Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Brahma Bull Bankers
You can't be a master of the universe without unmitigated audacity. The current generation of "Brahma bull" bankers, especially in light of the recent meltdown they precipitated, make John D. "Competition is a Sin" Rockefeller look like Henry Thoreau. They have boldly resorted to blatant "trickle up" economic practices of robbing the poor to fund the ever-richer rich. Meanwhile, the federal government is dangerously close to becoming nothing more than a tool of capitalistic excess rather than a safeguard against it. Now is the time for rigorous regulation of what has become a much too powerful economic beast. It's time to rope and ride, not hope and slide.
Saturday, July 11, 2009
The Justice of Privilege
"How diligently privilege ha[s] to work to remain oblivious to its cost."
America, America by Ethan Canin
Book smarts probably has little to do with the leadership skills necessary to fight fires successfully, but that’s not the point, according to the latest Supreme Court decision in the New Haven firefighters’ case that recently came before them.
Apparently, according to the 5-4 decision, you can’t throw a test out after you have already given it if the results don’t yield the city’s desired outcome. Regardless how arbitrary or irrelevant a test might be, once the rules to the contest are set down in advance, you have to stick with the game plan and live with the results. That’s only fair to the individuals who passed the test. And I mean that in both senses.
The Swiss government is currently upholding the long-held principle of identity security in the face of the demand by the U.S. government to turn over the names of U.S. clients of Swiss bank UBS who may be avoiding U.S. taxes by squirreling away money in identity protected UBS accounts. In this case, Swiss protection of privacy trumps U.S. income tax cheating. What is one country’s sense of justice is another’s crime.
The U.S. split-estate law has been on the books for over a century and a half. The gist of it is that sub-surface owners’ rights trump those of surface owners whenever they might conflict. In the animal world, split-estate would mean worms and gophers would have power over bison and elk in land use.
In all three of these cases, ultimately privilege triumphs over actual justice. The written test is irrelevant to the actual necessary qualities of leadership; the protection of privacy interferes with the greater good of financial justice; and the notion that sub-surface ownership is somehow a greater good than surface ownership is clearly arbitrary and disregards the whole concept of ecology, a modern view of nature that did not even exist when the law was written.
Privilege has many faces, some visible and some not. To say that justice is progressive in the long run may be true. But these three cases indicate that justice often has an inertia that protects privilege first before it finally evolves to serve the greater good.
America, America by Ethan Canin
Book smarts probably has little to do with the leadership skills necessary to fight fires successfully, but that’s not the point, according to the latest Supreme Court decision in the New Haven firefighters’ case that recently came before them.
Apparently, according to the 5-4 decision, you can’t throw a test out after you have already given it if the results don’t yield the city’s desired outcome. Regardless how arbitrary or irrelevant a test might be, once the rules to the contest are set down in advance, you have to stick with the game plan and live with the results. That’s only fair to the individuals who passed the test. And I mean that in both senses.
The Swiss government is currently upholding the long-held principle of identity security in the face of the demand by the U.S. government to turn over the names of U.S. clients of Swiss bank UBS who may be avoiding U.S. taxes by squirreling away money in identity protected UBS accounts. In this case, Swiss protection of privacy trumps U.S. income tax cheating. What is one country’s sense of justice is another’s crime.
The U.S. split-estate law has been on the books for over a century and a half. The gist of it is that sub-surface owners’ rights trump those of surface owners whenever they might conflict. In the animal world, split-estate would mean worms and gophers would have power over bison and elk in land use.
In all three of these cases, ultimately privilege triumphs over actual justice. The written test is irrelevant to the actual necessary qualities of leadership; the protection of privacy interferes with the greater good of financial justice; and the notion that sub-surface ownership is somehow a greater good than surface ownership is clearly arbitrary and disregards the whole concept of ecology, a modern view of nature that did not even exist when the law was written.
Privilege has many faces, some visible and some not. To say that justice is progressive in the long run may be true. But these three cases indicate that justice often has an inertia that protects privilege first before it finally evolves to serve the greater good.
