A little lame

At times it seems that keeping this blog is a little lame. After all, what can I accomplish? What impact can my thoughts have? And, aren't there folks out there who are better informed and better focused than me? Still, I have the itch so I'm probably keep scratching it for a while.

There's been more news of the decline of traditional news organizations. Hmmm..... Do you suppose that they still don't get it? As noted before, the decline of newspapers and broadcast news outlets ties closely with the decline in the quality of their reporting. Even news.google.com got "sanitized" a while back - making it mainstream North America-centric. Why would anyone bother to search out alternative news sources on the web if they felt there needs were being met by traditional news sources?

The issue of immigration is causing consternation for all of Washington, but particularly the republicans. Here's a no-win issue for them. How come? Because they can't address it with fear, religion and corporate cash.

The problem is big. Republicans' financial backers love the cheap labor, but republican voters tend to hate immigrants. But its not only politics that makes the problem big. How many immigrants should we allow into the US? With what sorts of backgrounds/qualifications/skills? And, from where?

There has been a traditional leniency shown to Europeans, especially northern Europeans, in our immigration process. This is often taken (probably correctly) to be partially a manifestation of latent racism. There has also been a tendency to be tolerant of immigration from our most heated foes. This, combined with pressure from influential constituencies give us the Jewish migration from the Soviet empire and the wet foot/dry foot policy of Cuban immigration. But, its unclear that any of the above policy has served us well, or for that matter poorly.

Some political operatives, and some citizens, have said that they're not against foreigners or immigration, only illegal immigrants and immigration. Tsk tsk, we must all be upright, law-abiding citizens. Of course how many of them never drive over the speed limit, or never make a left turn across a double yellow line in the road?

Naturally these folks are followed closely by those who suggest that illegal immigration is a national security issue. Lets see, our borders are porous so we are at risk. Let's kick out Mexicans and we'll be safe. Hmm, but what about inspecting containers in ports? Nah, the security issue doesn't carry much weight when we don't demonstrate adequate concern about all critical aspects of national security.

Then there are those who argue that foreigners are coming and stealing our social services without paying for them. Well, that sounds like a serious issue. Of course, this supposes one or more of several situations are taking place:

1. Immigrant labor isn't paying its taxes.
2. Immigrants don't work, so they don't owe taxes.
3. Their contribution to the economy by taking hyper-low paying work doesn't constitute a form of tax payment of its own.

Some illegal immigrant labor is below the table, and the proportionate rate of this may be higher than in the larger population. But, are they, or are their employers, the problem? And, are they a bigger problem than tax cheats, or the large corporate loop-holes? Frankly, this issue begs the question of whether their economic contribution out weighs their social burden. This is a question left unasked and unanswered by those that raise the social services issue.

The bottom line is that we haven't had a coherent and sustainable philosophy of when and why to limit immigration. Nor have we had one since this country was founded. And yet we all know that the USA can't take up the burden of being the refuge, or economic incubator, for every person in the world looking for political freedom, economic opportunity, education, or an escape from whatever circumstances they currently face where they are. And we shouldn't feel guilty about this, no other country could either.

One of the problems that the republicans are facing is that their lies and misuse of language have succeeded (until now) in disguising the fact that they aren't conservatives. They have also confused much of the world about a number of terms such as: liberal, communist, free-market, democracy, torture, and so on. And this has been part of their strategy; confuse people. But while confusion can be a useful tool for social coercion, its a bit like a vacuum. That is, nature abhors it and societies find ways to eliminate confusion - even though some of these ways may be disfunctional.

So, we have a backlash against immigration even without anyone showing that its a bad thing. And, as the immigrants keep telling us, our economy is completely dependent on them. They are too integral a part of the economy to be forced to leave. And here is where the republicans first get in trouble. They are in favor of cheap labor, regardless of whether its indigenous, imported, or in the Marianas Islands. After all, their first allegiance it to stuffing their pockets (which to them is akin to free-market capitalism).

In the US, maintaining low labor costs appears to be more complex than busting unions and minimizing the minimum wage. In fact, without immigrant labor, its quite possible that we would be facing a labor shortage here today.

At first blush, this may seem hard to fathom. After all, we've exported nearly all of our manufacturing, and farming is an increasingly mechanized proposition. Its hard to find well paying work without a college degree. So, where is all of our labor going that we would have a shortage? And, mind you, the baby-boomer retirement effect hasn't yet begun in a significant way.

My short answer to the question is I'm not sure where our labor is going. Some to Iraq, but not enough to be of consequence. Yet, immigrant and second-generation labor, especially from Mexico, is becoming more and more visible as it takes on higher status and higher profile jobs. Most fast-food restaurants seem to staff almost exclusively with immigrant/second-gen labor. More and more sit down restaurants are using immigrant/second-gen labor in serving positions. More and more immigrant/second-gen labor is active in skilled or semi-skilled jobs in the construction industry. So, where are the native American laborers? Whoops, I didn't mean that. Close call! What I meant to say was where are the good-old red-blooded American workers who used to fill these jobs?

In different vein, we have a trade deficit, an oil addiction, and a costly war to fund. How come we aren't bankrupt and destitute? Well, we may be closer to that state than we realize, but there must be some way that we claw back dollars and employ red-blooded Americans outside of manufacturing, farming, and construction.

Here are some thoughts:

Economic theory is enamored with the benefits of scale. Most of this is overrated, but power does come from scale. So, there is an inherent, consistent, move to consolidate businesses, industries, and governments. As businesses grow, they become harder to manage and spawn corps of professional managers. My son was explaining certain major inefficiencies in his small department of the major company for which he works. These could be easily be eliminated by publishing some guidelines so that people weren't daily reinventing the wheel. But, no manager wanted to be held accountable for what the guidelines might say. It was much easier to justify the inefficiencies resulting from no guidelines than to be responsible for the results of any guidelines. That's economy of scale for you!

Consider that, as companies aspire to grow, the sales function takes on supreme importance. We have to make the numbers! And so the sales force becomes the best compensated part of the firm. Of all the revenue earned, what percentage goes into sales and marketing? In many firms, the number is surprisingly high. We take sales to the marginal dollar. In so doing, we spend on sales and marketing until the next sale is a net loss due to sales and marketing costs incurred to achieve it. So, a foreign manufactured good is produced cheaply and shipped economically to the US. Then its sold expensively due to sales and marketing costs. What part of the consumer price of goods stays in this country?

Services! We've been told that we're a services economy. Look at Skilling over at Enron. Some pundits have suggested that he had too little knowledge for his role because, prior the Enron, he had only ever been a consultant. As a consequence, he shouldn't be expected to understand the difference between a paper profit and a real one. This kinda begs the question of what a consultant would be good for? Eh? But, they don't have to be good for anything, as long as their services can be sold. Management doesn't want to "ad to headcount", so it hires a consultant for 3x or 4x the cost - sometimes for years at a time. Management doesn't like what its own people are telling it? Hire a consultant who will consult with you before offering his/her opinion (in support of your own). Now this may sound cynical, but if consultants are so good at running businesses, why are they consulting?

Finally, we do have one big export commodity - war. Whether waged by us, or merely arming the rest of the world and stimulating their conflicts, we do get hard currency from our military industrial complex. Kinda makes you wonder, doesn't it? Is this what our economy is built on?

NEWS: Against the prevailing wisdom

The Knight-Ridder newspaper chain has been for sale, which has caused me some angst. They are probably the only chain that has shown spine in reporting in the face of the current fascist administration in Washington. I've been concerned that once purchased, their voice would be silenced.

