Dirty Hippies » Capitalism

Doubting the Austerians

Tom Sullivan — Sun, 29 Apr 2012 18:37:14 +0000

In March 1999, Harvey Cox of Harvard Divinity School wrote of the emergence of a new “Supreme Deity, the only true God, whose reign must now be universally accepted and who allows for no rivals.” — The Market.

Omnipotent: In a kind of reverse transubstantiation The Market transmutes all things once holy into items for sale. Like land. “It has been Mother Earth, ancestral resting place, holy mountain, enchanted forest, tribal homeland, aesthetic inspiration, sacred turf, and much more. But when The Market’s Sanctus bell rings and the elements are elevated, all these complex meanings of land melt into one: real estate.”

Omniscient: “The Market, we are taught, is able to determine what human needs are, what copper and capital should cost, how much barbers and CEOs should be paid, and how much jet planes, running shoes, and hysterectomies should sell for.” Fickle as the gods of old, The Market’s every mood swing – apprehensive, relieved, nervous, uncertain, jubilant – gets reported by the seers of Wall Street and a breathless financial press.

And omnipresent: “The Market is not only around us but inside us, informing our senses and our feelings … it pursues us home from the mall and into the nursery and the bedroom.” Yet The Market itself must also be pursued, writes Cox. It “strongly prefers individualism and mobility. Since it needs to shift people to wherever production requires them, it becomes wrathful when people cling to local traditions.” Your human need for home, family, community must make obeisance to The Market. All men become rootless transients in one global marketplace. For this First Cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to The Market: and the two shall be one flesh.

On the fiscal and Christian right, and among New Democrats and Third Way centrists, the new cosmology of The Market has been largely unchallenged. In fact, it is embraced. The stenographer press repeats econologians’ (Cox’s term) priestly pronouncements about The Market’s will so uncritically that a large swath of the public here and abroad accepted the new faith as dogma. Bill McKibben wrote of the Christian right, “by their very boldness [they] convince the rest of us that they must know what they’re talking about. They’re like the guy who gives you directions with such loud confidence that you drive on even though the road appears to be turning into a faint, rutted track.”

Across Europe, country after country followed the econologians’ bold promises that austerity would assuage The Market’s uncertainty and lead to economic recovery. Yet, Britain has gone down a rutted track to its first double-dip recession since the 1970s. Across Europe, there are few signs of the promised economic recovery. But now, The Market’s supposed beneficence looks more like the vulture capitalism Naomi Klein warned of — a chance for a well-heeled few to snap up taxpayer assets at fire-sale prices, as Russian oligarchs did after the Soviet Union collapsed. Europe is doubting the econologian catechism. In Ireland. In France and The Netherlands. In Greece, in Spain, Romania and in Portugal, people are awakening from the Austerians’ trance. Angela Merkel’s Germany appears “increasingly isolated.”

As Elijah challenged the prophets of Baal, it is time to challenge the econologians’ faith in The Market and in the Austerian gospel. A priest friend once had this shtick he used whenever someone presented some bold, unsupported assertion as fact. “Oh, yeah? Name five,” he demanded. Another friend (and another preacher’s kid) would rear up in his seat and, like the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come, extend his arm full length, aim a finger at the offender and shout, “Defend that!”

It is past time that the press and liberal leaders displayed the cojones to do the same.

(Cross-posted from Scrutiny Hooligans.)

Free Trade Or Democracy, Can’t Have Both

Dave Johnson — Thu, 01 Mar 2012 22:05:56 +0000

Recent stories about the conditions of Apple’s contractors in China have opened many people’s eyes about where our jobs, factories, industries and economy have been going, and why. The stories exposed that workers live 6-to-12-to-a-room in dormitories, get rousted at midnight to work surprise 12-hour shifts, get paid very little, use toxic chemicals, suffer extreme pollution of the environment, etc. Is this “trade?” Or is it something else?

Is This “Trade?”

“Trade” means to exchange, to buy and sell, you buy from me and I buy from you. I have something you want and you have something I want, and we exchange. We both end up better off than where we started.

Is it “trade” to close a factory here and move it to a country where people don’t have a say? It is “trade” to just move all of the machines from a factory here to a factory there, send the same parts and raw materials over there, and then bring bring back whatever it was the factory used to make and sell it in the same places here? Is that really “trade?” Or would another word be more appropriate?

When People Have A Say

When people have a say we insist on good wages, benefits, safe working conditions, and a clean environment. We even go so far as to say we want good public schools, parks and opportunities for our smaller businesses. When We, the People have a say we get so uppity and ask for the most outrageous things!