Friday, July 10, 2009
Bonuses
Once upon a time a bonus was a payment for exceptional work. Today, it seems to mean a contractual agreement in which an executive of some financial enterprise such as Citi or AIG is guaranteed an astronomical amount of money no matter how well he does or how much money the company loses. It is just another form of win at all cost.
Because lawyers have been involved in arranging contracts and therefore contracts have a greater currency than profits, apparently the logical notion of executives foregoing bonuses when company profits tank is not feasible.
However, there is a solution. Have the feds pay the contract-based bonuses with government-issue derivatives based on, say, decreasing unemployment statistics and/or shrinking national debt. In other words, the bonuses would increase in value as the debt and/or unemployment shrinks. That would prevent actual tax dollars going to logically unwarranted bonuses for executives, and they would be paid with the government equivalent of what these bonus seekers used to get us in economic trouble to begin with: default-swap mortgage securities, derivatives, etc.
Instead of the government investing in these undeserving rich, force them to invest in economic recovery directly. Then their interest would be in seeing the recovery to its conclusion without reaping any further dividends that might undermine that full recovery. Rather than spending their time trying to “game” the economy in new and unregulated ways, they would be certain to see that Uncle Sam and the workforce of America would get their due.
Paying bonuses with the same type of currency that the Wall Street rascals traded in would be a fitting response to the outrage the American public feels toward reckless banks and insurance companies like AIG. If your company got bailout money, you personally get paid contractual bonuses in government sponsored derivatives tied to reducing national debt and unemployment.
As President Kennedy once said, “Ask not what your country can do for you: ask what you can do for your country.” Making federal bailout beneficiaries pay contractual corporate bonuses with government derivatives based inversely on proportional reduction of national debt and/or unemployment would serve our country well and would provide the Wall Street rascals with an opportunity to do community service within their professions.
Because lawyers have been involved in arranging contracts and therefore contracts have a greater currency than profits, apparently the logical notion of executives foregoing bonuses when company profits tank is not feasible.
However, there is a solution. Have the feds pay the contract-based bonuses with government-issue derivatives based on, say, decreasing unemployment statistics and/or shrinking national debt. In other words, the bonuses would increase in value as the debt and/or unemployment shrinks. That would prevent actual tax dollars going to logically unwarranted bonuses for executives, and they would be paid with the government equivalent of what these bonus seekers used to get us in economic trouble to begin with: default-swap mortgage securities, derivatives, etc.
Instead of the government investing in these undeserving rich, force them to invest in economic recovery directly. Then their interest would be in seeing the recovery to its conclusion without reaping any further dividends that might undermine that full recovery. Rather than spending their time trying to “game” the economy in new and unregulated ways, they would be certain to see that Uncle Sam and the workforce of America would get their due.
Paying bonuses with the same type of currency that the Wall Street rascals traded in would be a fitting response to the outrage the American public feels toward reckless banks and insurance companies like AIG. If your company got bailout money, you personally get paid contractual bonuses in government sponsored derivatives tied to reducing national debt and unemployment.
As President Kennedy once said, “Ask not what your country can do for you: ask what you can do for your country.” Making federal bailout beneficiaries pay contractual corporate bonuses with government derivatives based inversely on proportional reduction of national debt and/or unemployment would serve our country well and would provide the Wall Street rascals with an opportunity to do community service within their professions.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Canary or Canard?
The philosopher Montaigne’s notion of man was that he is essentially good in a natural state but civilization corrupts him. Modern science has pretty much shown the truth that man is neither good nor bad, that he is a combination of nature and nurture, and that he is capable of learning new tricks, good or bad, well into old age.
Today, we occasionally hear and see people who still believe, even in the wake of the disaster on Wall Street and the deep recession caused by it, that laissez-faire capitalism is essentially good. They hang on to the myth that markets are rational and by themselves can cure whatever is wrong; and that “civilization” in the form of government regulation only corrupts or stifles progress and success. If we have settled the nature of man question, why haven’t we done the same for business?
