Note: Written in response to Paul Mulshine's column in The Star-Ledger, Newark, New Jersey, titled: "Dubya's dubious Dubai deal," Thursday, February 23, 2006.
Whoever is writing headlines for you ... buy 'em a beer!
I read Farmer's and Moran's columns this morning (Friday)--and others in other newspapers ... mostly you are the only one who is getting it!
There is a chain of security that starts when the cargo (the actual "stuff") is assembled for shipping and continues to when it is received for "use" at its final destination. The port operator has an overarching operational understanding of that path ... with the concurrent understanding of the weak AND strong points. AND it actually is in charge of the security of the cargo at least while it is on the receiving dock from the time the longshoreman unload it from the ship to the time when it is hauled off the dock on a truck or train.
Even a little ol' farm boy from Minnesota like me knows that whoever controls access to the cargo AFTER it has cleared custom and the Coast Guard and BEFORE it is delivered to its final destination has a significant role to play in securing the cargo ... how many drug smuggling movies do I have to watch to "get it?"
So the argument that it doesn't matter who is the port management company is bogus on the face of it. This is not the same as saying that the UAE company is a bad company.
It does point up the fact that after almost 4-1/2 years of a us vs. them, good vs. evil, black and white depiction of the war against terrorism, it is a wee bit of a stretch to rubber stamp this deal without something more than a perfunctory review. If Bush (#43) doesn't understand the inherent difference between Great Britain as an ally vs. UAE as an ally vs. South Korea as an Ally vs. China as an ally ... to say nothing of the different nuances in our hemisphere between Chile, Mexico, Venezuela, Cuba, etc. ... then Bush ... well, he is as dumb as I think he is. This is not racism or ethnocentrism. It is realism.
And if the Bush Administration doesn't get it ... then their whole anti-terrorism campaign has been rhetorical rather than principled ... and that is what Carolee Adams and other thinking conservatives recognized immediately: this was such a HUGE tear in the weave of the logic that it exposed the falsity of its fabrication.
By the way, does the UAE recognize Israel?
Friday, February 24, 2006
Letter to Thomas L Friedman, NY Times OpEd columnist
Note: Written in response to Friedman's OpEd column, "War of the Worlds", in today's—February 24, 2006—NY Times.
Why do you lie to us? Are you such a house slave of wealth and power that you hold us, the common citizen, in contempt?
The port operator (talk with people who run American Stevedoring Inc—http://www.asiterminals.com/) is in charge of securing the cargo while it is on the dock from the time U.S. longshoremen unload the cargo from the ship onto the dock until it leaves the dock on a truck.
With not more than 5% of the cargo we receive being inspected, the entire chain of control—from point of origin of the cargo itself (before it is even readied for shipping) to the point of delivery—needs to be as tightly controlled as possible. It is a bogus argument to say that things will not change when "things" are so bad in terms of security that they should change, and change—like in "improve"—radically.
Placing ownership of the management contract at the bottom of a list of security problems does not make it "not a problem". It points a powerful light at the list of problems!
By the way, there is no such thing as "free" trade in markets where money is the medium of exchange. There is, however, the simple truth: "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time."
I would think that you would want to be remembered for trying to get at the truth in some objective fashion, rather than the "truth" as the designated conventional wisdom churned out by the holders of wealth and power to quiet the common folk.
Why do you lie to us? Are you such a house slave of wealth and power that you hold us, the common citizen, in contempt?
The port operator (talk with people who run American Stevedoring Inc—http://www.asiterminals.com/) is in charge of securing the cargo while it is on the dock from the time U.S. longshoremen unload the cargo from the ship onto the dock until it leaves the dock on a truck.
With not more than 5% of the cargo we receive being inspected, the entire chain of control—from point of origin of the cargo itself (before it is even readied for shipping) to the point of delivery—needs to be as tightly controlled as possible. It is a bogus argument to say that things will not change when "things" are so bad in terms of security that they should change, and change—like in "improve"—radically.
Placing ownership of the management contract at the bottom of a list of security problems does not make it "not a problem". It points a powerful light at the list of problems!
