Lest We Forget

The Conservative's narrative on economics and government policy relative to improving personal financial conditions for the population at large continue to be a cause for concern since they reflect an unwavering determination to continue promoting an agenda that is proven to be a failed strategy for equitable economic progress.  Their principle message is the belief that Adam Smith and his followers down to this day, i.e. Milton Friedman et al, got it right.  Namely, the "invisible hand" will work for the good of all.  Nothing could be further from the truth.   The reality of human nature is that when everyone works in their own self interest, the powerful gain and the weak lose.  This has been the story of history from the earliest of times.  The galley slaves of Rome pulled their master's oars in ships battle and trade on the Mediterranean, while the Patricians lounged in the warm baths of the city.   And so it has been down to this very day.  The only countervailing force to level the playing field is a government that actually does work for those at the bottom half of the economic ladder.  A progressive Democratic agenda does that.  It is critical that the upcoming election cycles provide a Democratic majority in Washington to correct the gross mismanagement that is the norm under current Republican total control of House, Senate, and White House.

Repeal Health Care, Ha!!

The Republican initiative to repeal the health care legislation passed the House but it is just one more ill-advised, idiotic, move to hoodwink the public into an agenda that has no foundation in real need or intrinsic value to the American people. The strategic plan of the Republicans is so visible, while being devious, that any person with reasonable intelligence and objective mindset can clearly see that their objectives have nothing to do with helping people, but rather to try to discredit anything accomplished by the Democrats with the one objective of taking over power in Washington. They do this in spite of its cost to ordinary, middle class and low income, American people, short term or long term.

Their strategy was set early, before the election of Obama as President and before the passing HR 3590 "The Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act". First they carried out a monstrous PR and advertising campaign to convince the American public that the bill was terrible and something to be despised rather than embraced. This was meticulously planned and successfully executed to the extent that all the benefits and advantages to middle and low income Americans were overshadowed by ominous threats. This included "death panels", uncontrollable increases in insurance premiums, and vanishing doctors who would certainly exclude all medicare patients from their office appointments. All of which were not just exagerations, but blatant falsehoods.

That program engendered enough distrust of the Democrat agenda that the Republicans claimed a "people's mandate" to repeal the health care law, and the call for replacement of the Democratic Congress with Republicans who would do it. A mandate they fomented as a part of their strategic plan. It was all hype, no substance, but ingeniously crafted political manuvering. That was stage two of the strategy, "get the Congress". Fortunately for the American people they were only able to get half of it, The House of Representatives. There is still a body in Washington that can apply some rational and sane thinking to the health care legislation, and limit the Republican tide with the Senate under Democratic control.

Now that they have the majority in The House they can play with lip service to the Health Care Law repeal promise while manipulating the more significant agenda of recapturing the White House. This is stage three, but really it is the underlying priority that has driven the Republicans throughout the Obama term. It is astonishing that the reality of this being their #1 priority was explicitly presented to the American public by the Senate minority leader in a public address. The #1 priority of the Republicans in the Senate is not to legislate for the benefit of the American people, no, the #1 priority is to drive Obama out of office.

The Republican decision to use the Health Care legislative program as the vehicle for selling their mischieve will come home to roost, and will be their undoing. The first signs of this are already becoming evident. All the lies that discredited the law are now starting to be understood by the public as being lies. The statements of disengenuous intent to do something better in the area of health care reform are being exposed as just that, disengenuous, i.e. there is no intent to reform. There is an intent to maintain the status quo, i.e. a process that keeps the greater leverage on health care cost and service in the hands of the insurance industry.

As they scramble for the next great issue to use as a rallying call for public endorsement of their political agenda they will find that the public will be less inclined to buy the falsehoods. The old saw, "Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me" is very much engrained in the voting public. Extension of the so-called "Bush tax cuts" is an example of how the Republican double talk is so egregious. It is only their arrogant thick skin that allowed them to withstand the ridiculousness of their position and place the President in a "back to the wall" situation that led to the passing of this extension in the form they demanded. But that strategy will also come back to roost on them. There will be more to come.

But what about Health Care? The chance that the "Patient Affordable and Protection Health Care Act" will be fully repealed is as close to zero that any probability estimate can ever be forecasted. The Republican agenda for Health Care reform will be simply to let the law evolve through its various stages of implementation as written. All in all that is probably not a bad outcome.

Job, Jobs, Jobs

The daily rhetoric of columnists and bloggers that criticise President Obama as the obstacle to improvement in the employment rate in the USA misses a fundamental point of economic reality. Namely, it is Corporate America that hires workers and the mangers of those corporations that decide whether the citizens of this country or people elsewhere in the world will be the new workers. Barack Obama is not a hiring manager. Likewise, the government is in the catch 22 position of being criticised for increasing its payroll while it is the only entity dedicated to hiring Americans for its worker rosters.

