Quote of the day: Congress and public health

"Penny wise, pound foolish decisions will fall quite literally on the heads of the children.  We don't have leaders in positions of Power, we have fools."
- John of New York City, comment to "Congress to People: Drop Dead" by Nicholas Kristof, NYT 2016-05-12, http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/12/opinion/congress-to-america-drop-dead.html.

I wonder how the "free enterprise system" can deal with major health issues and other disasters.  I do know that Walmart provided lots of free bottled water after Katrina, but that was because of the ineptness of the Republican government.  How many companies are going to step forward and meet all the prevention and care needs that could affect thousands?  At a cost each individual can afford?  Can we as a people afford the risk of contagion from the people who can't afford prevention and card?

Free market and education

From an undated note on my desk:

Inspired by a letter in the Wall Street Journal (1983-05-05) extolling free enterprise in education.

The free market is not an ideology in itself; it is a realization of a philosophy of diversity of ideas.

The trouble with our free enterprise is that goods and services are judged solely on how much somebody with money (or other barter) is willing to pay.

A surreal apologia for "free enterprise"

Saturday's Duluth News Tribune had one of its Pro/Con pairings of opinion; they were titled "Can free enterprise boost the nation's economy?"  I would have liked to have read them then but I didn't want to do it on my wife's cell phone, our fastest web access at the cabin.

Today I did, and oh, boy!  The pro was an unbelievable, non-critical, paean to "free enterprise" that I just have to comment on.  It was written by Steve Van Andel, co-CEO of Amway and chairman of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors.  The con was a standard piece about the government needing to do more to regulate the economy through stimulus and other measures.  The latter was written by Mark Weisbrot of the Center for Economic and Policy Research.

I found so many clichés in Van Andel's piece passing off as received wisdom that I have a hard time picking a few of the most egregious.

"When employers and entrepreneurs are successful, they indirectly share that wealth by expanding opportunities and creating jobs for others."  Success has too often been measured by stock price, and stock price often means cutting jobs rather than creating jobs.

"Businesses wanting to remain successful always strive to do better."  Too many successful businesses ignore their customers.  Just look at the support boards of Apple, Microsoft, Google, CenturyLink, and many others.  Users complain about the same problems for years and they don't seem to be fixed or responded to.

"The truth is that government doesn’t create opportunity, equality or success — the private sector does."  Let's see!  Federal government purchases of computers led to further development of computers; for example, the first UNIVAC was sold to the Census Bureau.  ARPAnet led to the Internet; ARPA was Advanced Research Project Agency, a part of the government.  An NSF grant led to the creation of Google.  How many private weather forecasters depend on the Federal Government for their raw data?

"When our leaders attempt to reach deeper into the affairs of businesses and individuals — through overregulation and higher taxes — they breed uncertainty and stifle growth."  Just what is "over-regulation" - requiring proper labeling on food, reducing power plant emissions, requiring easy-to-understand contracts?  What are "higher taxes" - taxes sufficient to enforce the laws, taxes sufficient to rebuild our infra-structure, taxes sufficient to have a "strong" military?

Van Andel's article is copyrighted by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and has been reprinted in several newspapers besides the Duluth News Tribune.  The links that I found include

The original article was published by McClatchy – http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/07/03/195685/more-economic-independence-will.html

Others include

Centre Daily Times – http://www.centredaily.com/2013/07/07/3680519/column-more-economic-independence.html
Arizona Daily Star – http://azstarnet.com/news/opinion/can-free-enterprise-boost-the-economy/article_7236fff9-82d0-5f0a-8c3a-0a6adada2c53.html
Deseret News – http://www.deseretnews.com/user/comments/765633503/More-fiscal-independence-will-push-the-economy-to-new-heights.html

The comments to all of these are mostly critical of Van Andel's view.

A good critical letter appeared South Coast Today, but a search of South Coast Today for "Van Andel" did not turn up the original opinion piece.

The Corp giveth and the Corp taketh away

I thought this parody of Job 1:21 might be original with me.  I found only two references in my first try, both in reference to the Army Corps of Engineers and New Orleans.  When I broadened my search to "the corp gives", I found 17,000 references, some of them with my meaning of Corporation.

I thought of this phrase as I was working with macros in Excel 2011 for the Mac.  Microsoft took away macros in Excel 2008 and put them back in Excel 2011.  But the macros that worked in Excel 2004 don't always work in Excel 2011.

Also, when I plugged my iPod into my Mac, iTunes would automatically be launched.  iTunes would then begin syncing my iPod.  This was true even with OS X Lion.  Then in some version of iTunes the auto load/synch stopped.  I have to start iTunes myself.

This certainly is just an annoyance compared to Job's problems, but one would think the "free market" could provide a more consistent and efficient experience for its customers.