By the way, there is no such thing as "free" trade in markets where money is the medium of exchange. There is, however, the simple truth: "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time."
I would think that you would want to be remembered for trying to get at the truth in some objective fashion, rather than the "truth" as the designated conventional wisdom churned out by the holders of wealth and power to quiet the common folk.
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
Who are the fools?
In a letter to the Editor published in today's NY Times, Professor Christopher Woodruff, Associate Professor of Economics, Director of Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies , at University of California, San Diego wrote:
If someone dumped sludge in our yard, we would expect them to clean it up. Then why are power plants east of New Jersey allowed to pollute New Jersey's air? ... for example. Who should pay for the damage done in New Jersey by the pollution produced in Pennslyvania or Ohio? Is this a God thing?
There are so many examples of the absurdities inherent in the concept "unfettered markets" that I am left with the observation that either fools are in charge or those who are in charge think the rest of us are fools.
"Why do drug companies feel so strongly about unfettered markets on the revenue side, when they rely on subsidies on the cost side? Don't we taxpayers, too, deserve some return on our investment?"Why indeed are corporations with power over markets so loath to pay the costs of earning their revenue? And it isn't just indirect costs they try to avoid. They seek to avoid direct costs as well ... unless we define direct costs as those costs that are paid out of revenues ... and if the corporations can get away with not paying for something, then it becomes an indirect cost ... that is, someone else pays.
If someone dumped sludge in our yard, we would expect them to clean it up. Then why are power plants east of New Jersey allowed to pollute New Jersey's air? ... for example. Who should pay for the damage done in New Jersey by the pollution produced in Pennslyvania or Ohio? Is this a God thing?
There are so many examples of the absurdities inherent in the concept "unfettered markets" that I am left with the observation that either fools are in charge or those who are in charge think the rest of us are fools.
Friday, February 10, 2006
Markets work ... within limits
Don't get me wrong (see Debunking Myth #2: The free market), markets work. It's just that there is no such thing as a "free market" except in some tightly controlled economic arenas. Inside the boundaries of these competitive markets the supply and demand curves work well to set prices as if an Invisible Hand was at play ... like sand passing through a funnel falls into a cone-shaped mound under a fairly wide range of conditions.
But consider for a moment Vice President Cheney calling for allowing free market forces to set the price of oil and determine the vehicles we drive ... while the Republicans pass specific tax breaks for the oil industry ... and the supply and price of oil are set by the oil cartel.
And is there anything MORE regimented than access to the floor of the New York Stock Exchange?
It is the realization that in establishing markets based on money as the medium of exchange, we effectively alter the fundamental nature of the economic landscape with profound immediate effects for those who have to undergo change from whatever ways and means of exchange were in effect previously. When we who would impose the change are not willing to pay the cost of our choice (exercised through power), we create a fundamental distortion in the economic landscape.
And we can begin to see the limitations of money-based markets in which goods and services are exchanged for cash ... all the costs of bringing those goods and services to market are not paid for at the time of purchase ... including the cost of establishing the market.
Money-based markets may be the best we can do, but they are instituted, controlled, and run by human beings. They are not given to us by God. I mean, get a grip, please.
More to follow.
But consider for a moment Vice President Cheney calling for allowing free market forces to set the price of oil and determine the vehicles we drive ... while the Republicans pass specific tax breaks for the oil industry ... and the supply and price of oil are set by the oil cartel.
And is there anything MORE regimented than access to the floor of the New York Stock Exchange?
It is the realization that in establishing markets based on money as the medium of exchange, we effectively alter the fundamental nature of the economic landscape with profound immediate effects for those who have to undergo change from whatever ways and means of exchange were in effect previously. When we who would impose the change are not willing to pay the cost of our choice (exercised through power), we create a fundamental distortion in the economic landscape.
And we can begin to see the limitations of money-based markets in which goods and services are exchanged for cash ... all the costs of bringing those goods and services to market are not paid for at the time of purchase ... including the cost of establishing the market.
Money-based markets may be the best we can do, but they are instituted, controlled, and run by human beings. They are not given to us by God. I mean, get a grip, please.
More to follow.
