Our new slogan: "Privatize the Profits, Socialize the Risks"

Explaining the roller-coaster of events over the last couple of months is made more difficult in the midst of this blame storm. Simplifications abound: one camp says the market collapse is attributed to the largess of the government, over-regulation, and constraints on the free market; the other camp says the market collapse can be blamed on a government that was too slow to respond, too anemic in its regulations, and too lenient on the excesses of capitalism. Once again, we return to the cliché debate between Capitalism and Socialism. That’s so last century¸ I think.

Both camps couldn’t be further from an accurate explanation of the mess we’re in. Over the last couple of decades, a hybrid policy has been the accepted norm: privatize the profits, socialize the risk. There has been bi-partisan cooperation towards this goal under Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II. The market is free on the way up, and given a soft cushion at the tax payer’s expense on the way down. The largess of our government and generosity afforded to those who fail due to their own greed and/or shortsightedness fall on people who pay income taxes at all levels. While two thirds of US corporations don’t pay any federal income taxes, wage earning Americans, their children, and their children’s children will be paying for policies that privatize the profits and socialize the risks. They’ll also pay in the form of a dollar that buys less and a bank account that is worth less because we’ll have to resort to printing more money.

What most people understand about the term “socialism” is really in the eye of the beholder. Those auto executives who for the past 30 years have been tremendously successful in fighting off higher fuel efficiency standards in the name of shareholder profits are now asking for government handouts to save them from their own shortsightedness. Privatize the profits and socialize the risks at taxpayer cost. In truth, We the People are socializing their stupidity. We are socializing their assumption that gas prices would stay low forever and that Americans would still drive big on a smaller wallet.

The dynamic works the same for other sectors. While defense contractors (and I used to work for one) have made vast private profits off of the American empire since President Eisenhower warned us about the military industrial complex, the risk comes at the expense of current and future tax payers – not to mention American lives. We now have mercenaries in Iraq that make multiples of what American soldiers make for the same exact work. This isn’t capitalism, this is cronyism.

Concerning our health care system, one has to hold back laughter when various stakeholders ponder with gloom and doom what would happen if a “socialized” system were to take hold in America. I guess they haven’t read about the socialized care we currently provide teachers, veterans, Federal employees, prisoners, the deserving and undeserving poor (Medicaid), and senior citizens (Medicare). Socialized health care in the US is not a matter of when or if, it’s a matter of who, how well, and how much more it costs us than other countries. Doctors fear the prospect of making what their counterparts in other countries make, but fail to see who’s really shafting them in their own country: insurance company profits and wage taxation that supports a bungled empire and an inefficient, fragmented entitlements system. If you want to make money in medicine, become an administrator in the shining towers that house the vast bureaucracies of insurance employees arbitrating on whether or not some poor soul’s condition is preexisting or not. We support an empire of 700 military bases, yet cover fewer people at higher cost than most Western market economies. (For a balanced review of alternate market-based systems, view Frontline's work on this subject, "Sick Around the World." ) Privatize the insurance company profits, but then socialize the increased costs to the taxpayers and lenders when someone declares bankruptcy due to a medical emergency (a situation unheard of in many other Western market economies).

And, as it relates to the environment, profits from unchecked growth and expansion are shared by the shareholders and management, and the costs – the “negative externalities”, the site clean up, the human health costs, the financial costs to future generations – are paid by society and the unwitting wage earners at all income levels. While large agribusinesses make money hand over fist (with government’s help) in pumping cheap corn into every imaginable food item (as seen in corn syrup in processed foods and animal feed that creates meat with higher fat content), it is society who must pay for the costs of prosperity diseases like diabetes and heart disease. Further, while the US government (as well as EU) protects large agribusiness from cheap imports and competition, American citizens pay more for their food while farmers in third world salivate over the prospect of exporting to the US and EU. Guess where our surplus production ends up? US and EU governments purchase surpluses and dump them in third world nations, further undermining prices. I've heard some call this "aid."

I’m quite agnostic about the record of capitalism and socialism in the 20th century. This is not because I lack an opinion in theory, but because we’ve followed a flawed hybrid of these two systems in practice. To use these labels in absolutes amounts to talk-show semantics. So, at this precarious juncture in our history (which a friend described to me as the feeling one gets in those slow seconds right before a high speed collision), maybe we ought to ask ourselves where we are, how we got here, and where we are going as a society. Do we want to continue this one-foot in, one-foot-out approach towards both systems? We need to decide whether we are to become a country like Switzerland or Finland (which oddly rank right next to us in economic competitiveness rankings), for example, or model ourselves after the "free market" in post-Soviet Russia, after the "small government” as seen in Mexico, or perhaps after various 18th century political theories. What is our shining city on a hill: an idea or a self-aggrandizing platitude? Are we still trying to create a more perfect union, or just elect politicians and consume media that tells us we are the perfect union?