The culprit in this travesty is Corporate America, not President Obama. It is not in the economic interest of Corporate America to hire people here, and unfortunately it is only an economic interest that drives corporate decisions, i.e. social justice interests are absent. It is only government that can introduce social justice to the equations.

Why should a profit motivated American industry hire a factory worker in the USA for $25 per hour (or more) when it can hire a worker elsewhere for $5 per hour and receive the same productivity, the same product quality, and even expand their market coverage by selling those products in the country where it has set up its manufacturing operations? If the foreign worker productivity were only half the American they could hire two and still be ahead. Indeed in this particular example they could hire five and still break even. Why should they hire an engineer or scientist for $80,000 a year here when they can hire one for $30,000 in China or India and get the same technical skills and productivity? Also, not to mention they can build and operate their labs and research facilities at half the cost of doing the investment here.

There are other factors at work in USA industry. Technological advancements have reduced the need for human labor in the operation of not only manufacturing facilities, but also in R&D and service based operations. Automation and optimized organizational structures have made the need for large numbers of workers a thing of the past. The decline in bargaining leverage of workers unions to protect jobs for employees gives unilateral decision authority to corporate management to reduce employee rosters. Indeed they are very willing and eager to use that as one of the easiest ways to show improvement in their bottom line accounting. Just look at the extraordinary increases in profitability of the Fortune 100 in the past few years as they implemented massive layoffs.

These questions are fundamental to the persistent unemployment situation in this country. Indeed it is very likely that the current unemployment rate is structual more so than a result of economic downturn in things like housing sales, or actions of the banking industry. Actually it may be the reverse process. Economic slowdown has come from the reduction in real worker income over the past 30 years rather than the changes in other economic drivers being quoted by pundits.

The root of the unfavorable employment situation is intrinsic to Corporate America and its managements. Corporate America does not have real economic need for more USA labor and no overarching incentive to build bigger employee rosters as a social benefit to the country. The traditional number for the percent unemployment that might be regarded as "full employment" may need to be adjusted upwards. Whereas in the past that number was around 5%, today 8% to 9% may be appropriate. I am not an economist, but it seems logical to me that such a situation is possible. An accurate number for this should be derived by impartial economists willing to "tell it like it is" and not pander to any particular political agenda.

If unemployment is actually fixed for the long term at those higher percentages then there is a need for paradigm change in how compensation is handled by companies to offset reduced family incomes. Presently it is well established that for a great many families two working members are essential to provide for their living expenses. If only one of them can have regular employment, the other must earn more to offset the lost income. If the working member's wages are fixed and low, the family cannot survive. Business must adjust their wage scales to compensate. If they do not do this on their own, organized labor must undertake measures that will force the adjustment. The alternative to this is very dire to contemplate. Further erosion of the quality of life for middle and low income families will certainly ensue. Government must enact regulations and processes that support the enforcment of appropriate increases in wages. They must do this to ensure that tax revenues are maintained as well as the reality of the social justice entailed in it. Government must also enact regulations and processes that mitigate the advantages of Corporate America's opportunistic activities in gloabalization to the detriment of home based activities in the USA.

Isn't it a magnificent creation. It takes in many kinds of grains, vegetables, meats and water or other liquids; produces muscle, bone, and skin; and eliminates the wastes. It has articulated appendages that give it mobility, reach, and power to grasp tools, a pencil to write, or a brush to paint. It has a variety of sensors and an on-board central processor that can decipher those inputs and convert them to images, sounds, smells, and the touch of a gentle breeze. It has the ability to replicate itself and grant to that offspring all the character and wisdom it has aquired for itself.

Why has such a magnificent creation turned on itself and others of its kind to destroy the very body that holds this mystery.

WHY?

Why Iraq?

The Iraq situation, as a symptomatic example of the Islamic world's view of the human condition, is something that we as Christians and particularly we as Americans cannot and should not try to control. We certainly do not understand their culture or religion, but moreover we do not understand their philosophy about life, their community or family dynamic, nor their individual needs and aspirations. To assume that they desire the western world's values on these items is a gross error. To think that democracy is something that everyone wants is fallacious thinking.

We love our democracy because, as Americans, democracy promotes the conditions for living which most Americans value, i.e. freedom to pursue one's ambitions, opportunity to change ones life if it does not meet expectations. i.e. To have. Whether this is in one's personal life, community environment, or professional activity.

This freedom has not always resulted in the best outcome for everyone, but enough of the population has benefited that it is accepted as the norm, i.e. achieving "The American Dream". A house, a car, two kids and two weeks vacation at the beach in the summer. But the reaching of the American Dream has come at considerable expense in many cases. There are social illness as seen by such things as: the breakdown of nuclear family through divorce and separation, or worse simply dysfunctional households persisting in an illusion of tranquillity, and materialistic values being substituted for intrinsically human values to a point where there is a negative stigma attached to any person that does not have the latest electronic gadget or at least two of everything, whatever it is.