Monday, February 06, 2006
Debunking Myth #2: The free market
There is no such thing as a free market. Get over it. It doesn't exist in the real world.
Think of it like this: The free market of Economists is like using a funnel in a laboratory to pour sand into cones on the top of a lab table ... free of wind and waves and freezing temperatures ... as everyone stands around and oohs and aahs over the Invisible Hand shaping the grains of sand into a perfect cone as they come out of the spout of the funnel.
Try doing it on an Oregon beach in March.
Examples of free market supply and demand curves deal with sales of programs at Super Bowls. The real world has to contend with mothers and fathers sharing porridge with their children.
Going from an local agrarian village culture to a global free market culture has killed a lot of children.
All this so entrepreneurs can predict the optimum amount of grain to deliver to village markets so that the demand allows a profit sufficient to attract farmers to grow the grain, shippers to transport the grain, and retailers to sell the grain, i.e. provide the optimum supply ... to replace the village economy in which the villagers did this for themselves.
Isn't anyone else scratching their head in puzzlement?
Seems like we could have tried to figure out how to do this without killing so many children.
But when someone can get others to pour their sand through a funnel, and charge them a fee ... well, it's easier to control the funnels than it is to control the sand ... and you show people that funnels work ... on still a day, on a quiet beach ... and make it against the law to pour sand without funnels ... "Stay in line there. Don't go wandering around the beach. Get your sand from Funnel A and take it to Funnel B and pour it in. Others will take it from there. Yes, yes, you'll all have an opportunity to get and pour sand if you just follow the rules. No, no, you can't go build sand castles with the Scandinavians. Damn it, now the Bolivians are going over there." .... god, how did we ever get to this point.
I can't help but wonder what's going to happen when the next storm hits the beach ...
It isn't that markets don't work. They do, within limitations. It is just that when those who control and manipulate the limitations for their own benefit and then try to say their are no such limitations that can be controlled or manipulated ... or that such an ideal exists and we need to come as close to the ideal as possible ... when limits—and the need for them—are inherent in the very structure of a money based economy ...
But if you are going to print programs for sale at the Super Bowl and want to maximize your profits ... well, Economists have some useful calculations for you to use. They just don't work very good for feeding a family in Nairobi.
Think of it like this: The free market of Economists is like using a funnel in a laboratory to pour sand into cones on the top of a lab table ... free of wind and waves and freezing temperatures ... as everyone stands around and oohs and aahs over the Invisible Hand shaping the grains of sand into a perfect cone as they come out of the spout of the funnel.
Try doing it on an Oregon beach in March.
Examples of free market supply and demand curves deal with sales of programs at Super Bowls. The real world has to contend with mothers and fathers sharing porridge with their children.
Going from an local agrarian village culture to a global free market culture has killed a lot of children.
All this so entrepreneurs can predict the optimum amount of grain to deliver to village markets so that the demand allows a profit sufficient to attract farmers to grow the grain, shippers to transport the grain, and retailers to sell the grain, i.e. provide the optimum supply ... to replace the village economy in which the villagers did this for themselves.
Isn't anyone else scratching their head in puzzlement?
Seems like we could have tried to figure out how to do this without killing so many children.
But when someone can get others to pour their sand through a funnel, and charge them a fee ... well, it's easier to control the funnels than it is to control the sand ... and you show people that funnels work ... on still a day, on a quiet beach ... and make it against the law to pour sand without funnels ... "Stay in line there. Don't go wandering around the beach. Get your sand from Funnel A and take it to Funnel B and pour it in. Others will take it from there. Yes, yes, you'll all have an opportunity to get and pour sand if you just follow the rules. No, no, you can't go build sand castles with the Scandinavians. Damn it, now the Bolivians are going over there." .... god, how did we ever get to this point.
I can't help but wonder what's going to happen when the next storm hits the beach ...
It isn't that markets don't work. They do, within limitations. It is just that when those who control and manipulate the limitations for their own benefit and then try to say their are no such limitations that can be controlled or manipulated ... or that such an ideal exists and we need to come as close to the ideal as possible ... when limits—and the need for them—are inherent in the very structure of a money based economy ...
