Memorial Day Thoughts

Memorial Day is a time to reflect on the country, on where it’s been, and where it is headed.  I was watching a documentary recently on the Cape Verde islands.  We think we have poverty in America.  Perhaps we do.  But that is nothing compared to the poverty in Cape Verde.  Or Honduras.  Or much of Africa, or Central and Southern America, or large parts of Asia.  Billions of individuals simply living from day to day.  In America, we fret and worry about whether our economy will take a tumble, and have what we feel to be justified concerns over our economic and political stability.  But too often we forget how much we have been given.

With this in mind, there are many things in the American tradition I am grateful for.

I am grateful for a tradition of liberty and freedom that our country was founded on, that all are endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights.

I am grateful for freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and the freedom to assemble.  I’m most grateful for the accompanying freedom of religion which allowed for the establishment of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

I am grateful for checks and balances, and for separation of powers.

I am grateful for the portion of my paycheck I can take home.

I am grateful for private property.

I am grateful for the gold standard, that it was actually in force in this country for over a century.

I am grateful for a brain to use.

I am grateful for times of peace, and for ambassadors of peace.

In short, I am grateful for many freedoms and liberties I may take for granted.  But all is not well.  I am no Pollyanna.

I am not grateful for encroachments upon our liberties, including the fourth amendment: unlawful search and seizure.  The PATRIOT Act has really done a number on this one.

I am not grateful for the big chunk of my paycheck I cannot take home.

I am not grateful for an overtaxed and over-regulated economy.

I am not grateful for the general apathy (or even support) towards our growing military-industrial complex.

I am not grateful for a growing feeling of militarism, or militant nationalism, that we somehow equate with true patriotism.  For instance, to “support the troops” now means to support a certain foreign policy ideology rather than to actually support the general welfare of the troops.

I am not grateful for the flood of pornography, of obscenity, of profanity, of graphic and gratuitous violence that seems nearly inescapable today.

I am not grateful for the general sense that war in an inescapable, inexorable and necessary (for some, even beneficial) temporal force used to shape history, rather than the avoidable tragedy is always turns out to be.  We too often forget the high costs of war, both at home and abroad, and the nature of fallen mortals who decide what wars to wage, and how to wage them.

Finally, to end on a positive note, let me say that I am most grateful for hope, for education, and for the possibilities of change, of restoration, and repentance, both individually and as a nation.

What are you grateful for?

Thoughts on Questioning Oil Executives

It’s frustrating to see our head lawmakers head down the failed path of Soviet Russia: increased central economic planning.  Since when is the government the best organ to question business ethics, considering the copious lobbying scandals in recent years?  For some reason, few bat an eye when Senators somehow ascertain or can determine what level or profits are reasonable for one of the biggest U.S. industries.  How can they really know what is “reasonable?”  Do I want the government telling me my company’s profits are unreasonable, or telling me my salary is “too high?”  This is sheer madness.

This is really the central premise of communism, or central economic planning: some wise individual, or oligarchy, better yet, can ascertain prices and fix supply and demand more accurately than the market can.

This fallacy is a proven failure.  It was proved in Ludwig von Mises 1920′s work on Socialism, and has been proven many times over as central economic planning has failed to compete with free enterprise.  So why are we turning to this failed dinosaur?  How can adversarial Senators really know when prices are “too high,” or even the reasons for those high prices?

The idea that profits can be skimmed off, or are some excess that can be removed at will, is a Marxist notion that the owners’ and the proletariat are inextricably at odds.  Are we really Marxist?  Does Marxism accurately describe our world view?

The height of my frustration probably came at questions like this one by Dick Durbin: “Does it trouble any of you when you see what you are doing to us, the profits that you are taking, the costs that you are imposing on working families, small businesses, truckers, farmers?”

How can a Senator presiding over the largest deficit spending in history really say this with a straight face?  How many hundreds of billions of dollars are being confiscated by the taxpayers, even by low and middle-income families? For the average low and middle-income family, how much is spent on taxes, regulatory, and compliance costs?  How much money is being literally taken from us by Congress?

For a high-income individual, how much is spent on providing jobs and services for lower income individuals?

How much lower could prices be if taxes were lower?

On the other hand, what happens to the money they make?  Where do they invest it?  Who benefits?  Oil companies, including the executives that preside over them, have a job to do: preserve shareholder value and provide a high value service to the customer (that’s you and me).  That’s it.

If Congress thinks there’s some sort of collusion going on, then for goodness sakes make it easier for a new competitor to prove their point by providing a high quality service at a lower competitive price, thus siphoning away money, profits, market share from these supposedly greedy oil companies and the executives that head them.

Why does greed come and go with the business cycle?  Why were these oil executives not greedy in the 90′s, for instance?

To Congress, I say stop being hypocritical.  Focus on your own problems and that which you can solve (What can Congress do to decrease oil prices, or make it easier for low and middle-income families to make it?), not inextricable market forces beyond your control.

Appeasement and Talking with One’s Enemies

There’s a big hubub over Obama’s comments about talking with Iran.  The big news, to me, is that he would consider talking with Iran.  (Don’t we talk with North Korea?  But maybe that’s completely different.)

