoy life on the lake front.
Eventually, two areas predominated for these summer homes. There was a large island, one tip of which connected via short wooden bridge to the Western shore. My uncle had his first summer job there on an estate belonging to the Weyerhaeuser’s. His job was to dig up dandelions. He would start at one end of the lawn, and by the time he was done, it was time to start at the beginning again. Later, he moved up to caddying at the "Yacht Club" (where he recounts listening to the announcement of Lindy’s arrival in Paris over a loud speaker) located on the North shore of the lake - the other posh part of town.
The scale of these (as they were known) cottages was impressive. I remember one that had been offered for sale, it’s sign advertising 10 bedrooms and 7 bathes. On the island, the original cottages didn't have kitchens. This was not a sign of frugality. Instead, there was a communal kitchen where the staff would cook meals without heating up the owners' homes. Eventually, the central kitchen disappeared, and the cottages became year-around homes with all the amenities.
By the '60s, many of these homes (especially on the Northshore) were white elephants. People didn't want to pay for the heat and taxes - and consequently they were hard to sell. What had been mere summer cottages at one time became too extravagant for use as year-round homes.
Along with prohibition and the depression came the rise of criminal gangs. While they hadn’t been active in my town, it was a place where criminal leaders went to "chill" when the "heat" was on back in Chicago. They had their local spots including a nightclub on the Southwest corner of the lake.
My Grandfather (who was originally a harness-maker) ran a shoe repair shop. One day, a large limo pulled up in front and several people got out. I'm not sure exactly what he was thinking, but he felt it prudent to send my mother out the back door and on her way home. The visit turned out to be peaceful - one of the dancers at the club had broken the heel off or her shoe and needed repairs.
My town had a broad variety of religion, as long as it was Christian. We had Catholics, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans, and Baptists. And in hindsight, by their churches, one could tell who had the money. We had a growing, but still close community. Our version of a minority was someone of French-Canadian ancestry. Given that we had neighboring towns named Little Canada, and Vadnais Heights, the French-Canadian presence was strong.
I had one friend in my first years of school who was French-Canadian: Gordon LaBell. He wasn't much different from the rest of us, although he probably had more "woods sense". My mother seemed to think that he was OK, but I had the impression that she didn't approve of how the women in his family had pierced ears, and that this extended down to little girls. It had to be a moment of emancipation when my mother finally had her own ears pierced.
In my youth, the South side of town was beginning to be developed into suburbs, with neat grids of streets and rows of ranch and split-level homes. The area always felt a bit off to me. Today I realize that this was because it didn't have any trees. It was a source of growth, however, and by the time I reached High School our town's population was over 25,000.
Life was simpler than, as in much of the country. The Junior (ex-Senior) High was located on what had once been the grounds for the County Fair. One of the Fair Buildings remained: the Hippodrome. This was a large drafty building in which the floor was flooded with water for skating during the winter. It was better than skating outside on a dark cold night - but still plenty chilly. On the far side of the building were some sheets for curling, in the center was ice for hockey or free-skating. At one end was a simple room with benches and heat. As I recall, Friday and Saturday nights were popular for the Junior and Senior HS crowd.
Through all of these snippets, we’ve seen examples of technology, and its delivery, changing the course of life and society. My grandfather changed from harness maker (a high-status, high-economic-value profession) to shoe repair man (low-status and low-economic-value profession) because the gasoline engine came of age and replaced horses. The railroads helped develop my town, and then died away. The world became smaller when Lindberg crossed the Atlantic. And, technology was used to overcome the depletion of high-quality iron ore, for a time.
Today, the town where I was born cannot function without natural gas pipelines, electrical lines, automobiles and trucks. It doesn’t need horses, the farming is gone, and the train line is unimportant to the town. While there is some local manufacturing, even with the surrounding area, this town doesn’t come close to being able to be self-sufficient for its residents. It is a the end result of scaling and the global economy.
But, today, large and grand homes are no longer white elephants. Buyers in prosperous parts of the country seem to be competing for who can acquire the biggest, fanciest home. Modern residential architecture has evolved to Gablitis – which is the unnatural development of excessive gables on a home. Homes sometimes have gables stacked 3 and 4 deep on the front of a home and as many across – in a vain attempt to be distinctive.
Growing up, my parents never had air-conditioning, color-television, or cars with electric windows until they were in their 50s (about 25 years ago). This was true despite their being relatively prosperous and not ascetic or parsimonious. Today, the percentage of new cars sold without electric windows or the percentage of new homes sold without air conditioning must surely be in single digits. Some of this change is due to improved efficiencies in industrial and manufacturing processes. Some of this change is due to better leveraging the global economy (that is, paying someone in China or Malaysia starvation wages to produce our goods). Some of it comes the growing set of expectations that emerges from each new generation in our society. But these changes take our people, our communities, and our country further and further away from the possibility of being self-sufficient.
There was a time when we considered self-sufficiency a key strategy for the security and protection of our nation. A combination of poor quality in the auto industry and enticingly priced import goods have caused us to forget this strategy. Who would settle for a black & white TV made in the states when they could have a color model from China for the same price or less? But then, who wants to be dominated by China, either?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)