Wisconsin's Selective Free Markets

Many in the Wisconsin Senate want to relax the "restrictive regulations" on permits for iron mining.  Others claim that those restrictions will ensure protection for the water and land near the proposed mine. "Updated:(Gogebic Abandons Mine Plans!) Wisconsin Mining Bill Sent Back To Committee", Eric Bau, Daily Kos.

A few years ago there was a big hullabaloo about a high-voltage line in Wisconsin.  Many who lived in the area of the right-of-way were opposed.  I don't remember what setback was required for the line, but many residents felt that it was too little.  There were also strong complaints about property rights.  The project went through and the line was built.

Now a company is trying to put wind turbines in several areas of Wisconsin.  Some landowners object to the size of the setbacks and the amount of access to be granted the wind companies.  Suddenly, the Wisconsin legislature is falling all over itself to increase the setbacks and other regulations on the wind companies.

What is so different about the third case that doesn't apply in the first two cases?  That is, why do large companies' interests trump the rights of individual property owners in the first two cases, but the rights of individual property owners should be paramount in the third case.

I have my suspicions, but I would need a lot more documentation than I care to look for now.

Banks – Part of the free market?

Two quotes from "Why Big Banks Deserve to Get Slammed", Rick Newman, U.S. News and World Report, 2012-02-22.

"To the banks, the latest news from Washington represents a continued assault on the livelihood of fine working Americans, and on free enterprise itself."

"Banks are required to list all these fees on a fee schedule that they must provide to customers who ask for it, but banks rarely advertise all the fees they charge and obviously they hope customers won't notice."

If the buyers, bank customers, don't have complete information (one of the requirements of a free markets), then how can these banks be part of "free enterprise".  It is the banks that are making the assault on "free enterprise".

Free enterprise: Free to do what, kill us?

In the name of short-term profits, is free enterprise free to kill us long term?

One of the complaints of "free marketers" is government interference.  But who else but government is going to protect us from the carcinogens that free enterprise dumps into our environment?

For a summary, watch the trailer of "Living Downstream" based on Sandra Steingraber's book "Living Downstream: An Ecologists Personal Investigation of Cancer and the Environment".

Federal government has no corner on bureaucracy

In December I signed up for online bill pay for our cabin telephone. Last month I received an email that my online bill was ready, I went online and paid it. A few days later I received the paper bill in the mail. This situation was repeated this month

I emailed that phone company about it. The response was, "It takes 2 to 3 billing cycles before you stop receiving paper statements." Maybe I could paraphrase this as, "It takes 2,000 to 3,000 customer suggestions before a company stops wasteful practices."

See also "The Federal Government Has No Corner on Bureaucracy", Reader Weekly, 2008-01-03.

Racing to the top to reward the top

Bank of America is rushing to repay its government bailout funds, not because it has more money, but it doesn't want a government cap on CEO pay ("Bailout Refund Is All About Pay, Pay, Pay", Andrew Ross Sorkin, New York Times, 2009-12-08).

BofA and other large corporations want to pay their executives "competitively" to attract "top talent". My question is what has happened to "rising through the ranks"? Wouldn't people inside the company know more about running the company than an outsider? And if someone inside the company who was a real contributor, feeling shunted aside in favor of an outsider, quit to go elsewhere for a top job. This person would be contributing to the company's competitors and speeding the upward spiral of executive compensation.

Of course, if the board hires an outsider at a "competitive" salary, then they will have to pay themselves a competitive salary. I often think a board should work only for the long-term benefit of the personal investment they made in shares.

I think this behavior belies the myth of capitalism and free enterprise. Many corporations are run for the benefit of the top executives with employees, small shareholders, customers, and communities coming in a distant second.

See also my columns "Talk about Boards with Conflicts of Interest!", Reader Weekly, 2000-04-27 and. "Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander", Reader Weekly, 2006-04-27.

But for the real clincher, see "Why Changing the CEO May Not Change the Company", Jason Zweig, Wall Street Journal, 2009-12-01. Hm! this sounds like a liberal opinion coming from the Wall Street Journal:) Note that the link may be temporary.

Bureaucracy can exist in any economic model

Many people complain about government bureaucracy as if it went away everything would be so much better. Unfortunately, bureaucracies occur in organizations of all types and sizes. They occur in government, in non-profits, and in profits.

We should also note that some employees have flexibility in almost any type of organization. I had a water inspector accept on my word that our usage dropped because I replaced a washer, not that something had happened to our meter.

The incident that triggered this blog entry was an automated call from a non-profit medical center reminding me of an appointment in two days. Some hours earlier that department had called me to move the appointment to next week. Left hand, please meet the right hand!

A couple of weeks ago I had sent an online problem report to a well-known computer manufacturer. I received a boiler plate response about checking that I had the latest version of the operating system and the latest version of the software with the problem. That information was automatically included in my report.