Today it was announced that a much smaller chain based around the Sacramento Bee was buying Knight-Ridder. I don't know much about them, but it sounds like they take news seriously and so might preserve some integrity at Knight-Ridder. Hoorah. But we'll have to wait and see.

Meanwhile the commentators were asking the inevitable business/media questions. Especially as how the newspaper business is in the toilet of an inevitable and irreversible decline in the face of new media (i.e. the web).

That is the conventional wisdom.

Now, the question in my mind is why should this be? IMHO, reading from a paper or book is much easier than reading from a computer screen. It's also easier to take the paper with on the bus or train, or even into the throne room. Some might argue that access to online news is free but that the paper costs money. Of course access to radio and TV has been free for nearly 50 years but was not enough to knock newspapers on their butts.

Actually, that last statement is probably an exaggeration as the number of print news sources per market has gone down drastically in this time. But, broadcast journalism hasn't been posited to lead to the elimination of print news. The web has.

Thought leaders, business leaders, political leaders, like to seize on trends. They rarely predict them and often are slow to recognize them. But, when the trend becomes obvious, they are its greatest supporters. And, they prop up each other's thinking - creating a self-fulfilling society of trend-leadership.

I think that newspapers are in trouble for two fundamental reasons. The first has to do with the consolidation of markets. When there is only one paper, it has to appeal to the whole market or lose share. So, issues get toned down, soft news becomes important, major different points of view (and I'm talking more about philosophy and policy than did he/she or did he/she not) have no pulpit.

Through this process, the press has begun to offer gruel. Who really wants it? What is it offering the readership? Its offering a big blank boring hole, except for trumped up sensationalism.

Along with this natural market reaction, we have a second cause. The current administration has offered the media companies the option to further consolidate and make their corporate leadership rich. In return, it has tasked them with editing themselves to stay on message with the administration. Some will say otherwise. Some will return to the tired old saw of the liberal press. But the facts are out there and documented. And these are documented in intelligent ways that prove that we aren't just positioning one side versus another. For anyone who would disagree, I say visit and read mediamatters.org daily for a month. Then we can talk.

The two causes can be likened to the invisible hand and a very visible hand, but pushing to turn newspapers into pap. Is it any wonder the folks are looking elsewhere for their news? Is there any place other than the web where open, intelligent discourse takes place (yes I know that there's also lots of stupid, course, narrow-minded discourse on the web). It's not the cost that is driving readers to the web. It's not the convenience that is driving readers to the web. It is the dearth of meaningful reporting in the mainstream press that is driving people to the web.

It has been reported that newspapers are trying to make money by providing news on the web. And, that they are making progress, but not as fast as they're losing money on the print side of their operations. But, their web sites are as typically as bad or worse than their print news - so it should come as no surprise that they are not succeeding.

The issue isn't the medium - its the content. A free press that does its job will never be sold out by its readership.

And that's all for tonight folks.

Hatred

Hatred. We're going to take a slight, but important, detour before trying to weave our threads into a cloth.

An under-reported item is the bill before the Missouri legislature (as reported by channel 4, KMOV, St Louis) which would:

• Make Christianity the states official "majority" religion;
• Recognize "a Christian god";
• "...protect the majority's right to express their religious beliefs." (whatever that might mean, and with no similar protections for members of religious minorities);
• recognize that "..a greater power exists....";
• and, Proclaims that Christianity alone receives "...justified recognition..."

Now this report can lead us in several directions. The first would be to start a movement to de-accredit any and all christian colleges. Clearly they do a poor job of teaching anything, and should therefore be prohibited from conferring any form of degree. If you need proof, consider this: no torturous reading of the Bible could possibly account for the need to promote a law such as this.

But, more importantly we should look at what causes people to offer such silliness. There is a elected official in Kentucky who has taken it upon himself to poll the state legislators (with the help of a church youth group) regarding their acceptance of jesus christ. And, we have the blanket abortion ban voted into law in South Dakota.

What is this need to legislate one's personal religious values? How does it relate to policy creation and administration of a moral state? And why is it that the personal values so often advocated have such consistently narrow scopes (if we value life, for example, why would we not eliminate execution and adventuresome war?).

One can argue that morality is a gift from god(s). That is, morality is a code or set of rules determined by a higher being than ourselves. And, as such, we need to observe its strictures are face punishment.

This is not a position which can be proven. The existence of God, though widely accepted, cannot be proven. And the documents that the various religious consider to be his word, cannot be proven to originate from this unprovable god. Moreover, they cannot be reconciled to each other, and very often contradict themselves internally. So, this basis of morality is determined by individual beliefs. And while these beliefs are protected by various social norms, and sometimes law, they can also be considered delusional no matter how widespread the belief.

The science of logic and the science of factual observation cannot prove these beliefs. However, lack of proof doesn't prove compelling to most people as a reason not to believe.

Science can't prove that some "higher being", whatever its nature, doesn't exist. Religion, philosophy, and science, apart or together cannot explain the existential riddle. On the other hand, this riddle doesn't seem to be something that most adults spend much time contemplating.

Obviously a dictatorship (monarchy/junta/whatever) can pronounce morality by fiat. The willingness of its subjects to agree is less important than their willingness to obey. Merely changing the control to a majority of leadership doesn't make the imposition of morality on disbelievers any less odious. And when that "majority" is actually a vocal or powerful minority within a majority - this imposition is very much like that of a dictatorship for those members of society of differing moral beliefs.

A social compact theory of government suggests that for each of us to enjoy the opportunities we want and feel entitled to, we have to ensure that all of share in those opportunities. Only by protecting the rights of each other do we ensure the protection of our own rights.

The alternative to this is that each of us uses our skill, cunning, and force to protect our own rights, but then only a few individuals or groups have the strength to effectively protect themselves, and everyone else suffers.

A social compact theory of government, because its based on balancing the wants/needs/rights of the community, leads necessarily to a nuanced morality. What is considered moral and right at one point of time will not be so considered at another time. Mormans once believed in and protected polygamy, but do not do so today. It would be interesting to study what caused this change. Was it a need to better fit in with the larger society as a modern economy limited their isolation? Was it a need to make their religion more palatable in order to successfully carry out their missionary intentions? Or was it something else?

Abortion was not always considered a right in most countries, even though the evidence suggests that abortion has been and will be with human society for ever. Those who try to push back against abortion, though, choose not to understand its causes or drivers, rather they seek to punish those who would offer or obtain abortion. Some of this can be attributed to the natural tendency to trivialize most problems and create simplistic, although often ineffective solutions. But, many voices have been raised to offer understanding of what drives abortions, and what can be done to minimize the cases where abortions are sought. Yet the fiercest opponents of abortion will have nothing to do with this discussion, and their quiet supporters typically look away saying "...we can't solve every problem..."

To suggest that an abortion is a soulful act is silly. To suggest that a condom or a morning after pill is immoral is silly. Why does it seem that we can't find the bridges between differing positions that clearly have some common ground?

As the republicans further exercise their power, we find that they aren't in favor of states rights, if these are exercised to act independently from the republican agenda. We find the republicans don't believe in a true democracy, if it puts their power or agenda at risk. We find that the republicans are not strict constructionists of the constitution, nor do the hew to the pre-existing body of law unless it protects them and their interests.

Clearly republicans, as little as they may like to admit this, are moral relativists. Good law is what's good to me, not you. Now, this isn't meant to be a putdown of republicans. But they have been advocating a position that liberals and Democrats are moral relativists and that this is bad. They also have posited that these liberals and Democrats are moral secularists, and that this also is bad.