I used to engage in "green washing" for major US corporations and mainstream politicians. Corporations (who have same legal status as individual people), want to deceive you into thinking they believe in a higher calling than increasing shareholder value. I - like other Americans in this ownership society - love increasing shareholder value, especially when we own the shares. But not unconditionally and not arbitrarily above all other concerns. What was once a legal vehicle that served at the will of municipality (a corporation of individuals seeking to minimize risk when building a bridge, a dam, school, road, etc), has become a vehicle to spread costs to different lands and times, to increase shareholder value above all other concerns, and to pay their shareholders with the investments of tax payers. Their original social charter has reversed direction: the fiduciary responsibility no longer leads from the corporation to the authorizing municipality, but from the authorizing municipality to the corporation in the form of tax credits, education for the workforce, infrastructure, and – increasingly – corporate welfare and bailouts. If you think you're getting fleeced on April 15th, you most certainly are.

You probably think – incorrectly – that I’m a socialist. In fact, I love the free market, I just don’t think we’ve seen one yet. All of the hallowed benefits of the free market, as seen in Economics 101 text books, are assuming fairness, full information for all actors, full knowledge and accounting of costs (current and future), and access of all stakeholders to their markets. It assumes that when I make an investment, I can look at the books of a company and believe what I see. It assumes that I can have faith in debtors' ability to repay. It assumes creditors are not engaging in predatory lending (some people, like Jesus, might call this usury), providing full information, and offering market competitive rates. It assumes arms length transactions. But as the assumptions grow, the resemblance to reality shrinks.

Looking at the major policies of last couple of decades, the US does not have a true market economy: until corporate money is out of politics it will always harbor crony capitalism. I believe in a free market that operates by the rules set by a government of the people, a government where the voter matters more in policy making than the campaign contribution, where logic and expert opinion weigh more than cold hard cash and raw influence. We have a long way to go. We’re a country that fought off the arbitrary rule of a distant monarch, and we’ll have to become a country that protects its citizens against the arbitrary rule of organizations whose sole purpose is to maximize shareholder value at any cost to current taxpayers, future generations, and our ecological and mental environments. The coal plant in Tennessee certainly increased shareholder value by building a cheaper retention facility to hold back toxic coal ash from the citizens and watersheds downstream, but maybe there is a higher value than just boosting the shareholders' value? If it is true - as the classic libertarian argument goes - that government should only be where The Market fails to provide or protect, isn't the environment one of these many areas?

Let me leave you with one example of the free market in action, where a brave citizen knew that he too deserves a literal seat at the table just like other "individuals," or corporations as they're more commonly known. The Utah student decided that he too deserved to bid on the same land that the oil and gas industries can bid on: http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20081223_bush_and_the_monkey_wrench_guy/.

When did we forget that social capital is part and parcel of capitalism? What we need now more than ever is true conservative leadership, like the leadership of Teddy Roosevelt, a "conservative" who saw that we must conserve our market system from it’s own abuses and saw that we must conserve our natural environment for future generations. Today, what are we trying to conserve? The myth that we can have our tax cut and spend it too? The myth that we can continue to buy more and produce less? The myth that inputs are infinite and costs are invisible? The myth of the City on a Hill?

© Bjorn Beer, 2008

Romantic Comedies (and my hungry plot expectations)

Six years ago, my wife and I were on our first date, and I distinctly remember our lively conversation on how Hollywood and our advertising-saturated culture play a likely role in what expectations we have for our own lives. If Happiness = Realization - Expectation, can certain media patterns elevate the Expectations side of the equation? Can increased expectations of plot resolution and "happy endings" decrease our Happiness?

Some evidence supports that point. Here is an excellent article that makes one consider the effects (for good or for ill) that the medium of movies (romantic comedies, in this case) can have on the way we view the world: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7784366.stm

If watching romantic comedies can heighten expectations of the ideal relationship playing out in our own lives, this begs larger questions: do pithy one-liners and laugh tracks from sitcoms create a lowest-common denominator sense of humor that never proceeds past sarcastic zingers and caustic come-backs? (Does everybody really love Raymond, or just the way he talks to his wife?) Further, since there are no "ahhs and umms" and non sequiturs in the tight, smart dialogue heard in TV and movies, are we less likely to be random and free in our own speech and more likely to be afraid of "random," unscripted, or candid thoughts? To get really philosophical, does having watched MacGyver as a child make one more likely to carry duct tape in the car? (I barely know how to open up the hood if I had to repair a hose in my car, but I have duct tape ready for that moment when I can fix or create the device that saves the day.)