A Denver Post columnist, Vincent Carroll, stated in a recent opinion column the following: “From time to time, of course, regulators have been known to become cozy with industry” and then suggests “Is it really likely, however, that every state’s regulators are industry apologists?” The answer is, of course it is likely, given the history of such commissions. They were historically better scouts than sentries. Given the current variety of regulation across many states, their apologies are anything but uniform. Mostly, state regulators have moved from ushering in gas and oil expansion to some widely varied minimal regulation. They have certainly not barred the door anywhere or even set up any high hurdles. In Colorado, for instance, the COGCC has not set minimal bonding and insurance requirements that even begin to match the possibility of disaster waiting to happen. Industry is, by a long shot, more protected than citizenry from potential disaster. In general, what industry has had to sacrifice of late is far less than what little human and natural habitat has gained by COGCC regs.
Given what has happened to health care regulation by state, I would think the oil and gas industry would welcome some federal regulation so that they would have to operate by one set of basic rules regarding water rather than many. (The health insurance industry, for example, would love to have just one federal set of rules rather than those variably imposed by the states.) Since water is far more valuable than gold let alone gas and oil, the Clean Water Act is a good watershed (so-to-speak) benchmark for federal regulation. We’ll need clean water long after gas and oil drilling is history. And we won’t have it if we don’t protect it.
However, for my peace of mind, if federal and state law ends up producing redundancies, that’s all the better. When one agency fails, another can pick up the slack. What we don’t need to find out is that “fracking” was a bad idea in hindsight. And just because Dave Neslin of the COGCC says, “We have no verified example of fracking contaminating groundwater in Colorado” does not mean there hasn’t been any contamination. It is going to take an incredible faith in coincidence to keep that myth going. Better safe than sorry.
Writing this has given me a headache. I think I’ll go take some Tylenol. Oops! I forgot. Tylenol intake may contribute to liver damage, a finding that has just been revealed in the past 24 hours. As I said, I’d rather be safe than sorry.
Today, we occasionally hear and see people who still believe, even in the wake of the disaster on Wall Street and the deep recession caused by it, that laissez-faire capitalism is essentially good. They hang on to the myth that markets are rational and by themselves can cure whatever is wrong; and that “civilization” in the form of government regulation only corrupts or stifles progress and success. If we have settled the nature of man question, why haven’t we done the same for business?
A Denver Post columnist, Vincent Carroll, stated in a recent opinion column the following: “From time to time, of course, regulators have been known to become cozy with industry” and then suggests “Is it really likely, however, that every state’s regulators are industry apologists?” The answer is, of course it is likely, given the history of such commissions. They were historically better scouts than sentries. Given the current variety of regulation across many states, their apologies are anything but uniform. Mostly, state regulators have moved from ushering in gas and oil expansion to some widely varied minimal regulation. They have certainly not barred the door anywhere or even set up any high hurdles. In Colorado, for instance, the COGCC has not set minimal bonding and insurance requirements that even begin to match the possibility of disaster waiting to happen. Industry is, by a long shot, more protected than citizenry from potential disaster. In general, what industry has had to sacrifice of late is far less than what little human and natural habitat has gained by COGCC regs.
Given what has happened to health care regulation by state, I would think the oil and gas industry would welcome some federal regulation so that they would have to operate by one set of basic rules regarding water rather than many. (The health insurance industry, for example, would love to have just one federal set of rules rather than those variably imposed by the states.) Since water is far more valuable than gold let alone gas and oil, the Clean Water Act is a good watershed (so-to-speak) benchmark for federal regulation. We’ll need clean water long after gas and oil drilling is history. And we won’t have it if we don’t protect it.
However, for my peace of mind, if federal and state law ends up producing redundancies, that’s all the better. When one agency fails, another can pick up the slack. What we don’t need to find out is that “fracking” was a bad idea in hindsight. And just because Dave Neslin of the COGCC says, “We have no verified example of fracking contaminating groundwater in Colorado” does not mean there hasn’t been any contamination. It is going to take an incredible faith in coincidence to keep that myth going. Better safe than sorry.