But if you are going to print programs for sale at the Super Bowl and want to maximize your profits ... well, Economists have some useful calculations for you to use. They just don't work very good for feeding a family in Nairobi.
The most radical action I can take ...
The most radical action I can take ... if we define "radical" as meaning "advocating extreme measures to retain or restore a political state of affairs" ... is to act as a citizen representing my interests as a person with inalienable rights, freely embedded and engaged in a community of my own choosing (in other words, a community I could leave if I so chose) ...
This is, in itself, the noblest political action. This is the highest form of public service ... the role of the free citizen. It's downhill from there to the Presidency with fetters, the chains of the expectations of others, steadily restricting a person's sphere of personal freedom. (Note: And freedom is NOT having choices about which pair of jeans to buy or wear.)
My gawd, how far we have strayed from our philosophical roots in ancient Greece as well as in the founding of our own nation.
This is, in itself, the noblest political action. This is the highest form of public service ... the role of the free citizen. It's downhill from there to the Presidency with fetters, the chains of the expectations of others, steadily restricting a person's sphere of personal freedom. (Note: And freedom is NOT having choices about which pair of jeans to buy or wear.)
My gawd, how far we have strayed from our philosophical roots in ancient Greece as well as in the founding of our own nation.
Debunking Myth #1: The 2-party system
We—here in these United States of America—no more have a 2-party political system than the Tooth Fairy buys infant teeth or the Easter Bunny hides eggs.
We have two major sets (teams) of politicians in contests for political offices and all the spoils that go with these offices—not to serve the public (as in real "servants of the public" for the collective good) but to advance their personal political careers. As soon as a candidate starts believing that the first step in serving the public is to get her/himself elected, the public is no longer served.
What would a real 2-party system look like from my point of view? It would be divided along the lines of the dynamic dialectic inherent in capitalism, between the interests of entrepreneurial ownership on one side and labor on the other. ( Note: I personally believe it is this dynamic dialectic that has produced the great advances in freedom, knowledge, and the standard of living for the average person in societies where the dialectic has been kept in rational equilibrium by an active participatory democracy for all.)
By the way, "dialectic" as used here is simply the the tension or struggle resulting from the opposition between two sides to an issue. The "dynamic dialectic inherent in capitalism" is the tension over how the wealth produced by labor is to be divided between entrepreneurial ownership and labor.
The problem for capitalism is how to keep the dialectic in rational equilibrium. As I wrote in my note, I believe the best means is an active participatory democracy for all.
Some assertions:
1. Simply having the right to vote does NOT define a democracy.
2. Being able to listen to and read "news" is not freedom of speech.
3. If citizens (we, the people) abrogate our active participation in the governance of our community or, in other words, do not interact actively with our neighbors in the political affairs of our community at all levels, then we are not doing our part in preserving democracy by effectively representing our interests. This will in turn upset the rational equilibrium which capitalism needs to avoid falling into monopolism (entrepreneurial owners dictating governing policy) on one hand or communism (workers dictating governing policy) on the other. (Note: I purposely avoid the use of "socialism" because there can be rational public ownership of shared resources agreed to by both interests ... highways, ports, and airports are some resources that I think we can agree are most often best developed under public ownership.)
Addendum: More to follow on this and other myths.
We have two major sets (teams) of politicians in contests for political offices and all the spoils that go with these offices—not to serve the public (as in real "servants of the public" for the collective good) but to advance their personal political careers. As soon as a candidate starts believing that the first step in serving the public is to get her/himself elected, the public is no longer served.
What would a real 2-party system look like from my point of view? It would be divided along the lines of the dynamic dialectic inherent in capitalism, between the interests of entrepreneurial ownership on one side and labor on the other. ( Note: I personally believe it is this dynamic dialectic that has produced the great advances in freedom, knowledge, and the standard of living for the average person in societies where the dialectic has been kept in rational equilibrium by an active participatory democracy for all.)
By the way, "dialectic" as used here is simply the the tension or struggle resulting from the opposition between two sides to an issue. The "dynamic dialectic inherent in capitalism" is the tension over how the wealth produced by labor is to be divided between entrepreneurial ownership and labor.