When a republican can advocate, justify, and protect the bloodbath of the war against Iraq, they can only be secular moral relativists. No god who says "thou shalt not kill" is going to be bamboozled for a moment that this war in any way supports his morality. No logician can possibly resolve that abortion is wrong but war (with the possible exception of self defense) and criminal execution are right. No, these simple cases prove that we are all moral relativists, and that most of the time most of us are secular moral relativists - no matter how literally we read our bible/koran/etc.

It's too easy to point out the irony of those moralists who would make Missouri an officially christian state - that buys us nothing. Moreover, if we have to give up a state, it might as well be hill-billy land - we aren't losing much there.

No, the question is what drives the creation of fascist nationalism, whether based in religion or not, and what drives the creation of a philosophical, rights-based nationalism. Our forefathers faced many similar influences to what we face today. Fanatic religionists are nothing new. Bamboozling the masses is nothing new. So what allowed a historic and globally inspirational democracy to form in our country, and what is now putting that same democracy at risk.

It is too easy to point at the various demagogues, but why are they so threatening today? Why has fundamentalism become so pervasive in this country? Just as abortion cannot simply be legislated away, neither can demagogues. What can we do to reinforce the common belief in reason, facts, shared values, and tolerance?

If I could simply answer these questions, I would have begun this blog at that point. But, something has raised the national level of angst, something is fomenting hatred of our fellow beings, and something is causing us to damage the various institutions which has made us so strong as a nation, and so free as a people. If we don't answer these questions soon, I fear we will fundamentally change our country in ways that we and our children will be hurt significantly and repeatedly.

At the core (cont'd)

I've taken the liberty to edit the prior post slightly to clarify some concepts. This post, then, builds about that.

If democracy and capitalism are not tightly related, and if in the thinking of our nation, capitalism seems to be in ascendancy, but democracy seems only to be an adjunct (and a feeble one at that); we have to question how has democracy come to have such a minor role and why would we sacrifice it at the alter of "economic freedom."

Several pieces of this puzzle seem clear to me, and they form the beginnings of a fabric of political thinking which we see so commonly today.

The challenge of any government, but perhaps more so in a democracy, is that choosing solutions to the issues of the day is a difficult process. The more people who feel they are disenfranchised by political process, the more force government must use to maintain its power and status. Naturally, decision making and maintaining the authority of government becomes more difficult in times of dwindling resources. The resources include items of value (food, gold, tools, land, etc) but also commonly held beliefs (including symbols, knowledge and faith). When resources shift from the middle and lower classes to the upper classes, it takes no faith to understand that this shift erodes the resources by which government maintains its power and legitimacy.

Ironically, some political leaders gain in power by ensuring that resources are taken away from the masses. Sharon took power in Israel by insulting and threatening the Palestinians who intern lessened the sense of personal security felt by individual Israelis. By weakening Israel, Sharon justified his hawkish approach to the Palestinians just as a peaceful settlement was close to a possibility. It appears now that the majority of Israel's no long agree with this policy, and many wish that Palestinian lands weren't "settled" after the '67 war. But, we are still far from reaching the peace that could and should be in the middle east.

Closer at home, the combined efforts of the business community and the religious right has worked to destroy American's confidence in facts and science. Global warming is not a liberal conspiracy. It's not the work of a few fringe scientists. It is a reality and one with dire consequences that we need to face as a nation. But, the business community has worked hard to debunk science and facts whenever they are inconvenient to profit. There is no question that curtailing pollution has at least short term negative consequences on profits. Who, however, would consider this a worse solution than possibly eradicating the human race?

Very often the religious right has joined in these attacks. Recently some of the wingnut leadership has come out against accepting global warming as a reality or an issue. What's in it for them? We may never know. But one thing is clear. To the degree that science is undermined, faith becomes reinforced. And faith is the key to the control these leaders hold over their people. Make no mistake, power and money are key drivers for these leaders. If you doubt it, check out their life styles.

Democracy, to be successful, seems to require a variety of checks and balances. Power corrupts, whether its the economic power of corporations, the power of the military might, or power in government. Human (or perhaps better said: animal) nature has each of us protect our own interests against that of our fellows - very few among us can regularly claim to do otherwise. The distribution of power among us, especially related to organized human endeavors means that power will always be at risk of being mis-used. Positioning counterbalancing powers as a protection against corruption is the key that can allow a democracy to exist. Through all of this, we know that no democracy will be perfect. But we also know that without democracy, power tends to quickly filter up into the hands of a few who do not treat the rest of us very well. So, for all its warts, its sometimes economic inefficiencies, the sometimes impossible demands placed on it, and the weakness of human leadership, democracy remains the most likely social/economic organization to promote fairness to all people.

And here lies one of the fallacies promoted by capitalists and free-marketeers. Remember, capitalism is anti-free market (except for labor), and free-markets marginalize capitalists. So, these two concepts that hold each other dear are very different from one another.

The capitalist argues that markets are free and that the "silent hand" allocates resources and rewards without bias. As such, the argument is that the free market leads to fair results for all. The corollary to this is that the rich of the world deserve their riches, and the poor of the world deserve their misery.

This, of course, is a lie; but to understand it requires that we peel back the layers of its logical onion. First, markets generally aren't free, so one can't argue that resources are allocated without bias. Second, it can easily be established that rewards do not accrue in some algebraic manner from combination of ones intelligence, cunning, education, effort, and risk. In fact, we find that CEO income has no relationship to company performance, and a plausible study would likely find that companies' performances have no relationship to CEO actions. Stupid people have become rich. So have lazy people. Hardworking intelligent people have gone bankrupt. Taking a risk implies that postitive outcomes are unlikely. So, how could an individual constantly take risks and constantly achieve positive outcomes? The fact that their outcomes tended to be positive establishes that somehow, this individual, engage in a process without risk, or that they were just a statistical fluke. Who can claim that success being a statistical fluke is a harbinger of a just and fair system?

Again, studies show that successful people credit themselves too much for their fortune, and unsuccessful people credit themselves too little for their fortune. Why is this? Probably its a fundmental mechasim of self protection. Must of us aren't calibrated to hurt our fellow man and feel good about it - that is we aren't good at being evil and accepting that we are so.. Most of us aren't calibrated to believe that we're bad/useless/incompetent. Considering ourselves to be evil, or considering ourselves to be bad/useless/incompetent, seem likely to be personality traits which will make us less successful at surviving and procreating. Our survival and success is based on feeling good about ourselves. And so, eons of natural selection have given us the ability to blame problems on others while taking credit for success.

Well, it's late again. More soon.

At the core

I was reading the latest issue of Newsweek earlier today. This is unusual because the mainstream press has become so biased in favor of the dogmatic right. But there I was reading about India. I'm no expert, but having spent a little time in Mubai about 7-8 years ago, the place is fascinating to me. Naturally, it intrigued me to hear the latest about this so-far quiet giant.

In the course of the article, the author made some various comparisons between India and China, and between both and the US. Frankly, some the article was either poorly written or poorly thought out, as many of the various ideas seemed to contradict themselves and each other, as presented.

What struck me, however, was a discussion which seemed to contrast democracy against capitalism. This contained a clear bias that capitalism was better/more important than government, especially a democratic one. And this seemed curious to me, yet very much in keeping with what we see advocated every day in our modern American society.

So, what of this? Well, to begin with we should applaud the author for not trying to lump capitalism together with democratic government as being one and the same. Too many pundits now confuse these two concepts as being the natural parts of a single whole thing.