Writing this has given me a headache. I think I’ll go take some Tylenol. Oops! I forgot. Tylenol intake may contribute to liver damage, a finding that has just been revealed in the past 24 hours. As I said, I’d rather be safe than sorry.
Friday, June 26, 2009
The Political Henhouse
If the American political scene were broken down using notable chickens, here is what might serve as appropriate characterizations of the most prominent types.
Foghorn Leghorns. These are none other than the southern fried Republicans who continue to bray and cluck over the “socialist” plans of the Democratic President and the largely Democratic congress. Their fear is if the Democrats have their way, the country will end up looking like one of those creepy decadent European countries or maybe Canada, except, of course, for their fine hockey players. They chant “my country tis of me” or “my country, right or wrong.” They would never chant “my country right or left.”
Chickens That Cross the Road. These are nominal Democrats from historically red states who are nervous about getting re-elected, so they scurry back and forth across the political road from left to right and from right to left so as to create the illusion that they are middle-of-the-roaders and therefore appealing to the independent vote, the vote that got them into office in the first place. They don’t cross the road to get to the other side. They cross the road to get the vote from the folks standing in the middle.
Chicken Littles. These are the Democrats who are comfortably ensconced in liberalism and therefore view the President as a backslider and all-too-ready compromiser with the Republicans. They started out thinking pragmatism was a good thing, but now view it as a euphemism for backsliding. Every time an issue comes up and the President doesn’t take a hard liberal stand, they foresee the day when the whole liberal agenda will come crashing down as if the sky is falling. The pink could of liberalism will disappear.
The Little Red Hen. This is President Obama’s persona. He invites everyone to the table to help with the making of policy, but in the end he will have to do it himself because no other political chickens have the courage or faith that he can pull it off. But as the story goes, the Little Red hen gets to eat the pie all by herself.
Foghorn Leghorns. These are none other than the southern fried Republicans who continue to bray and cluck over the “socialist” plans of the Democratic President and the largely Democratic congress. Their fear is if the Democrats have their way, the country will end up looking like one of those creepy decadent European countries or maybe Canada, except, of course, for their fine hockey players. They chant “my country tis of me” or “my country, right or wrong.” They would never chant “my country right or left.”
Chickens That Cross the Road. These are nominal Democrats from historically red states who are nervous about getting re-elected, so they scurry back and forth across the political road from left to right and from right to left so as to create the illusion that they are middle-of-the-roaders and therefore appealing to the independent vote, the vote that got them into office in the first place. They don’t cross the road to get to the other side. They cross the road to get the vote from the folks standing in the middle.
Chicken Littles. These are the Democrats who are comfortably ensconced in liberalism and therefore view the President as a backslider and all-too-ready compromiser with the Republicans. They started out thinking pragmatism was a good thing, but now view it as a euphemism for backsliding. Every time an issue comes up and the President doesn’t take a hard liberal stand, they foresee the day when the whole liberal agenda will come crashing down as if the sky is falling. The pink could of liberalism will disappear.
The Little Red Hen. This is President Obama’s persona. He invites everyone to the table to help with the making of policy, but in the end he will have to do it himself because no other political chickens have the courage or faith that he can pull it off. But as the story goes, the Little Red hen gets to eat the pie all by herself.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
The New Golden Rule
The recent ruling by the United States Supreme Court in favor of a gold mining company operating near Juneau, Alaska, is a golden spike driven into the heart of the Clean Water Act. Apparently gold mining is a strategically necessary industry worthy of sacrificing a lake here and there for the sake of keeping that ever precious supply of gold in the market place ready to serve the greater good. According to the Supreme Court majority, gold-mining trumps clean water.
