Maybe the Tea Party should do this. Which Tea Party? Is there a Manhattan Tea Party? Somebody.
Student loans should not get special treatment. It is unjust and should be changed.
Big Government
Do you believe?
Do you believe in communism? In its most technical sense, communism is the idea that bureaucrats can reasonably control production and distribution to provide adequate supply and avoid shortages. At this point, most people say no, they don’t believe, and for good reason. The quest to find a sustainable government system of production that didn’t break down has consumed decades, untold lost production, and created a river of blood as the need for scapegoats of this system’s failure consumed millions of lives.
Do you believe that there is an exception for drug production communism? The US Government thinks there is. In the 1970s it established the current production quota system, a system that is currently in the middle of breaking down as shortages pile up. It is unabashedly communistic with the Attorney General in charge of both overall production numbers of Schedule I and II drugs and List 1 chemicals as well as assigning individual company quotas on a yearly basis.
As virtually anyone with a brain could predict, the system lasted for a while and is now breaking down amidst a growing number of shortages. About 1 in 5 medical practitioners knows of circumstances where these increased shortages have adversely affected patient outcomes. It is unlikely we are going to ever get an accurate body count of this drug communism. Nobody is going to want to open themselves up for liability if they are a private practitioner and no bureaucrat is going to want to turn over this rock because of its political implications.
Fortunately, over the next two years, these regulations are going to finally come under review. So as a practical matter we’re going to have an answer to my title question, do you believe?
Well, do you?
Rethinking Unions III: Worker Interests
What are the common interests of workers? Do present worker associations, unions, further those goals? This is the heart of any real examination of labor but I can’t recall reading anybody seriously addressing the question.
Workers, in general, have an interest in labor being in short supply relative to jobs in order to drive up the cost of labor. They have an interest in having effective, portable lifetime education available to them at affordable or even free rates. They have an interest in being able to get decent medical care. They have an interest in not being shackled to an abusive employer for any reason. They have an interest in being able to retire from work before their bodies or minds give out and have a dignified retirement that cannot be taken away by anyone.
How do today’s unions stack up in terms of satisfying workers’ interests? I don’t think that they stack up well at all. Unions do create labor supply shortages but it’s on a firm-by-firm basis, forcing employers to exclude non-union dues paying members from employment. If you are not a member, you’re not a real worker in their eyes. Unions provide health insurance through employers but the way that they do it shackles employees to their employer. Union educational programs are not generally portable or accredited or open at all to any sort of healthy competition. And with the coming crackup in Medicare and Social Security, a whole generation of workers is going to feel the betrayal in their pensions.
A worker association that offered accredited education standards and classes meeting those standards would be far superior to present. An association that worked hard to create labor shortages for everybody would raise wages while improving the whole economy. An association that backed associational healthcare would remove the shackles from a lot of workers. And an association that supported a Chile style retirement system would be able to sustainably keep faith with our elders as far as the eye could see.
I can’t believe you said that, Secretary Clinton.
Now, I also think it’s important to take a little historical review. If you go on YouTube, you can see Sirajuddin Haqqani with President Reagan at the White House, because during the war against the Soviets in Afghanistan, the United States Government, through the CIA, funded jihadis, funded groups like the Haqqanis to cross the border or to, within Afghanistan, be part of the fight to drive the Soviets out and bring down the Soviet Union.
So when I meet for many hours, as I do, with Pakistani officials, they rightly say, “You’re the ones who told us to cooperate with these people. You’re the one who funded them. You’re the ones who equipped them. You’re the ones who used them to bring down the Soviet Union by driving them out of Afghanistan. And we are now both in a situation that is highly complex and difficult to extricate ourselves from.” That is how they see it.
– Remarks at the Kumpuris Distinguished Lecture Series: Audience Question and Answer Segment (Secretary Hillary Clinton)
Uh huh. Well they “see it” wrong and you very well know that, Madam Secretary. Zia directed the monies and toward the end, we attempted to work around the Pakistanis. You know the history. And you’ve seen the intelligence. Didn’t your own State Department sign off on the certification for Kerry-Lugar-Berman after the bin Laden raid? What’s worse? Supporting an insurgency during the Cold War when officials couldn’t see into the future with a crystal ball, or signing off on an aid package after this?
This New York Times report on the murder of a US soldier on May 14, 2007 by Pakistani troops in Teri Mangal is an absolute must read if you are interested in understanding the frustration and contempt for Pakistan that exists among those who have been warning of that nation’s duplicity and complicity in the murder of US, NATO, and Afghan troops.