My problem with this concept is two fold. First, business doesn't concern itself with the common good - which should be the first concern of a democratic government. In fact, business often recognizes that its goals are at cross purposes with the common good - but never lets that deter it from it's path. Second, almost a corollary, business has learned to grow bigger than government as a means to reach its ends ahead of the common good. First we saw business's drive bidding wars between states and municipalities for tax rebates and various other incentives. A good example from here in Illinois was when Sears had the state to give them a highly valuable piece of property (and provide a number of improvements for this property) that was many many times larger than their operations required (or would for century's to come). This, in essence, made them a real estate company and twenty (appox) years later they are still making boat-loads of money off this gift. Thank goodness for that because they have yet to find a management team that can figure out how to make Sears a profitable retailer. Kind of a sad record and certainly not a good argument for the strength of capitalism.

Since then, companies have expanded this agenda where they now have nations and labor pools playing the game of self-marginalization in the name of attracting their facilities and jobs.

As a side light, consider that capitalists love to talk their drive for efficiency and what a valuable contribution this is to society. So, when an assembly line job goes from the American rust belt to Asia, and the hourly labor rate drops orders of magnitude, they look at this as progress.

I disagree. To look at efficiency we have to consider what we value most. If it is capital or cash, then the argument above works. But, if it is people and quality of life, this doesn't work. A hour of labor input is an hour of labor input. If the person providing that input sees their rewards lessened, then their effort has become less efficient. The gain to the corporation and its investors isn't shared with the labor providers - so what is being called efficiency is merely a way of shifting wealth further to the elites.

Returning to the subject at hand, do democracy and capitalism walk hand in hand? Is democratic government an impediment to the well-being of people? Is Newsweek on to something here?

Let me answer the last question first. I think not.

If democratic government is an impediment to the peoples' well-being, then we need to seriously ask the question: What kind of government is better? The likely choices are: a) None, or as little as possible; b) Centralized government driving an economy (ala China); c) Government that does as it wishes as long as it stays out of the way of business.

The problems with A seem self-obvious. Humans, as a species, seem to have needs and conflicts that can only be worked out via some method of government. Attempts to do without lead to savagery and decision based on one's personal power and strength, which most of us consider an unfair and unacceptable process. And yet every need and every conflict can be resolved in many different ways. And these different solutions accrue differing benefits and costs to the various citizens. We can argue that the process of government optimizes solutions for no one. But we can also argue that the fairest solution is when no one is happy with their share. Hence, everyone wanted a more rewarding solution to the problems addressed by government is not an argument in favor of less or even no government.

Solution B harkens back to Communism, a bankrupt concept. It also leans towards socialism which is often placed in basket with Communism , perhaps unfairly. My friend the investment banker told me how superior we are to the French because they have a socialist system which interferes with efficiency. Interestingly, the data shows the French to be more productive per employed person than are Americans. From this, it doesn't seem clear that the capitalist argument is necessarily true - even using their assumption that the value of money trumps the value of people. So while while a centrally controlled economy, and other trappings of a narrow non-democratic government aren't desirable, we can't say that social welfare is undesirable or that it hurts efficiency or the economy.

Solution C offers a slightly novel approach. It suggests, leave all aspects of the economy in the hands of business, and allow government to manage all else. Unfortunately, unchecked business acquires and uses up a variety of resources that neither belong to it, nor are paid for by it. Do you want an example? How about clean air? Or, how about sun-light? Water? And the list isn't limited to natural resources. How about police protection? How about a traffic officer who is assigned to the entrance of a business or office park to help departing workers safely join the stream of traffic? Business clearly doesn't value that which is free, and therefore it's axiomatic that business will not be a good steward of these resources.

So, Government and business/economy address different by related interests. Business cannot be relied upon to take care of the needs of the larger community. There are needs of the larger community that need to be measured, balanced, and adjudicated, and this will ever be the provenance of government.

Capitalism and democracy are not the same thing. One doesn't require the other, one doesn't create the other. Democracy, however, is the force most likely to look after the greater good.

Well it's late. This is already much for you to chew on. More soon.

Good night.

VooDoo Economics

1st Draft

The prior post stimulates my thinking about capitalism.

In much of the west, communism is seen as a failure. Consider what has happened to Russia. Look at the changes driving the Chinese economy. These two factors alone convince people that communism is a bankrupt concept.

I cannot defend communism - but to consider its short-comings really requires that we consider it apart from the totalitarian regimes which claimed it as their philosophic core. By divorcing communism from the emotion around its implementation in Russia and China, we can better understand its weakness and thereby be smarter in evaluating other alternative forms of social/economic organization.

Communism seems likely to fail due purely to human nature. People seem to be hard-wired to collect and hoard stores of value. No doubt this is a basic survival instinct. Remember, we can't graze off the land, can't live in most climates without warm clothes, can't survive against any number of animals without tools, and so forth. We are a physically weak species - which depends on advanced adaptations (that is characteristics that are not part of one's physical being) to survive. And survive we do.

One of these adaptations is to grow more food than we need, and store the excess for times when food is scarce. In a different vein, the tools that we have developed don't "grow on trees". Not only do we make our tools, but they have become more complex, requiring time, specialized materials, and acquired knowledge to create. So, just as we need to hoard food, we need to protect and preserve our tools (including clothing and homes) in order to maintain our lives. Trusting a society as a whole to take care of these needs seems fundamentally at odds with our hard-wired learning to hoard.

With out advanced adaptations, one of our greatest threats is our fellow man. So, our hoarding behavior is rarely implemented beyond the boundaries of tight small groups, a family unit, a tribe, but not farther.

Moreover, for a society to provide for the needs of its members, the members need to give up some level of freedom in order for the society to organize and run those activities which create, hoard, and share resources back to the membership. The human being is a complex animal, but it seems clear that the core personality includes both pack-affiliated (or teaming) and independent-behavior characteristics. So strong are these opposing forces, that no matter the rewards that are made available, many individuals will strongly resist the socialization of anything like communism unless they see a means of exploiting the system to their advantage.

So, we must accept that communism is not a likely course for the preservation of our species baring a significant evolution of our core personalities.

But, it is not the case that the alternative is capitalism. First of all, capitalism and communism are recent concepts. It's not clear that all society over the course of human life has distributed resources according to one or the other of these models. In fact, even defining capitalism loosely, only part of any society has distributed assets according to the capitalist model.

We should also clarify that capitalism and free-markets are different and not inherently connected concepts. This distinction is often lost. Capitalism is fundamentally about raising and preserving capital to fund profitable enterprise. By profitable enterprise, we mean endeavors that return more money (in the form of profits) than was invested into them. Capitalism, at its core, is anti-free market.

How can this be? The goal of the capitalist is to maximize the return on capital (now days the model is broadened to include capital, borrowings, and other sources of economic value). To maximize this return, one needs markets. That is, someone has to pay for the outputs of the investment, in order for there to be a profit. But, a free market implies full access to information on the part of the buyer, and that the market is freely open to competing sellers, such that the return on capital is marginalized. As such, a true free market works against the capitalist and the rich.

This is why the modern capitalist talks so much about free markets. He/she is trying to convince consumers that capitalism is providing them with more goods for less money. The reality is that he/she is trying to extract more money for fewer goods.

And who has been at the forefront of confusing capitalism and free-markets? Why our leading economists, which is why I accuse them of VooDoo economics.