Efficiency vs. Humanity

Yes, countries where people do not have a say are more “efficient” and “business friendly.” Countries where people do not have a say can make things at a much lower cost than workers where people have rights. But when we let exploitation of human beings be a competitive advantage it undermines our own democracy. It means that democracy is a competitive disadvantage in world markets.

We Can’t “Compete” With This, We Have To Fight It

Let’s get right to the core of this. Suppose the South actually did rise again, and they reimposed all-out slavery. Would it be “trade” to close factories here and move them south, so the companies would have lower costs?

When we allow companies to just import stuff that is made by exploited workers in countries where people do not have a say, we are granting not-having-a-say an advantage over having a say. We make democracy a competitive disadvantage.

This Is About Preserving Democracy, Not About “Trade”

How often do you come across arguments that “globalization” and “free trade” mean that America’s workers have to accept that the days of good-paying jobs and US-based manufacturing are over? We hear that countries like China are more “competitive.” We hear that “trade” means that because it’s cheaper to make things over there we all benefit from lower-cost goods that we import.

How often do you hear that we need to cut wages and benefits, work longer hours, get rid of overtime and sick pay? They say we should shed unions, get rid of environmental and safety regulations, gut government services, and especially, especially, especially we should cut taxes.

What they are saying is that we need to shed our democracy, to be more competitive.

P.S. Tell Congress and the White House to Stop China’s Illegal and Unfair Trade Practices

This post originally appeared at Campaign for America’s Future (CAF) at their Blog for OurFuture. I am a Fellow with CAF.

Sign up here for the CAF daily summary .

Washington Ignored The People, And Now You’ve Got #Occupy

Dave Johnson — Thu, 03 Nov 2011 02:13:38 +0000

What did the politicians in Washington think would happen? They forgot about the “We, the People” part of our Constitution. After bailing out the banks and bankers and interests of the top 1% they fiddled while our jobs burned and mortgages defaulted. With people losing their incomes, pensions and healthcare they worried about deficits instead of jobs and cut back on essential services. They smugly spouted slogans at us and thought we’d be fooled and pacified. People voted for change and they didn’t get change. And now people are in the streets.

Part of the fiddling was by plan, Republicans obstructing efforts to create jobs and help the economy hoping this will give them an edge in the next election. Part of it was an attempt at “bipartisanship,” trying to accommodate the ultrapartisans who only wanted to to advance their obstructionist agenda, thusly deprioritizing the needs of the people. Whatever — change did not happen.

One Spark Could Bring Trouble

The problem with big groups of angry people is that it is very difficult to maintain control. This sudden enthusiastic energy of people taking to the streets to voice their anger at Wall Street and Washington is growing fast and there is really very little to control and channel it. Large groups of people concentrated into crowds can become mobs all too quickly. One cop-with-baton too many and it could turn into something no one wants. Or one too-clever Wall Street type, hiring agent-provocateurs to start violence, thinking it will “discredit” the movement… (Yes, nonsense like this happens and never works out the way the strategerizers hope.)

Look what happened in England, with terrible riots. Did it happen as a result of the austerity – putting the top 1% ahead of regular people? Maybe, maybe not. But the tensions in England, where they still have a good safety net and everyone has health care, were certainly not greater than they are here.

Do not take the people for granted. Do not think you can engineer a population with slogans and ignore solutions. And when they take to the streets to express their unhappiness do not ignore them or think you can finesse things. It shouldn’t have gotten to this point. People have had it, they are fed up, and they are telling the leadership that they have to remember just who is supposed to be in charge here.

The New Left Pole

So the “incoherent” street occupiers and marchers represent the new left poll of the spectrum. Suddenly groups like Campaign for America’s Future, labor unions, MoveOn.org, and especially the coalition making up the Rebuild The Dream Movement now represent the center. More importantly, they represent a controlled, organized path to sensible solutions that give the people what they need.

The Path Forward

There is a path forward that has been clearly defined by the responsible organizers and members of Congress who have been trying to push the political system to respond to the needs and demands of We, the People. Start by passing the President’s jobs bill. Then pass The People’s Budget. Take a look at CAF’s “Big Ideas” for a bold jobs agenda.

It’s time to get moving, and finally get to work on the side of We, the People. That is how it is supposed to work here.

This post originally appeared at Campaign for America’s Future (CAF) at their Blog for OurFuture. I am a Fellow with CAF.

Sign up here for the CAF daily summary.