To the neoconservative-dominated establishment GOP, this is near blasphemous.  President Bush condemned such ideas in a recent address in Israel.  He used the dreaded word “appeasement” to characterize his feelings on the matter.  His reasoning: Iran is linked to groups and organizations labeled as terrorist organizations by the U.S. government (or parts of the U.S. government).  Thus, to talk with Iran is to talk with terrorists.  We don’t talk with them.  We don’t negotiate with them.  And so the story goes.

But what is wrong with talking to individuals, or even to a hostile government?  What is so abominable about talking with one’s enemy?  Didn’t we talk with Stalin and Kruschev and Mao?  If, as Jesus teaches, we are to love our enemies, won’t talking with them make it that much easier?  If we love them, won’t we be inclined to at least listen to them (and I don’t mean sounds bites of political talks as one hears on “Glenn Beck”)?  To at least talk with them?

More to the point, why is bombing or other direct, aggressive military action more desirable than talking?  (By aggressive military action, I am referring to incidents that have already occurred, like the American provocation of Iran naval vessels right off the coast of Iran: why are we provoking them?)

Talking does not mean anything more than talking, listening, and establishing closer diplomatic ties.  Usually this is associated with more peace, more trade, more mutual travel, etc.  Why is this less-than-desirable?  Wouldn’t an Iranian population that learns the value of Western civilization the old-fashioned, peaceful way (through trade and peaceful example) be more sympathetic to our interests?  We don’t have to sell them our nuclear secrets, or give them proprietary military technology.  Nor need we do anything except talk and listen.  Why is this so unthinkable?  Why will we not even consider it?

And why is talking about pre-emptive nuclear strikes OK but even mentioning diplomatic ties atrocious?  Something doesn’t quite make sense here.

Government is a Terrible Arbiter

This article highlights the ineptitude of government arbitration.

Dirty coal power plants have significantly affected air quality on a Navajo Indian Reservation near the junction of Utah, Arizona, Colorado, and New Mexico. And now another plant is going to be built, this one being much closer to the Reservation.

On the one hand, we need more energy.  There is a demand for cost-effective electricity.  Shouldn’t a business with money in hand and a demand for some service be permitted to meet that service?

On the other hand, air quality, in the eyes of some very close to the situation, is unacceptably bad and not getting better, especially with another power plant.

What is the government solution to arbitration between these two parties?  Basically, it boils down to a political tug-of-war where one party wins and the other loses, based on a variety of political factors: money, connections, pressure from interest groups, public opinion, etc.

What is the market solution?  Arbitration could certainly be a market function, and would have to be if the environment was owned by private individuals instead of an entity like the government.  Certainly, there would be conflicts.  How would they be dealt with?

Either party would work with a mediator.  Some sort of judge-type figure, one mutually agreed upon that could mediate between the two parties.  Each side may want to hire some sort of spokesman or lawyer to represent their views and perspectives.  And then the two sides work out a mutually-agreeable deal.

This is largely what happened in the days where common law ruled environmental policy (before the EPA).  If a landowner was concerned about pollution, he could ask for remuneration costs for cleaning up the mess.  Or he could ask for a change in practice.  Or he could ask the business to leave.  Either would be a possibility.  But in each case, the landowner (recipient of the polluted resource) and the polluting party would find some sort of agreement, one that would be most beneficial to both parties.

The way it works now, the polluting party just needs the right connections to the EPA to get a permit, and everything is okee-dokee with the only groups that supposedly matter: the polluting party and the government manager.  In reality, there are many other individuals and groups affected by the pollution (as those who would arbitrate in a common law system, or the above-mentioned Navajos), but as the system is set up now, their say is largely muted, and certainly under-represented where it really matters.

Until the system is changed to what it should be, so that the “little guy” is properly represented as many in the left claim they want, these failures of government arbitration will continue.  Man vs. state.  Who wins?

The Three Best Ways to Reduce the Costs of Oil

1. Stop restricting oil exploration and production.  Many know about ANWR, but there is also a moratorium on off-shore drilling.  No new refineries have been built since the 70′s, largely due to the high cost associated with regulation.  And of course there are promising technologies with oil shale and coal liquifaction.

2. Stop inflating the money supply.  This has a two-fold effect.  As more money goes into the system, prices rise.  Wages are almost always the last to rise.  As a result, prices go up while our purchasing power decreases.  Second, the easy money policies from the Federal Reserve floods the market with credit to invest in all sorts of things.  In a time like now when the dollar is weak, the stock market is shaky, and the housing market is not doing well, people will invest in commodities, including oil and foodstuffs.

3. Stop fighting foreign wars where no national interest is at stake, but where our involvement significantly affects global oil prices.  The price of oil has increased fourfold since our involvement in Iraq.  Even if our actions have been justified, for how much longer can we afford its economic drain?  What would a serious engagement with Iran do to global oil prices?  These are not happy thoughts.

If the government was serious about helping Americans at the pump and with price increases in many other areas, they would immediately begin to investigate and address these three patterns of government intervention.

Unfortunately, they appear either unwilling or unable to provide serious, meaningful help.

In the days before zoning, we could live close to where we work, shop, worship, and play.  Gas increases wouldn’t hurt as much.  But in the zoning era where automobiles ruled the roost for decades, such a pre-zoning structure is incomprehensible to many, though admittedly, mixed-use zoning areas try to re-kindle that spirit.  It would be nice if this type of lifestyle was a legitimate option for a huge number of people, but I believe it is not as of now.