That some amount of money leaves the purses of the rich is no surprise. Someone has to pick up the garbage, and it won't be the rich themselves, so yes they spend money. But, fundamentally capitalists are driven by their need to acquire and hoard resources; which means that they are constantly plotting how to further grow their net worth. Implied in this is that their capital grows faster than they spend money. Some will say that they rich need a middle class to purchase good from which the capitalist can make a profit. This assumes that the most efficient means to improve the assets of the rich is by an indirect path whereby other participants in society work to acquire more than marginal resources - and that the capitalist gains a profit by providing these "luxury" resources. The true capitalist believes, and most of history confirms this, that this approach is wrong. A truer capitalist model would have the rest of society toil industriously, but consume minimal resources so that the capitalist obtains all the rest of the created value. This would be an example of maximizing the return on capital.

In what way is this trickle down? How is this benefiting the masses? The course of history shows that trickle down is another way of saying that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. And, this is true regardless of whether the fundamental social-economic system is capitalism, monarchy, or a military dictatorship. More makes it way to the masses only when they threaten to overwhelm the elite.

How then do we explain he emergence of the broad middle class of western democracies? Before examining this, we should consider for a moment the health of the middle class. It is interesting to listen to American capitalists comment on Europe. They are dismissive of these democratic/capitalist societies. Their position is that European democracy has lead to excessive socialism. This has, in turn, weakened these societies and reduced the income and assets of their residents.

When I travel to Europe, the Europeans seem behind us in pure materialism. They do not seem like an impoverished race. They do not lack for access to the arts. They seem to have plenty of food, and often very good food. Their educational institutions are strong and capable. And, like us, and virtually every society in the history of mankind, they have a somewhat hidden underclass that is some part helps to fuel the success of everyone else.

My friend the investment banker has pointed out to me how we have a larger gross domestic product per capita than France. Moreover, that we have a better unemployment rate. What he forgets to point out is that the French actually deliver higher labor efficiency. Moreover, that much of our high per capita GDP is based on two earner families, which most people seem to think is a sub-optimal arrangement. And finally, that the unemployed in France are better treated financially than the unemployed in the US (who often aren't even counted as unemployed). I doubt that the average French man or women envies the average American, even if the wealthiest French envy the wealthiest Americans.

Our American capitalists meanwhile insist that the US is doing fine. That GDP continues to rise, and all ships rise with the tide. They ignore the fact that the distribution of rewards is not only uneven, but shrinking the middle class and creating greater gaps between the upper class and both the middle and lower class.

So how did the Western middle class come to be? I'm not sure anyone has a full answer to this question. But, I would submit that the following are contributing factors.

1) Part of the American Revolution was a rebellion against the idea that the rights of corporations could trump the rights of man. Strict limits were put into play to protect the rights of individuals in the United States such that free-markets were better empowered relative to capitalism than had traditionally been the case within the British Empire. Consciously or not, some of this was picked up in the evolution of democracy in Europe.

2) Our country started at a time when a free market was easier to achieve. For much of what one might purchase, it was relatively easy to eyeball quality or establish the reputation of the seller. Certainly there was fraud and trickery, but what equivalent was there to what we now call Marketing (with a capital M).

3) In America, we had the benefit of nearly limitless resources. Yes there was a cost, but one could always move West. At the least one could homestead arable land. At he best, one might stumble across silver, gold, or other precious resources. For Europe, there was a world to colonize and provide a number of the benefits of limitless resources.

Notice that while there were parallels for Europe, much of the evolutionary roots for a broad middle clase were found first and strongest in North America. And indeed, the middle class grew here best and fastest. In fact, we became in many instances the home of the middle class for other countries such as Ireland.

We cannot for a minute sugar coat the American experience. There were any number of bad things that happened here that were not about facilitating the growth of the middle class. We had slavery, indentured servants, Indian massacres, Hells Kitchen, political corruption, violence against unions, and more. But consider that the people who came to America didn't come schooled in how to create a middle class or in how to become members of a middle class. Consider that we never had a stated national policy of creating a middle class, nor a state policy as far as I know. And, once you've done this, you'll realize what an amazing thing that our fore-fathers accomplished.

Today, resources are not infinite. In fact, people are rapidly overpopulating the world. We are running out of energy resources quickly, usable water is getting harder and harder to find, our air is no longer clean, and we are upsetting our global climates. This is far from the early American history where the West served as a pressure valve of excess resources.

Nowadays, it can be hard to know what's what about anything, not merely commerce. So many people have been scared into believing that Iraq has something to do with 9/11. So many people have been scared into believing that the theory of evolution is evil and wrong. So many people don't have a clue as to how to sift through and evaluate all the media blasting at them daily. Is it any wonder that these same people are at a disadvantage when evaluating goods in the market place? Meanwhile, the market is not really freely open to all sellers. So many segments have been taken over by giants, creating a situation where a certain critical mass is necessary to gain access to the market. A ma & pa operation can't begin to get the traction necessary to succeed.

Finally, we have (well someone has) shifted the rules in our country. The corporation has more rights and fewer responsibilities than the individual. We have fallen into the trap that gripped Great Britain at the time of our Revolution.

In short, we've lost the advantages that made a middle class easy. From here on out it will take hard work to maintain a middle class. This might not matter, but no nation that has ever been considered a true democracy became such without a substantial middle class.

Doing as Told

God spoke to me (see his notes to previous articles). He asked that I return to publishing more "....Intellectual..." pieces. Who am I to do otherwise - and so I humbly submit the following.

A number of topics are giving me pause. It's hard sometimes to keep them all straight. But then, any rational consideration would show how these topics weave together in so many ways.

One central question, however, consumes my thoughts: How has the mass brain-washing of the right come about? What do I mean by this? To start with, there is a lot of right-wing thinking which is simply unrelated to reality. There's probably a bit of unrealistic thinking on the left as well, but it doesn't have much policy impact these days so we'll keep the focus on here on the right.

A very simple and personal example: I was speaking with a conservative friend some weeks ago. He posited that the Capitalist system was the ultimate, that everyone else in the world envied us, and that this was because the median family income in this country was constantly on the rise. This individual is well educated, closely in touch with wide range of economic statistics (as part of his work), and absolutely believes what he told me.

The facts are these (per the White House and Census Bureau web-sites - which may be subject to a massive liberal conspiracy): median family income is at the same level as it was 20 years ago; and, median family net worth is at the same level as 20 years ago. The later statistic is interesting. We know that the average age of American's is growing. We also know that people grow their assets over time, and tend to be worth more later in life. So, we should see some growth in median family net worth when the population of the country is aging. That we don't could have many explanations, but, one can't help but question whether this statistic is a simple sign that we are collectively getting poorer.

My well educated friend believed that trickle-down was working - even though it wasn't - and he should know better. Is this a unique situation? I don't think so. So much of the conservative agenda is forwarded with a fundamentalist zeal, even by its leaders. For me, its a bit unbelievable that this agenda is merely a cynical mechanism to keep the People's eye off they ball while certain leaders screw us (which I'm certain happens). If this were such a conscious plot, too much information would have leaked out already. Look at how well we understand Karl Rove methods.

There's an interesting article here: www.consortiumnews.com/Print/2006/021206.html. This piece analyzes the right's (successful) efforts to politicize the CIA since the time of Nixon. As a result, they have forced a more hawkish foreign policy upon our collective shoulders by significantly over estimating the threats posed by our enemies and others. The economic cost of this is not calculated in the article, but must certainly be enormous. The moral cost, and loss of popular standing in the world, is even worse.