The 1% – They Always Have Some Mighty Fine Whine

Tom Sullivan — Thu, 27 Oct 2011 10:54:43 +0000

With their “We are the 99%” chant, Occupy Wall Street protesters call for and end to the corporate corruption of democracy, to America’s two-tiered system of justice, and to the rigged economics that concentrates the nation’s wealth in the hands of the top 1%. By cheating, says Rolling Stone contributing editor Matt Taibbi, who reminds readers that even as it had its hand out for a taxpayer-funded bailout, Goldman Sachs’ effective tax rate was 1% in 2008, “the same year the bank reported $2.9 billion in profits, and paid out over $10 billion in compensation.” At the time, Texas Democrat Rep. Lloyd Doggett explained that the problem was larger than Goldman Sachs, “With the right hand out begging for bailout money, the left is hiding it offshore.”

The other day, I posted a video from Jared Bernstein critiquing the proposed repatriation tax holiday sponsored by Sen. Kay Hagan (D-NC) and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). Taibbi lists four ways in which Wall Street makes a killing cheating the system, but let’s examine how the 1% whines about it all the way to their own banks.

After the finance industry brought the world economy to its knees and their employers went to the American taxpayers for a bailout, traders earning well into six figures whined that they bore no personal responsibility for their participation, and how dare taxpayers balk at paying them their six- and seven-figure bonuses. Wall Street’s Most Unindicted whined, and how dare President Obama call them “fat cats.”

By several measures, the individual tax burden in this country is far lower than it was under that notorious, confiscatory, Democratic despot, Dwight Eisenhower, yet some of the same people mentioned above whine that they are over-taxed by oppressive “big government.” Maybe they just don’t get out (of the country) enough.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce rends its garments over “punishing” government regulations. Business leaders complain that over-regulation is making America uncompetitive, that it will drive domestic corporations offshore to more business-friendly countries. Yet a recent study by the World Bank ranks the U.S. 4th in the world in ease of setting up a business. Just where do the whiners think they are going to go?

Oh, but they whine rhapsodically about the oppressive U.S. corporate tax rate, how we have one of the highest tax rates in the developed world. They know full well that few of our largest corporations actually pay that 35 percent, that they pay small armies of accountants and tax attorneys to ensure that those who pay any tax at all pay closer to 28 percent (estimates vary), while some pay nothing or even get money back from the government, that is, from the American taxpayer. Twenty-eight percent is bit higher than the average effective rate for industrialized countries (about 23 percent), but is that spread really what the whining is about?

According to the GAO, 55 percent of U.S. firms paid no federal income taxes during at least one year between 1998 and 2005. Even then, thousands of firms set up tax shelters in the Cayman Islands and elsewhere and park their profits offshore to evade taxes, waiting — thanks to the first repatriation tax holiday under President George W. Bush — for the pressure of another recession and high unemployment so they can whine to the public once more about how they would create jobs here at home again if only Congress would allow them to repatriate their offshore profits not at 35%, not at 28%, and not at 23%, but at 5.25%. According to the GAO report, that’s a deal only most corporations doing business in the United States and paying nothing in federal income tax could pass up.

All that is preface to this rhetorical question: What reduced tax rate, what reduced level of regulation — short of Somalia’s — would stop these people from whining anyway?

(Cross-posted from Scrutiny Hooligans.)

Half a century of work and pay in an hour’s time

Aaron Krager — Mon, 02 May 2011 23:33:04 +0000

Originally posted at my own site.

Very few things are certain in life other than life and death. In the middle we work roughly 50 years of our life and pay taxes. That much we know for sure. For the most part we are a tough working people -- dedicated to the task and sweating the day away.

It might be nice to cut to the chase and just hoard together all the money we will make in our lifetime at the beginning -- sort of like a down payment if you will. If you want to do that -- join Wall Street and work for a hedge fund. They make as much money in an hour as John and Jane Doe down the street do in a lifetime of blood, sweat and tears.

Paul Krugman conducted some analysis of IRS data (boring stuff but important nonetheless)

But I was struck by something else: in several years during the last decade the top 400 accounted for more than 10 percent of all capital gains income in America. Just 400 people!

Conservatives often try to sell the notion that reducing the capital gains tax is about helping small business people. But you really want to think of the fact that a significant chunk of that tax break is going to just 400 people.

These are the same people who are hoarding the money and making it hand over fist in a matter of hours -- not days, months or even years -- hours!

All the while they are paying a capital gains tax of 15% instead of income taxes like the rest of us, like John and Jane Doe down the street. Instead of trying to realize we need job programs and better policies for the middle class -- conservative politicians and pundits try to sell us on tax cuts but as Krugman notes above, a large chunk of it will benefit just 400 people in a country of more than 300 million.

We are sold the idea of an American Dream as well as policies that simultaneously benefit those who already live on cloud nine.