Let’s review some more, shall we?
Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski, Le Nouvel Observateur (France), Jan 15-21, 1998, p. 76:
Q: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs [“From the Shadows”], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?
Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.
Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?
Brzezinski: It isn’t quite that. We didn’t push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.
excerpt via this Pundita blog post. Emphasis mine.
In order to have a relationship with Pakistan during the Cold War – and subsequently the War on Terror – various American officials and institutions had to, er, well, invest themselves in particular narratives. Nice to see Secretary Clinton continuing the tradition:
Back in January 2009, Secretary Clinton vowed to make development once again one of the pillars of America’s engagement as she said it would be an “equal partner” with diplomacy and defense. The so-called “3-Ds” would need AID to be “strengthened”, “adequately funded”, and ultimately given leadership after a decade of neglect and intentional weakening under the previous Secretary.
I don’t know what to think anymore. (I originally had something harsher here and then deleted it. I remain flabbergasted at her comments. Particularly given the history of the Clinton Administration during the ’90s. Everyone got it wrong on this one. Darn near everyone. The Americans weren’t the only ones to get it wrong, either. The Pakistanis were the main supporters of the jihadists – and for their own purposes. It’s simply not true that the Generals and others were passive observers. Neither were any of the neighbors. Everyone’s always “played” in that neighborhood. The poor Afghans. The poor mothers and fathers of young people in Afghanistan just learning how far the foreign policy establishment in Washington is willing to go in order to preserve cherished ideological myths – and self-importance or institutional funding, a skeptic might say.)
Rethinking Unions II: A Time to Kill (Firms)
Previous in the series:
I
I started off this series hoping to get some good comments that would further my rethink. Jim Bennet is an articulate representative of a current in the comments – “The first thing is for the union to realize that the primary interest of the union is to see that the employer survives and prospers.” I disagree but only because it ignores an important case, when employers do not deserve to survive.
I am starting from the premise that in capitalism’s 3 legged stool, there is no privileged leg. Capital, labor, rents, all have their heroes and their villains. All need to have the heroes promoted and the villains marginalized. This line of cooperativist thinking denies the need for villain marginalization. But sometimes we do need to kill off businesses. Sometimes we have too many firms and the weak need to go to the wall while salvaging their resources as much as possible. If either hero promotion or villain marginalization processes are weak or missing, the capitalist system suffers economic performance drops. We must have robust systems to more efficiently kill firms that need to die and labor can play an important role in that capitalist process. Labor needs to judge capital and act accordingly.
Let’s take a look at the UAW, for example and grant that everything they say about GM management is true. Let’s stipulate that collectively, GM management is unimaginative, largely made up of poor planners, make repeated bad decisions over a span of decades, and are generally responsible for running an American icon into the ground. So why did the union let them get away with it when they could have destroyed GM and served their members better? Stipulating that the UAW is entirely right about its indictment of GM management should have led to entirely different behaviors and would have largely saved Detroit and helped keep the rust out of what we now call the rust belt.
The UAW should have looked ahead to the inevitable train wreck and politically encouraged company formation in the areas where its members lived. It should have reworked its own structure so that union members moving to “nonunion” firms didn’t lose out with the union by it. It should have educated its workforce on the need to pass judgment on bad management in a practical sense and the importance of creating enough jobs at good employers so there would be sufficient lifeboats at other firms when GM eventually collapsed under the weight of its poor decisions. The UAW did none of this. That’s a good reason why the UAW needs to be replaced.
The UAW should have encouraged the creation of laws to allow quick approval of low volume models so that custom car builders in the Midwest would be a constant challenge to “the big three” and increase the chances of an American firm with better management rising up on a consistent series of hits and replacing GM. That could happen either by simply outcompeting GM or as NeXT software did to Apple by the guppy swallowing the whale and giving the larger company a management transplant.
A proper representative of labor would be agitating against laws restricting the sale of automobiles to expensive dealership networks, for reducing the cost of approving cars so they can be driven on public roads, and generally for pro-startup legislation. A proper representative of labor would pressure local municipalities and counties to constantly diversify their job base so that no matter how badly a particular company did, members wouldn’t be stuck in dying towns with few job prospects.
A capitalist system that had unions like this would have improved growth prospects, healthier communities, and be much more hostile to bad management wasting resources and serving their shareholders poorly. It makes you wonder why nobody’s made this sort of organization.