This dynamic also plays itself out in how we get our news, which I believe is even more important than the content of the news. Does watching the captivating, entertaining, and flashy graphics and stories on CNN, MSNBC, or FOX make one more predisposed to adult ADD, an argumentative disposition, or an over-simplified worldview? Does the name calling and vitriol that the ratings demand trickle down into the way we talk to our own family and friends about the matters that matter? My anecdotal evidence is a resounding, yes.

I've noticed that people who watch the polarized "cockfighting" that cable news shows call "debate" are more likely to break down a complex issue into bite-sized, polarized “truths.” For example: does someone who is habituated to seeing the world in stark, simple contrasts of black/white, right/wrong, left/right, liberal/conservative, us/them develop an impaired understanding of the real dynamics of our political system? I laugh every time I hear people say things completely contrary to facts, like "the Republicans are committed to small government" or "the Democrats are anti-business." [laugh track] These two commonly held beliefs persist despite abundant evidence to the contrary from the last 16 years.

When you turn on the TV and view it from a sociological/anthropological perspective, it's no surprise why many talk in polarized absolutes. We may be adults, but we continue to mimic and ape the language of others who we consider to be authorities. For example, isn't it funny how so many in the last few months attribute our economic malaise to One Singular Cause? "No, it was the failed policies of the Bush administration." Or, "No, you're wrong; it's Carter and all those government programs to help poor people get credit." "No, it was the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act that happened under Clinton." "No, it is the unsustainable leverage ratios and a speculative asset bubble built on fallacy of ever-increasing home values." And on and on and on.

These “chronic simplifiers” are simply echoing the polarized views they hear in the dominant media. In reality, these squabbles amount to petty semantics when you consider that, for the past couple of decades, it's been the same forces - under sundry banners - that have been hollowing out the American middle class and spreading wealth up and out. Hidden safely behind the labels and over-simplified explanations is the scary truth that there are more people and concepts to blame than you have fingers to point with.

Going beyond content to explore format, the medium certainly defines (or confines) the message. How much substance can you really fit in before the next commercial break? How entertaining must the news story be to carry me unwitting into the arms of a commercial, to see what object will bring a wide smile to my face, bring me closer to my family, and make me dance on clouds? (You know what? Come to think of it, I will ask my doctor about Lunesta.) I’m not a technology-fearing Luddite, but I know that we need to realize that time spent in front of the TV is a complex, commercial relationship that may not have our interests or “the truth” in mind. Commercial interests frequently trump quality of content.

Where I'm overly cynical, others are hopelessly naive. A while back, I worked in crafting messages for pharmaceutical companies, for example, telling them which message works best to push the most pills, and which TV shows at a certain hour will deliver the most captive audience for that polled demographic. The people I worked with have this down to a cynical science that keeps people watching and keeps people buying. "Yes sir," I would say, "I think you should make this ad buy for [insert erectile dysfunction pill here] during the O'Reilly Factor because the target demographic of the 45 to 55 year old Angry White Male is more likely to watch this than other shows at the same hour." [seriously, I’m not making this stuff up!] Whether you're trying to appeal to "organically aware mothers aged 25 to 35" to buy a certain type of "green" soap, or convincing people that CO2 is not a threat because its "what trees need to breathe", it works all the same. It's worse for political ads, and frighteningly brilliant how we narrowed in on viewers' fears, prejudices, and - sadly - hopes. But, to see these chessmaster puppeteers for what they are is the first step to cut ones own marionette strings.

As we all know, nuance, logic, and evidence don't make for good ratings in the mainstream media. This is no surprise, as we all know which of these two scenarios would get better ratings: (1) seeing two blowhards duel it out like some sort of boxing match, or (2) having a 30 minute, balanced segment on how our legal system of campaign finance amounts to a form of institutionalized bribery that backs both parties at the cost of voters' interests. Scenario number two is either too troubling or too boring to pull in a high Nielson rating for the night, however accurate it may be. Now, if Obama makes good on his promise to take on these entrenched interests that have captured both parties in the past couple of decades, that will be some great made-for-TV action! If you think Ultimate Fighting is entertaining, tune in for a real fight….

Going beyond the info-tainment news, many plot constructs have become standard fare in our media diets: happy endings, deus ex machina, easily resolved conundrums in a 90 minute format, Mr. Perfect, Miss Perfect, The One for Me, The Quick Fix, The Last Man Standing, the Good Guys Always Win by Default, The Final Battle, etc. Returning to the original question, can the undiscerning viewer's perception of the greater world beyond the couch be influenced by these common plot constructs? Central to purpose of this blog, does seeing endless consumptive possibilities play out on TV and movies hide the ecological and emotional costs of our modern lifestyles?