This model for life, which we call the American Dream, is not necessarily the model that people in other parts of the world want. Certainly some want it, but it is a mistake to think that everyone wants it.

For us, our culture says, "never stand when you can sit", "never walk when you can ride", "never wait for the other guy when you have the right of way". There are cultures that still believe that toil and suffering are essential ingredients in life and are actually necessary to gain happiness. There are cultures that still believe "it is better to have less than to want more". There are cultures in which the highest level of joy and satisfaction is in sharing human moments even if they are devoid of creature comforts.

How does this relate to Iraq? Only in this way. Our venture in Iraq was predicated on the belief that the people of Iraq did not want to live under Saddam. The people of Iraq really wanted to have what we in the USA have. The people of Iraq really wanted to dramatically change their lives, their country. Our mistake was to not test these assumptions to see if they were really true. Our continuing mistake is to think that our efforts there will be viewed as helping Iraq, while in fact our presence is viewed as the source of conflict.

In fairness, we did not have a really good way to test that at that time. A public opinion poll taken in Iraq in 2002 would probably have been distorted information. However today, with a constitutional government in Iraq, and the demonstrated will of a large number of people to actually vote in an election, maybe a poll could be taken that would be meaningful.

Maybe the way to resolve the dilemna in the USA about what to do in Iraq would be to ask the Iraqui people what they really want. Maybe the issue of whether to stay in Iraq or not should be a referendum in Iraq where the people give their vote. Stay or leave? We are visitors in Iraq, not people of Iraq. We should only be there if we are welcomed visitors by the population at large, not only be a ruling politic that wants our backing. The referendum should take a high fraction in favor of staying if we are to stay. Maybe more than a 2/3rd majority. If we do not have that status with the population we will never win the conflict.

It is my belief that the violent events in the country are persisting because a large part of the population is either actively supporting the insurgency, or quietly condoning it. Actions speak louder than words. Their actions tell me we really are not wanted. Should we stay someplace where we are not wanted?

The world has benefited immensely from chemistry and chemical manufacturing, so why is there such a negative and antagonistic feeling toward the chemical industry? The mere mention of the word "chemical" in many circles elicits a response of great concerns about dangers to health, environment, community property value, and personal safety. Even if the response were not about those serious concerns, as a minimum there would be at least an unqualified negative comment about foul odors, unsightly landscape, and poorer quality of life anywhere near the location of chemicals manufacturing.

Are such concerns well founded, or are they imagined? What would an unbiased presentation of statistical data say about the true record of the chemical industry in real events that impinged on these major social concerns? Where are the real facts and how can they be obtained for public disclosure? Who can be trusted to publish the information in an unbiased manner?

In this age, where every announcement from a center of authority seems slanted toward some personal agenda, how can credible information be communicated. It is not likely, for obvious reasons, that any spokesman associated with any chemical manufacturer would be considered credible. Likewise, any local politician that speaks out (either in favor or opposed) to the siting of chemical facilies in his district is surely owned either by the opponents or proponents. Both the lawyer defending the chemical firm in an action, and the lawyer presenting the case for the complaint will only disclose data that supports their private agenda and not present all relevant facts. This tainted status extends today even to the most highly respected of society, our doctors, university professors, military commanders, and even our religous leaders. It seems there is no one suitable to carry the message.

In such circumstances, the message will be carried by itself. The public opinion and public attitude will be formed as individuals experience the circumstances, good or bad, and relate these experiences to others. For the chemical industry to be perceived as "good", it must be visibly good in the local community of each chemical facility and in the broader public that uses the products of the industry in their daily lives. This cannot be limited to an external facade, but must exist in every facet of its operations. There must be a true dedication to protection of the environment and reduction to risk of accidents even when these things require large capital investments. There must be full undertanding and disclosure of the hazardous characteristics of a product. There must be an honest concern and real effective implementation for the safety of workers in the facility, even when this means further process research investment or delay in introduction of the process into the plant. For consumer products that are widely distributed and used by the general public not trained and knowledgeable in chemistry, they must be promoted, advertised, and distributed in the most responsible way. Their packaging, directions for use, cautions, and applications must be fully appropriate and drafted strictly to the needs of the consumer.

As an observer of the industry for many years, I believe there are firms that truly practice the principles for being counted as "good". I also believe there are some that do not. For many of these firms, the reasons are typically not unethical standards, but economic limitations. It is expensive to be good and sometimes the cost just cannot be supported. How can we establish a system for helping those firms that want to improve but are limited economically? For the other minority of firms that just do not value those higher standards, how can they be removed from the industry?