A simple country boy’s solution to the budget “crisis”

Sam Smith — Tue, 19 Apr 2011 16:04:38 +0000

Some conservatives see all these fact-laden critiques of our various GOP manufactroversies (see Ryan, Paul) and wonder where are the Democratic plans to solve the financial crisis? (I have been asked this, quite vehemently, myself.)

The informed reply goes something like this:

The crisis isn’t real. It’s been fabricated by the neo-liberal politicians whose goal is to eliminate all taxes on rich people and bust structures like unions that afford the non-hyper-wealthy with some leverage in the American political economy. It. Isn’t. Real.
You’re blaming the wrong people. To the extent that I accept arguments that we do need to cut spending (and I do, by the way – read on), whatever problems we do actually have are the direct result of Republican taxation policies.

So, for the sake of argument let’s say America has a serious financial problem. How would I solve it? Well, I’m no economist, but here are some ideas:

Eliminate Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy. That’s well over $300B right there. That would pay 1.4 million teachers for five years, ballpark. You know, since teachers are such an ungodly drain on the economy.
Get out of Iraq. There’s another $100B per year. And then get out of the military adventure business for good. Right now the US spends about as much on its military as the rest of the world combined, and there’s no moral, ethical or economic excuse for it.
Take a chain saw to waste in the military budget. Things like the F-22 Osprey, which has already wasted $22B and will likely cost another $75B to finish. By the way, it’s unclear that the damned thing will actually work, and once you get past the contractors and their pet Congressweasels nobody seems to want it.
Let’s have a good, hard look at the corporate tax code, because ExxonMobil, GE, BoA, Chevron, Boein, Valero, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, ConocoPhillips and Carnival Cruise Lines combined to pay damned near no taxes, despite often-record revenues. In fact, between tax credits, refunds and bailouts, these companies hit us up for trillions of dollars in the past year or two. I’m not accusing any of these companies of breaking the law, and the way the laws work they’re actually required to behave in this way. All I’m saying is, you know, you earn billions and billions in profit, maybe the tax code should be structured so that you pay your fair share in taxes. That’s all.

Once we’ve done these things, then let’s see where we are.

I know, I’m just a simple country boy. And I didn’t major in math by any stretch. But it looks to me like this plan has us up over a trillion dollars in five years (maybe a whole lot sooner, depending on how we parse item #4).

From where I sit, it just doesn’t seem right to go after the little guy first just so we can make sure that Charlie Sheen, Paris Hilton and the Koch brothers can have a tax cut.

GE to return $3.2 billion tax benefit #NotIntendedToBeAFactualStatement

Aaron Krager — Thu, 14 Apr 2011 22:29:10 +0000

While the hoax went down yesterday I still think Lee Camp’s Moment of Clarity is great and pertinent. Posted this yesterday on my own site.

My partner and I are getting set to mail in our taxes before the deadline approaches. We owe this year due to contract work I had earlier in 2010. So while we write a check to the United States Treasury for a few hundred bucks many Fortune 500 companies will pay far less than the two of us combined. Yes, a young couple legally married for less than a year and a few years removed from college will pay more in taxes than GE, Bank of America, CitiGroup, Boeing, and others don’t even have to fork over a Hamilton.

I could go for that so I should just incorporate myself and have some other companies in other countries. They would serve as a tax haven for my enormous personal profit of around the median income!

Speaking of GE – they were not required to pay any taxes this year as I mentioned, in fact they received a $3.2 billion tax benefit. This morning they announced they would return all of the tax benefit!

“We want the public to know that we’ve heard them, and that we know many Americans are going through tough times,” said GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt. “GE will therefore give our 2010 tax refund back to the public and allow the public to decide how to spend it.”

Immelt acknowledged no wrongdoing. “All seven of our foreign tax havens are entirely legal,” Immelt noted. “But Americans have made it clear that they deplore laws that enable tax avoidance. While we owe it to our shareholders to use every legal loophole to maximize returns – we also owe something to the American people. We didn’t write the laws that let us legally avoid paying taxes. Congress did. But we benefit from those laws, and now we’d like to share those benefits. We are proud to be giving something back to America, and we are proud to set an example for all industry to follow.”

Over the coming weeks, GE will conduct a nationwide survey to determine how the company’s $3.2 billion returned refund is to be allocated. The survey will be conducted both online and offline, and will permit the public to weigh in on which of the recently-enacted budget cuts they would like to see reversed.