In the last couple of months, I've thought about how my own hungry plot expectations relate to my perception of current events. Here's a drama for you: Obama is up against the inertia of 535 members of Congress who cling to their seats in a perpetual campaign that costs more every year. Obama is up against 40,000 or so lobbyists and their boatloads cash. And Obama is up against the complacency that many of us have that the system will reform itself just because we got the right guy into the office. I am excited about the possibilities Obama brings, but I also know that people vastly underestimate the bi-partisan forces that Obama faces.

So, does my excitement about Obama play into some construct I have, of the lone, messianic hero who rides to Washington on his modern day Bucephalus? Do I harbor the expectation of the philosopher-king, who upon arriving in Washington, will unsheathe his sword, and - with one decisive blow - cut the Gordian Knot that is the entrenched system of legalized "pay to play?" Do I have an almost Biblical hope that Obama will walk into the Temple of our Democracy, overturn the tables, crack the whip, and throw the influence-peddlers out?

I hope our expectations are fulfilled. But hope gets us what exactly, if it's not backed by sustained grassroots pressure? I'm optimistic enough to hope, but also realistic enough to know that "He" will not change everything by himself, and believe that the success "his" whole movement supports that point. In fact, it takes you and me, seeing where our representatives in Congress (both Democrat and Republican alike) get their money www.opensecrets.org .Yes, your vote does count; but, sadly, someone's money speaks louder. To "form a more perfect union" and continue to improve upon our grand experiment in democracy, we must continue to insist that money is not speech.

© Bjorn Beer, 2008

Follow the Money...

This is the best explanation I've read explaining the "principled" stand that certain lawmakers are taking against the bailout (I agree with their stand, but for completely different reasons). Very interesting:

http://www.slate.com/id/2206525/

Commitment to free market principles? Not so fast, this is the same group of "fiscal conservatives" who backed large increases in both defense spending and non-defense discretionary spending over past 8 years. Conservatism via bankruptcy, is the real dynamic at play.

On this issue, like so many others that effect sustainability (e.g. the ethanol hoax, the bi-partisan commitment to the largess of the farm bill, and "clean" coal technology) all is illuminated if you follow the money trail and go back to their district.

As Tip O'Neil said, "all politics is local."

What Would Jesus Buy?

Having been exposed to the Southern Baptist tradition growing up, I repeatedly find myself returning to the question, "what would Jesus buy/drive/etc." It's a revealing question - not for any specific answer you can apply to your consumption patterns 2000 years later - but instead because it suggests that many Christians you meet have lost touch with the revolutionary nature and the spirit of Christ's message.

Christmas, which ironically started out as a pagan holiday, reveals its true materialistic splendor today. Regrettably, the emergence of what I call "Prosperity Gospel" (in the fashion self-help gurus like Pastor Joel Osteen) further ingrains this consumerist worldview: God wants us to be wealthy.

Really? Do they get that from some apocryphal book that's not in the standard New Testament, or do they just fail to read the New Testament in the first place?

If "the Book" isn't your cup of tea, it turns out there is a movie on this very topic, What Would Jesus Buy. http://wwjbmovie.com/ The trailer looks like it might be worth a view.

What a great concept, and great question to ask one another. If we are celebrating the birth of someone who told us "blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth" and "it's easier for a camel to walk through eye of a needle than for rich man to enter heaven," we ought to stand outside ourselves and critically view our own culture, especially those who profess to walk in Jesus' path. For those who still use the occasion to celebrate Jesus' birth, why is consumption and acquisition favored over volunteerism and charity for the vast majority of followers?

Of course, we all want a full stocking and a well-stocked tree, but maybe - given the collision course we are on with ecological reality - it's time to either apply the lessons of the past or develop a more sustainable vision of the future. Although I believe this can come from various faith and non-faith traditions, I don't want to throw the baby out with the holy water. In fact, all I want for Christmas is for "Christians" to turn off their TV and read the New Testament and the lessons it offers on humility and minimalism. Start with the Sermon on the Mount: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sermon_on_the_Mount

But, for the rest of us, rather than degrade and dilute the revolutionary, non-materialistic message of Jesus Christ that both believers and non-believers alike can find wisdom in, let's just call Christmas by what it has become: Winter Solstice.

© Bjorn Beer, 2008

Random Quotes

"I'd put my money on the sun and solar energy. What a source of power! I hope that we don't have to wait 'til oil and coal run out before we tackle that" - Thomas A. Edison (1847-1931)

"Anyone who believes you can have infinite exponential growth on a finite planet is either a madman or an economist." Kenneth Boulding

"Endless growth is the ideology of the cancer cell." Edward Abbey