The convoluted thinking that led to these polluted waters is mind boggling. The majority opinion said the Army Corps of Engineers has the power to determine what the least damaging impact mine waste might have, and that polluting and destroying all of the life in one measly 23 acre lake is better than the alternatives. Apparently the Court did not consider the possibility that there might be lower-impact solutions more costly to the mining company or that upholding the Clean Water Act in its original intent is not an option. As Calvin Coolidge used to say, ‘The business of America is business” and the current Court is all about business as usual.
I never realized that gold was as strategic as, say, oil and gas. The American currency went off the gold standard back in 1934. Sure, we hear about reducing our dependence on foreign oil, but we never hear about reducing our dependence on foreign gold. So why would the Supreme Court go so far as to show support of a gold mine over clean water?
My guess is that the majority of the Supreme Court is subconsciously using a combination of “NIMBY” and supply and demand. Clearly, the lake near Juneau is far removed from, say, the Potomac (remoteness). And there are thousands of lakes up there in Alaska (supply). Besides, Alaska is much bigger than Texas and is closer to the Soviet Union than the lower 48, so why worry about losing a little lake so far removed from civilization as they know it?
Moreover, given the rate at which the Fed is printing money, we may find it necessary to go back on the gold standard at some time in the future just to restore confidence in those Chinese investors who practically own us already. Therefore, deep down inside their combined centers of primordial fear, those conservative judges are just looking out for the future welfare of America. What’s a little lake when you think of all the jobs, the product, the gold flowing into our mint molds, and into our very own shiny bars. The thought feels so solid, so safe, so business-like, so standard!
Perhaps the conservative justices are taking their cue from watching our military leaders testify before Congress about how well the wars are going, thanks to surges and drones, in Iraq and Afghanistan and Pakistan…and eventually in Iran and North Korea…and later in Zimbabwe and off the coast of Somalia, etc. They like to hear from officials “in charge” who are the real data collectors and data generators, not some flimsy activist organization like Amnesty International or the Sierra Club or Earth-Justice that throw around these theories about genocide or global warming without really being grounded in the hard facts of the real business…as usual.
So when the Army Corps of Engineers speaks, conservative justices listen. And so we have a new golden rule: an ounce of gold is worth more than a pristine lake, especially when it’s way over there.”
The convoluted thinking that led to these polluted waters is mind boggling. The majority opinion said the Army Corps of Engineers has the power to determine what the least damaging impact mine waste might have, and that polluting and destroying all of the life in one measly 23 acre lake is better than the alternatives. Apparently the Court did not consider the possibility that there might be lower-impact solutions more costly to the mining company or that upholding the Clean Water Act in its original intent is not an option. As Calvin Coolidge used to say, ‘The business of America is business” and the current Court is all about business as usual.
I never realized that gold was as strategic as, say, oil and gas. The American currency went off the gold standard back in 1934. Sure, we hear about reducing our dependence on foreign oil, but we never hear about reducing our dependence on foreign gold. So why would the Supreme Court go so far as to show support of a gold mine over clean water?
My guess is that the majority of the Supreme Court is subconsciously using a combination of “NIMBY” and supply and demand. Clearly, the lake near Juneau is far removed from, say, the Potomac (remoteness). And there are thousands of lakes up there in Alaska (supply). Besides, Alaska is much bigger than Texas and is closer to the Soviet Union than the lower 48, so why worry about losing a little lake so far removed from civilization as they know it?
Moreover, given the rate at which the Fed is printing money, we may find it necessary to go back on the gold standard at some time in the future just to restore confidence in those Chinese investors who practically own us already. Therefore, deep down inside their combined centers of primordial fear, those conservative judges are just looking out for the future welfare of America. What’s a little lake when you think of all the jobs, the product, the gold flowing into our mint molds, and into our very own shiny bars. The thought feels so solid, so safe, so business-like, so standard!
Perhaps the conservative justices are taking their cue from watching our military leaders testify before Congress about how well the wars are going, thanks to surges and drones, in Iraq and Afghanistan and Pakistan…and eventually in Iran and North Korea…and later in Zimbabwe and off the coast of Somalia, etc. They like to hear from officials “in charge” who are the real data collectors and data generators, not some flimsy activist organization like Amnesty International or the Sierra Club or Earth-Justice that throw around these theories about genocide or global warming without really being grounded in the hard facts of the real business…as usual.