The problem for capitalism is how to keep the dialectic in rational equilibrium. As I wrote in my note, I believe the best means is an active participatory democracy for all.
Some assertions:
1. Simply having the right to vote does NOT define a democracy.
2. Being able to listen to and read "news" is not freedom of speech.
3. If citizens (we, the people) abrogate our active participation in the governance of our community or, in other words, do not interact actively with our neighbors in the political affairs of our community at all levels, then we are not doing our part in preserving democracy by effectively representing our interests. This will in turn upset the rational equilibrium which capitalism needs to avoid falling into monopolism (entrepreneurial owners dictating governing policy) on one hand or communism (workers dictating governing policy) on the other. (Note: I purposely avoid the use of "socialism" because there can be rational public ownership of shared resources agreed to by both interests ... highways, ports, and airports are some resources that I think we can agree are most often best developed under public ownership.)
Addendum: More to follow on this and other myths.
Friday, February 03, 2006
A butterfly flapping my wings ...
Some ground rules:
(1.) I am not interested in starting a movement. I am interested in being a butterfly flapping my wings in China ... whether or not the motion contributes to a hurricane in California.
(2.) I am interested in living a fully engaged creative life, which I believe is the highest good of human existence. The very essence of creativity is the maximizing of choice, having the option to choose to create something that satisfies my sense of awe, my wonderment. The fully engaged creative life is one of choosing what ought to be and then working to make it what is.
(3.) Maximizing of choice in the fully engaged creative life REQUIRES engaging/involving others in the activity. It is IMPOSSIBLE to do it in isolation.
(4.) In order for this engagement of others to "work" MOST effectively, I believe I must allow the others (and actively participate in fostering for the others) to have the same opportunity to live this life as I do ... thereby doing exactly what life does, extend opportunity throughout the gene-pool allowing survival of the fittest.
I do not think we need another "movement". I think we need to apply these ground rules to all movements. The joyful awareness of creatively engaging the cosmos will attract others ... or it won't and which case the potential of humanity as I see it will be lost ... for this epoch.
But to try to organize/impose a system from some type of leadership (Nietzsche's "Will to System") destroys the social environment for maximizing of choice in the fully engaged creative life. The trouble with most patriarchal testosterone driven "king-of-the-hill" paradigms is that they totally destroy Camelot's merry, merry month of May.
Maybe we citizens should simply concentrate on what we do best--like the butterfly flapping its wings--without trying to control the hurricane that results in the chaos of our world. Maybe it is when we don't do our part, that things get out of whack.
(1.) I am not interested in starting a movement. I am interested in being a butterfly flapping my wings in China ... whether or not the motion contributes to a hurricane in California.
(2.) I am interested in living a fully engaged creative life, which I believe is the highest good of human existence. The very essence of creativity is the maximizing of choice, having the option to choose to create something that satisfies my sense of awe, my wonderment. The fully engaged creative life is one of choosing what ought to be and then working to make it what is.
(3.) Maximizing of choice in the fully engaged creative life REQUIRES engaging/involving others in the activity. It is IMPOSSIBLE to do it in isolation.
(4.) In order for this engagement of others to "work" MOST effectively, I believe I must allow the others (and actively participate in fostering for the others) to have the same opportunity to live this life as I do ... thereby doing exactly what life does, extend opportunity throughout the gene-pool allowing survival of the fittest.
I do not think we need another "movement". I think we need to apply these ground rules to all movements. The joyful awareness of creatively engaging the cosmos will attract others ... or it won't and which case the potential of humanity as I see it will be lost ... for this epoch.
But to try to organize/impose a system from some type of leadership (Nietzsche's "Will to System") destroys the social environment for maximizing of choice in the fully engaged creative life. The trouble with most patriarchal testosterone driven "king-of-the-hill" paradigms is that they totally destroy Camelot's merry, merry month of May.
Maybe we citizens should simply concentrate on what we do best--like the butterfly flapping its wings--without trying to control the hurricane that results in the chaos of our world. Maybe it is when we don't do our part, that things get out of whack.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)