Nothing in the article suggests anything except that the leaders of these efforts fully believed in these crazy positions. These people were generally well educated (I'm obviously not speaking here of the vepe and Skippy). So, the question is why did they have such strong convictions? What predisposed them to so believe? I wish I was ready to posit an answer to this question, but I'm not.

What seems clear, however, is that when we focus our resources on fighting off non-threats, we lose the resources available to fight real threats. The slightly less obvious corollary to this is that in fighting off non-threats, we create real threats. Iraq being a prime example.

In the case of economic policy, its easy (although perhaps incorrect) to suggest that ignorance of the "facts" is based on zero-sum gaming mindset. That is, people may espouse policy that serves their immediate interests - even if they know that it doesn't serve the greater good, and should know that by hurting the greater good they may yet hurt themselves. For example, a policy may lead one to have a bigger slice of a smaller pie. If the pie become small enough, having a bigger slice doesn't help. Or, perhaps as the pie shrinks, some of the holders of bigger pieces get forced into the ranks of those with smaller pieces.

As we have discussed previously, those who are successful tend to credit themselves too much for their success while those that fail tend to blame the world too much for their failures. Hubris can cause any of us to choose narrowly self-serving policies. In this state we will not recognize how we may yet be hurt by these policies. It's somewhat like a child who insists on eating all the available chocolate - even if he's been warned that this will cause a stomach ache.

I don't believe that most folks really don't care about the welfare of anyone else. So some of the dichotomy between beliefs versus reality may be based on a need to excuse themselves from hurting others. But, there are too many cases of brain-washing that this doesn't explain.

Many people have voted to lower taxes for the rich thinking. What purpose did they think they were serving? Do they believe in trickle down? Did they think the cuts would be more equitable - but never check to see that Washington walked the talk? Did they believe that the cuts would be more equitable, but now are to wedded to the administration, or are too embarrassed at being made the fool, to challenge what's going on? Perhaps they're acting like an ostrich sticking their collective heads in the ground?

What has caused a generation of economists to suggest voodoo economics - and believe in them? What causes a nation that approves of abortion but dislikes it to elect a president who disapproves of abortion - yet has created policy that has raised the rate of abortions in this country?

The question of how people makes bad decisions is ageless. The likelihood of eliminating bad decisions is low. But, can we learn to be smarter and more often base our decision-making on facts and reality? I hope so.

God is talking to you, are you there?

God speaks.

God doesn't generally speak by raising his voice. Look at the bible. Look at Jesus. Jesus spoke softly, not loudly. Jesus spoke with compassion, not judgment. Jesus spoke first to the downtrodden, not to the leaders. Jesus offered hope, not criticism.

All of you who call yourselves fundamental Christians. All of you who claim to be born again. Listen to Jesus.

Jesus would not wage a war against a sovereign nation for oil. Jesus would not wage a war against a sovereign nation for political gain. Jesus would not lie or manipulate public sentiment to initiate a war; especially a war without purpose. So, what true Christian, what person who has truly accepted Christ into their heart, can support a President who would do so?

How can anyone not hold this infidel morally accountable? Jesus wouldn't campaign against bad leadership. Jesus wouldn't try to kill or coerce bad leadership. Jesus would ask questions, and he would lead by example.

And yet our so-called fundamentalist Christians act very differently from Christ. Not only do these people refuse to hold the President accountable, but they bow down to him as if he were a King of Kings. And why?

These fundamentalists believe in killing or coercing leadership that they think is bad. Look at the issue of abortion - look at the many people, staff and patients, who have been harassed abortion clinics. Look at how many people advocate the murder of abortion doctors, and look at how many abortion doctor have actually been murdered. Unlike Jesus, the American fundamentalist is blood thirsty.

Look at health and wealth fundamentalism. If you are not succeeding with a healthy and wealthy life, its because you aren't born again, or because you're stupid and lazy. Anyone who receives God deserves all the material rewards that they can collect on this earth. Those who can't collect material rewards have done something wrong. The only way to help the less fortunate is to introduce them to the fundamentalist's God. We can't give them money. We can't fund welfare. We can't provide them with good schools (unless they are Christian academies). We don't want them in our neighborhoods (unless they meet our social-economic status). Those fundementalists who break the law who "...haven't done anything everyone else doesn't do." They "...haven't really done anything so bad." They are being "...persecuted by the secular minority. "

How far is this thinking from that of Jesus? People came to know him and to love him because he respected them. Not because he made them rich materially. Not because he taught them a form of worship. And not because he was condescending to them or to others. To think of a human example, people were attracted to Gandhi in a way very similar to how they were attracted to Jesus. But this is not how the fundamentalist makes Jesus attractive.

No, the fundamentalist talks of the here-after but focuses on the here-and-now. How much American business today is self-trading within the church? How many people select their business partners/vendors/customers at church? On the other hand, how many fundamentalists offer support to others who are outside of the church? And, when they do, how often is that support predicated on first offering a sermon. Jesus let his behavior be the sermon. Jesus took care of the needs of others first. The destitute. The prostitute. The heathen. The saved didn't need his attention. The saved didn't need material reward, for theirs was the kingdom of heaven.

Fundamentalism has become a team, complete with mascots, cheerleaders, players, coaches, and lots of fans. Fundamentalism is self-serving. Like a family, fraternity, social club, or ethnic association, fundamentalism is about taking care of ones own - on a material basis. Fundamentalism is about better enjoying life through drama. The drama of identifying our team and identifying with our team. Likewise it is the drama of defining who is outside of our team. It is the drama of identifying and holding morally accountable those who are on the other team, while ignoring the moral accountability of our selves, or the members of our own team. So naturally, this group favors the President despite his limited powers of reasoning and his dogmatic thinking - this fits their own model. This group favors the President because he is one of them, the first rule is to protect one's own. This group favors the President because he supports and reinforces their prejudices and this is self-affirming and therefore rewarding to them.

Are you a fundamentalist? Are you born again? God is trying desperately to speak to you. He has given up on speaking nicely. You have challenged His authority over and over again. You have not only laid waste to the perfect world He created, you have continued to lay waste to your fellow man. Your fellow man that He created. Your fellow man who is as perfect and as imperfect as you. This is why God is speaking with a strong voice. This is why God is hurting the Conservative Crescent with Floods, Droughts, Wild Fires, & Hurricanes. Are you listening? Can you listen? Will you hear? It's time to change your evil ways.

Listening to God

I've been listening to God again. He is the King of Kings, hence the purple font, for purple is the color of Kings.

People, God is angry with us. We are fortunate and undeserving because he has chosen not to unleash his awful power against us. No, God moves with moderation even when he is angry with us.

It takes great failures to make God angry. He made us. He perfectly made us imperfect. And He is all-knowing. And so it follows that He expects us to act in imperfect ways.

But, God shared with us his own self. He made us in his image. He gave us the ability to surmount stupidity, pettiness, greed, and slovenly behavior.

When God is angry, he reminds us of the truth and allows those of us who will, to know it. We have been beset by drought, pummeled by hurricanes, and now scorched with wild fires. Oh people, how much does it take to open your eyes? When will you heed his call? Do you wish to perish eternally in cages of his hell?

Look around around us and see. Where has God visited these truths? Wild fires have a hold on Texas and Oklahoma. Hurricanes devastated the gulf coast and Florida. And, drought has been hitting the farmers located across our once fertile plains.

Do you think that God's anger is dispensed without regard to who will feel his wrath? Only an evil and imperfect god could do such a thing. Our God is all that is good and true. He is not only all knowing and all powerful, but just, fair and honest.