So when the Army Corps of Engineers speaks, conservative justices listen. And so we have a new golden rule: an ounce of gold is worth more than a pristine lake, especially when it’s way over there.”
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Pragmatism or Pussy-footing?
Watching the amateur video vignettes from Iran over the past week, I am tempted to ask, “Why can’t the United States do something to support those poor people crying for democracy?” The truth is, given America’s history in dealing with Iran, boldness is not an option. We need to tread very lightly around the periphery of Iran and not thrust ourselves upon it. We have meddled before with the ultimate consequences of bringing upon it an Islamic state. Our former pragmatic approach of supporting a dictator we could influence over a democracy we couldn’t led directly to the Islamic revolution of 1979. Pragmatism of the moment has unintended consequences, as does any other form of short-term thinking.
Iran is the issue of the moment on the international scene. Health care is the issue at home. The public option is the crux of the issue, and the Republicans have already staked out their “principled” position: private enterprise trumps public welfare at all costs. In the ever fallible belief that private enterprise is more efficient and more trustworthy than anything the government might produce, they are ready to deny a public option of any kind in our health care mix. Even though health care costs are careening out of control under our present circumstances, Republicans are saying essentially “stay the course.” No new ideas need apply.
The Democrats who have safe seats are all for the public option. Those who face mid-term elections or who are from historically red states are equivocating under the aegis of “pragmatism.” They feel they can’t afford to have their names sullied with the “socialistic mud” the Republicans will sling at them, so they are distancing themselves from the public option for fear of losing the independent vote, even through a recent poll says 70 percent of Americans want a public option.
Pragmatism turns out to be more often than not about maintaining the status quo rather than about actual problem-solving. It is about fear of losing the next election rather than about doing what is right. It is about short-term, selfish thinking and not about long-term public benefit.
There are times when it is best to step back and restrain from acting. Iran is a good example before us right now. But when politicians fail to act because they are fearful of the consequences to their longevity in office, then they are more concerned for their own political well-being than they are for the public good. And that approach to problem-solving is no better than the Republicans who hide behind dubious principle to re-supply their campaign coffers with corporate contributions. It is time for the pussy-footing Democrats hiding behind the concept of pragmatism to step up and show courage for the benefit of the American public. The public option for health care deserves your full support because we the public deserve the public option.
Iran is the issue of the moment on the international scene. Health care is the issue at home. The public option is the crux of the issue, and the Republicans have already staked out their “principled” position: private enterprise trumps public welfare at all costs. In the ever fallible belief that private enterprise is more efficient and more trustworthy than anything the government might produce, they are ready to deny a public option of any kind in our health care mix. Even though health care costs are careening out of control under our present circumstances, Republicans are saying essentially “stay the course.” No new ideas need apply.
The Democrats who have safe seats are all for the public option. Those who face mid-term elections or who are from historically red states are equivocating under the aegis of “pragmatism.” They feel they can’t afford to have their names sullied with the “socialistic mud” the Republicans will sling at them, so they are distancing themselves from the public option for fear of losing the independent vote, even through a recent poll says 70 percent of Americans want a public option.
Pragmatism turns out to be more often than not about maintaining the status quo rather than about actual problem-solving. It is about fear of losing the next election rather than about doing what is right. It is about short-term, selfish thinking and not about long-term public benefit.
There are times when it is best to step back and restrain from acting. Iran is a good example before us right now. But when politicians fail to act because they are fearful of the consequences to their longevity in office, then they are more concerned for their own political well-being than they are for the public good. And that approach to problem-solving is no better than the Republicans who hide behind dubious principle to re-supply their campaign coffers with corporate contributions. It is time for the pussy-footing Democrats hiding behind the concept of pragmatism to step up and show courage for the benefit of the American public. The public option for health care deserves your full support because we the public deserve the public option.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