Today I discovered there was a work around to my problem, but it was not obvious. There were several non-intuitive steps involved. I sent a report to the agent who had initially responded to my problem report, including the suggestion that what I wanted should be a menu item. She thanked me for the report and suggested that I send the manufacturer a feedback suggestion. Duh! Couldn't she and shouldn't she do that herself? Shouldn't somebody in the call center be looking at the reports and extracting trends?

See also my "The Federal Government has no corner on bureaucracy", Reader Weekly, 2008-01-03.

Which weather report to believe

As we were considering going to our cabin this weekend, I noted the conflicting weather reports. I look at three different sources: Accu-weather through a widget on my computer, Yahoo! on my iPod, and Fox News in the Duluth News Tribune.

Early in the week, one had sunny weather every day through Sunday, and another had rain every day through Sunday. The high temperatures were in the mid 70s for one and the high 60s for the other. Later in the week one had rain on Friday, the day we were leaving and sunny on Saturday, the day we were returning; the other had the weather reversed. They still had the same variance in temperature.

We drove to Brimson on Friday assuming we would have some nice weather and some not so nice weather. We had great weather both days. We had a bit of fog this morning, haze in the trees, and partly cloudy or cloudy both days. Partly cloudy was often very much that; lots of sun.

Now these are vaunted free-enterprise companies giving contradictory reports, not the "government weatherman" who people often blame for incorrect reports. One brief comment on an MPR weather report gave me an understanding for the confusion.

The report mentioned that a system was moving across the state at some given slow speed. From what little I know about weather, I assume that whatever the speed, it will not be steady. So, different forecasters will make different assumptions about when a system will arrive over an area. And of course, many systems are not large enough to cover an entire area. Not quite the comic book rain following in half-drops on the fence, but one can often see a storm one way and blue sky the other. See "It all depends on your point of view".

Was the United States built on free enterprise and capitalism?

Many argue that the United States was built on free enterprise and capitalism. But that is only part of the picture; many other factors contributed to the development of the United States.

I just finished Nothing Like It in the World, The Men Who Built the Transcontinental Railroad 1863-1869 by Stephen E. Ambrose. He paints a very complex picture of all the ideas and efforts that went into building the transcontinental railroad from Omaha to Sacramento. The two companies were the Central Pacific based in California and the Union Pacific based in New York.

Ambrose doesn't use the word, but I would say that the first part of the picture was imperialism. One group of people decided they had control of the land already inhabited by others. The expected result was that some of the inhabitants resisted and some worked with the outsiders. See pages 265-266 on how the Pawnees thought they had a better life as hired guards.

A second important part was government grants. Because the land was considered "unoccupied", the railroads were able to choose their routes based mostly on the terrain and the government generally let them have their choice. Further, the government granted the railroads portions of the land along the right-of-way for use or sale. Finally the government issued bonds based on the miles of track laid. This was necessary in part because the railroads could not raise sufficient funds through their own stock and bond offerings. One CP official complained "that the government subsidy had been more a detriment than a boost to the companies, because of all the conditions attached to the bonds." A UP official responded, "Mr. President of the Central Pacific: If this subsidy has been such a detriment to the building of these roads, I move you say that it be returned to the United States Government with our compliments." p. 367

Nothing would have happened without a third important part: labor. Thousands of Chinese, Irish, and Mormons built the railroad with hand tools, often without being paid on time. They were aided by black powder and nitroglycerin, sometimes with deadly results. Many died of cold, avalanches, accidents, disease, and murder. Nobody knows the exact death toll of workers.

A fourth important part was corruption, probably unavoidable in an enterprise as large as this. Congressmen were given stock in the railroads; shareholders voted themselves huge dividends while not paying the workers. Congress had six months of hearings "featuring for the most part acrimony and sensationalism, although most charges were true and would be proven." p. 373

But the most important part was vision. A transcontinental railroad was discussed by Congress before the Civil War to unite the east and west coasts. Railroads were seen as important by both sides in the war to move troops and material. Railroads were seen as a more economical and faster way of moving goods and people over animal-drawn vehicles. Railroads were necessary to supply the forts across the country as more and more people moved west. The vision of the importance of a transcontinental railroad was shared by politicians and soldiers, by businessmen and laborers, and by journalists and scholars.

Without all of these parts, the United States would not have become a unified country "from sea to shining sea".

Choose your gospel wisely; times change

Adam Smith wrote about prosperity in his time, and now some have taken his writings as gospel for all times. Karl Marx wrote about poverty in his time, and some took his writings as gospel for all times.

Adam Smith wrote about many small businesses competing for customers, and then came conglomerates that were near monopolies. Karl Mark wrote about the conglomerates exploiting workers, and then came unions to bring prosperity to many workers in the conglomerates.