Why is it that the crescent of conservatism is the focus of His warnings?

If you are part of the great American fundamentalist movement, you have crossed God's commands. Don't react, think. Can there be any other explanation? If you were leading people to God, would he choose you to punish? God could have made his message heard in the the great Northeast? He has not. God could have made his message heard in the liberal bastion of Chicago. He has not. God could have made his message heard along the Pacific coast. He has not.

I listen to God, do you? How can you avoid hearing his voice. God is angry.

You say to me that you attend church, but so what? You pray, but so what? You Evangelize, but so what? These are things that you do for you, not for God. If you want to please God, there is only one thing you can do. If you want to please God, you must make this world, his world, his creation, a better and more godly world.

The world God created was perfect. The world that God created was full of beauty. The world that God created was full of genius. The world that God created supported all of his creations, all of his creatures in accordance with his laws.

This world today has been damaged. This world has been damaged by man. The damage done by man is a sacrilege, that is an insult to God.

We are racing to extinguish the natural resources God has provided to us. Resources such as water, oil, clean air, and wilderness. And you, the conservative fundamentalists, have not only embraced this rush to destroy the planet, rather you have embraced this race as being your just reward. Health and wealth christians ignore their duties to preserve and enhance the world in which God put us. You choose instead to believe that your prayers entitle you to rape and pillage this earth, God's earth. You ignore the needs of those around you. You ignore the needs of future generations. Instead, you gorge yourself like no generation that has come before you. Woe is you.

But, this is only a part of how you have sinned against God. We are not done with this conversation.

Dijaya Ever Think?

Ya know, these here United States are one big crazy mixed up family. Think about it. And, traditionally, this is part of our charm (not to mention our successes). The old melting pot it real - even if it isn't all evenly stirred and not all the bits and pieces melt at the same temperature.

But now days, we are a country divided. Some of this seems like cultural payback for the civil war. Many of the same interests (the South, Racism and Classism, Rights versus Responsibilities), that led to that conflict, are in the drivers seat today. However, painting a bigger picture might ignore a simpler explanation: the simple dialectic swings of power between different interests in society over time.

One parallel that I have too little expertise to prove, seems nonetheless interesting to me. In grammar school, we were taught that large southern land-holders tended to work their land until it was depleted and them move on to new ground. Later came subsistence farmers who did much the same, except that they couldn't move on.

Somewhere (my impression is that it started in the mid-Atlantic states and stretched North), practices shifted. Land was treated as being more precious and was more likely to enjoy simple programs like crop-rotation and laying fallow. Certainly in New England, with the need to remove trees and stones before planting, the cost to move to new fertile soil would be high. There seems also, in puritan religion, more of an emphasis on being good stewards of God's bounties than in other religions.

Today, we see the administration moving to leverage the disaster of Katrina into an excuse to drill the ANWAR in Northern Alaska. This has been a goal of these folks since they took office - and like invading Iraq, it's a dumb issue looking for emotional cover to become policy. Katrina may be that cover, so its important to consider conservation and conservatism. These terms do not, by the way, have to be mutually exclusive regardless of the wingnuts.

ANWAR supposedly has enough oil to supply all of the needs in the US for 6 months. That is at once a lot and not very much oil. We consume a lot of oil in 6 months, but if it only lasts 6 months - where does that get us? The later is not a rhetorical question, rather it should be the heart of the conversation.

TIME OUT: I believe ANWAR should never be drilled in the interest of protecting wildlife and biodiversity - but that is not what this rant is about.

TIME IN: We have a short-term and long-term problems with oil prices and supplies. BTW: oil is a good example of the failure of market theory to explain market behavior. When rising prices don't cause production to expand to capacity (various oil crises we faced in the '70s and '80), or when production expands to prevent or counteract price increases - the market is operating on drivers other than achieving supply/demand parity.

Anyhow, short-term we see historically high gas prices, prices which have negative consequences on the overall economy as people are forced to reapportion their spending to cover the rising price of fuel. Consequently, these people aren't spending as much in other sectors of the economy, and people dependent on those other sectors are being harmed economically. Meanwhile, the oil producers may see higher profits, but the benefits of these profits aren't apparently trickling down into the economy in ways that offset the harm done to the other sectors.

Notice, none of this spoke of inflation, deflation, recession, or even my old favorite: stagflation. People aren't going to buy as many car, homes, boats, etc - and folks working in those industries will be hurt. Over time, the economy may sort itself out - or not. But there is a real short-term problem for many people in this country.

The Saudi's insist that overall crude supplies are fine, and policies have been implemented to facilitation the importation of more finished petroleum products to offset the lost production (extraction and refining) capacity from the Gulf. But overall, prices of gasoline (at least here in Chicago) are hovering around $3/gal depending on the grade.

We also have a long term problem, one that our policy makers have shied away from. That is the Oil Peak: soon, the global oil capacity will begin to go down every month and every year. As this happens, we must expect constantly rising prices. In fact, prices will probably rise faster than the capacity goes down - at least in countries such as ours. In less developed countries, the need for oil is much diminished. The average person can't afford and doesn't use oil in any significant manner.

In the United States, oil demand is relatively inelastic. We don't have good methods for reducing our use of oil. Much of our manufacturing has moved offshore - so efficiency improvements in manufacturing can't contribute much. We live in a travel society. Food (think of how much food nationally comes from California) and other products (what can you buy at a Wal-mart that isn't made in China?) that we acquire and use daily are typically not produced locally.

Moreover, they aren't purchased locally. Take for example the grocery store. It used to be, at least in a cities, that there was a grocery story on every other corner. Not anymore. The suburban grocery store, complete with large parking lots, long ago invaded the city and largely eliminated the corner store. The parking lots are important because the larger store needs to be supported by a broader geographic customer base - that is we travel to shop. In order to save money, many of us now go to a big-box (K-mart, Costco, etc) store for groceries. This often means driving even further than to the traditional suburban grocery store.

So, goods travel long distances to stores, then we travel long distances to stores, and eventually those goods make it to our homes. Without oil, transportation breaks down. So, we can't just stop the travel (hence using gas) without interfering with people eating - in other words our demand is inelastic.

When demand is inelastic and supplies drop, the price curve moves up an accelerating curve. Ouch!!!

It would seem that under these circumstances, a prudent national policy would be to acquire off-shore (that is belonging to other nations) oil now while it is relatively cheap, and use our own oil later when prices are high and access to production is contentious. If you're wondering about that last bit, consider this: when supplies become limited, and not all demand can be met, do you think other nations will sit by idly and let us buy and consume all the world oil? Not likely. And with the growth of other powers in the world - we can't rely on our military to protect our interests.

This is not a condemnation of our military. But the world is a complicated place now that it is global. We have state and non-state actors, with the later being particularly unpredictable. We have nuclear and bio-weapon technology spread around the world among friends and foes alike. We have a China with a population 3X our size, which has largely taken over the world's manufacturing and which is quickly coming up to speed to become the worlds greatest technical innovator. Against this, we can assume that sooner or later we will be out-matched in quality and quantity of weapons.

In the future, the greatest power a nation may be able to bring to bear is the ability to help itself and its allies eliminate their dependence on oil.

Going back to ANWAR, it will not solve our short-term problem. Assume that it will take at least several years to bring it online with significant volume - and by then we're no longer dealing with a short-term problem. But, what role can it serve as a strategic reserve? If we face a long-term problem, wouldn't it be nice to have this reserve available should we find it impractical to any longer import overseas oil? Spend that oil now, and we lose this reserve. Hold this oil back, and we have an ace up our sleeve.

Remember, however, that this reserve can only supply America's energy needs for six months. And, that's at current rates of consumption. Consumption is currently on a rising curve. So, at a future date, we can expect ANWAR to provide us with less than a six month cushion.

That brings us back to our larger problem. We cannot continue to use gas, a rapidly dwindling resource, without consideration for how we replace it in the future. Our first steps must be conservation. We cannot continue to ignore the fuel economy of our cars and trucks. We don't need 'hemi's. We don't need SUVs. We need to conserve. We need to stimulate passenger rail travel. We need to find ways for both ourselves and our goods to travel less.

Just the efforts suggested in the prior paragraph will be very disruptive to our economy and way of living. It is reasonable to suppose that our overall standard of living may go down somewhat. Over the last two decades, we have seen a continued erosion of concern for the poor (working or otherwise). We have seen an increasing concentration of money and power amount a small elite in our country. It seems likely, if overall standards go down, that we will have to reverse these trends. We cannot expect to maintain stability in this country with a large and poorly served underclass. Do we as a people have the vision to see this problem and make this level of change?

What happens after conservation? Well, the oil won't last forever. Nor will our other natural resources. While some are renewable, it is possible to consume them beyond their ability to recover. And other resources are like oil - fixed in amount. And then there's the simple matter of land, of which we have less today because we've poisoned what otherwise was good usable land.

So, we need to employ two strategies: a) find energy replacements for oil; b) reduce demand to sustainable levels for all forms of natural resources. Take a simple thing like water. Water has always been a contentious issue in the West. Over the years, rights have been established (not always fairly), and those with rights use it, everyone else does without. Water is getting to be a bigger issue - much of the country has experience extended drought. We don't know if this is just a statistical anomaly in the weather, or part of the larger global warming we've created. There are clear signals that it may be the later. But, water could become the next oil.

If we can't any longer rely on long distance shipping of most of our food, the Central Valley of California may no longer need so much water, and other areas may need more. But, can this diversion occur? Will water be regarded as property, and subject to property rights. Moreover, will we continue to consider corporations as having more and stronger rights than individuals? If so, the owners of the water may push for unrealistic compensation that further undermines our economy.

But, that's not all. People need a certain amount of water each day. To make sure that we have that available, we need to limit the number of people in our country. Can we? Can we limit immigration? Can we limit procreation? It's hard to say. But, these are some of the questions that arise in a discussion of limited water resources in the face of rising demand.

Conservation & stewardship of our country and our resources will be critical to our survival. Not just as a nation, but as a people. This is the untold story of our time. Politicians, businesses, and religious leaders all tell the people that "...You can have it all..." It's an easy sale, that's what people want to hear. The reality is that we can't have it all. The reality is that no one has it all, and few people even begin to come close. We're so busy chasing dreams and fictions, that we can't even look after our own self interests. Now that's a scary thought.

Angry Enough?

Someone recently commented that folks need to get angry for there to be change. Did I do angry well enough in the last post? Angry is probably easier for me than Funny.

OK, Delay is indicted, Frist appears to be close to being indicted (maybe the fix will get in first), Abramoff is at risk of being sold down the river by the mafia types he appears to have hired to off Gus Boulis (a business partner of Jack's who Jack was apparently trying to cheat). Meanwhile, Jack is deeply entangled in every controversy in the Republican party and could be turned himself. Does this mean the mafiosos better make public confessions soon (including clear and convincing stories of Jack's involvement) or face the likelihood that the Men in Black will off them?

Could Tom Clancy and John Le Carre together (John, sorry to hook you up with literary trash) come up with a more far-fetched, convoluted, intertwined story line?

So, where the press? Mostly feigning balance as they provide cover for the criminals. How soon will the general population catch up with what's going on? Decades? Is it any wonder that the republicans are brazen.

There was an interesting piece on NPR today about an Indiana town that had lost some boys in Iraq. It did much to confirm my opinion that Hoosiers generally are nice, but not very smart. And that the smart ones, tend to be operators - pushing the bounds of law and morals.

In it the towns-people noted how they had a tradition of supporting our and their soldiers. Many of them have families with multiple generations of soldiers. But, what was most striking is that they cannot separate support for the troops from support of shrub government. They noted how soldiers were sent into battle ill-prepared and under armored. That didn't dissuade them. They ignored that we had no reason to attack Iraq. They ignored that the presidential amnesia for his rational for attaching Iraq. And, they made clear the need to stick the battle out until we accomplish our objectives (whatever they may be) even if that means increasing the level of our commitment and armed forces in the war. Are these folks smoking crack or what?

Are their lives so narrow, boring and pinched that they need the Iraqi conflict to convince themselves that they are a good and noble people? What is it that causes them to ignore all the facts? They have access to too much information, despite our ineffectual press. A bi-partisan committee of congress has noted that there wasn't a connection between Iraq and either WMD or global terrorism (surprise - why do you think that the first Bush didn't take Saddam down). The president has acknowledged as much. The parallels to the Vietnam quagmire are too clear - there is no plausible way to think that there is anything we can win over there - not even oil. So, what drives these folks?

It can only be that people need reasons to think of themselves as good and worthy. And, the reactionary right establishment has put together the two trump cards for this: religious and patriotic superiority. The battle, my friends, is about self-righteousness.

Too many people in our society are exposed to rampant consumerism - but not allowed to play that game. Exposed is not the right word - no the word is brainwashed. It is not fundamental human nature to want a Porsche, even if we often want what another has. Our media and advertising has painted a glamorous world that generally isn't real even for the wealthy of the world. If you doubt that, think about Paris Hilton. She may be laughing all the way to the bank, and doing whatever she wants. But, she has to be really fucked up, and can't possibly be a healthy happy human being in her core.

Meanwhile, most people (especially Hoosiers and other agricultural belt people) are as far from this fantasy world as anyone. Heck, even in the ghetto people see excitement. Out in the country, most people are afraid to do or say anything out of step with the norms because it will be talked about. Out in the country, most people have a low standard of living - if you're doing well, you have a boat or a motorcycle but you still have a cheap house, cheap clothing, cheap cars and so forth. There isn't much to do. Mind you, 4th of July parades are great. Going to church and Sunday school are fine. Stopping on Friday nite at the tavern for a beer or two is an opportunity for social exchange. But, none the excitement associated with consumerism thoughout our media is available in the country.

Is it any wonder that many country youth ape ghetto styles of dress? Is it any wonder that a lot of young women in the country dress in a fashion I would not allow my daughter to copy? Folks are bored, constrained, and evidently (according to the TV, movies, and magazines) missing out on the glamour of life.

How do you deal with that? How do you avoid depression? Read People and talk about the latest Hollywood scandal with authority. Position your conformity and duty and dedication as something that places you above those city/union/minority folks who don't support the troops by sending them to battle. Join a church that promises health and wealth, supports immoral activities as long as they tithe, interferes with national politics for the financial well being of its spiritual leader, and attempts to defeat science to provide an epic battle that will brainwash the flock into blind adherence to its leader. Its a sick sick spiral down to hell.

So, how do we break these folks out of this death roll? It won't be by logic - passion over-rules that. It won't be by facts - they've already learned how to refute them. It will only come by offering a better form of salvation. What could be this mass salvation? Its hard to tell. What chink hasn't been covered already with the clever machinations of the right? How do we free the wingnuts from this purgatory?

Let me know if you have an insight.