In tandem with the gift, the company is also announcing a host of new policies to restore public faith in the GE brand, including a commitment to keep American jobs in America, and to create one U.S. job for each new job created abroad. The ambitious plan will overhaul accounting systems to allow public transparency and phase out the use of tax havens in five years. “Given my recent appointment as President Obama’s Chairman of the Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, it is no longer appropriate for GE to engage in practices that, whether by fact or perception, are at odds with the greater good of the nation,” Immelt said.

Immelt outlined several concrete steps he would take to push for modernized tax policies that reflect the realities of the global economy. “I will personally ask President Obama to work with Congress to require country-by-country reporting by multi-national corporations of the sales made, profits earned and taxes paid in every jurisdiction where an entity operates. Instead of moving money via “transfer pricing,” corporations ought to pay taxes in the jurisdictions where profits are actually made. If Congress is able to establish standard industry-wide solutions, GE will close our tax haven operations abroad, including our subsidiaries in Bermuda, Singapore and Luxembourg.”

Except, that is not true. It was a great prank by the Yes Lab, highlighting the absurdity of a company pulling in $5 billion in profits in a single year. The $3.2 billion tax benefit could easily salvage critical programs that aid the poor and help the middle class. The same goes for other multi-national corporations raking in billions in profits.

The budget crisis being played out in D.C. is not solely one of spending too much. It is a revenue problem. It is a priorities problem. It is an abuse of power problem.

US Uncut released a statement playing along with the prank:

“This is a good first step,” said, US Uncut spokesman Carl Gibson. “But even if they return their full $3.2 billion 2010 tax benefit as they’re promising, they will still have paid $0 in US taxes since 2006, when they had profits of $26 billion. So while we welcome this gesture by GE, it is only a first step. GE should pay its share, and Congress needs to stop the budget cuts and close the tax loopholes that give the richest corporations a free ride.”

As Nicole Sandler points out in her post The Difference Between a Hoax and a Lie

As to the title of this post regarding the difference between a hoax and a lie… I’m dealing with my soon-to-be 12-year old daughter’s propensity for lying and trying to teach her the consequences. It’s a really hard-fought battle, and I’m not winning … yet.
What USUncut and The Yes Men did was a hoax. It was designed to fool people momentarily to make a point. And they did it. It was never intended to deceive on a permanent basis.
What Senator John Kyl did on the Senate floor in an official speech in his official capacity as a United States Senator was a bold-faced lie. He said:

“If you want an abortion, you go to Planned Parenthood, and that’s well over 90% of what Planned Parenthood does.”

It was not a joke. It was not a hoax. It was nothing but a complete and utter lie. And when his office was questioned about it, they responded with these exact words:

“His remark was not intended to be a factual statement.”

If we can’t trust officials elected to the highest posts in the land to speak “factual statements” when making speeches on the US Senate floor, what luck do you think I’ll have in teaching my daughter that it’s wrong to lie?

She is absolutely correct.

Until those problems are actually resolved we will accomplish nothing in the actual charade that is the United States political system. #IntendedToBeAFactualStatement

Hard times for the pure of heart: is it possible to live ethically in modern society?

Sam Smith — Sun, 03 Apr 2011 01:12:41 +0000

I think we’d all love to live every phase of our lives in happy accord with high moral and ethical principles. We’d love it if we were never confronted by logical contradictions and cognitive dissonance, by cases where our walk was at odds with our talk. But the truth is that we live in a society that’s complex, at best, and a cesspool of corruption at worst. It’s just about impossible to get through a day without compromise, and every time we compromise it’s difficult not to feel as though we’ve failed a little.

Some people are better at dealing with the conflict than others, whether through denial or a well-developed, pragmatic knack for keeping things in perspective. Unfortunately, I don’t do denial at all and while I like to think of myself as having a strong pragmatic streak, in practice my principled side tends to dominate my decision-making in ways that occasionally deprive me of convenience and pleasure.

I know I have a problem here, and I know that I’m not the only one. I’ve been thinking about it a lot lately and maybe writing some of this down will help. Maybe a reader will have a comment that will foster a bit more perspective, even. I may be a slightly older dog, but I am more than willing to learn some new tricks.

Let’s start with baseball. Yesterday was Opening Day for my hometown Colorado Rockies as well as my favorite team, the Boston Red Sox. Denver was just crazy. I live a few blocks from Coors Field, which was sold out (and friends tell me there weren’t even scalpers – no tix for sale at no price, no way, period). In addition to the 47K inside the park, there were probably another 50-100,000 outside, in the streets, parking lots and bars of the Ballpark neighborhood. I’m not sure, but I assume that the 16th Street Mall and Larimer Square were also zoos, as well as any number of sports bars in the city’s outlying neighborhoods and suburbs. In other words, yesterday was a massive holiday.

And I couldn’t take part. Sorta. I did wander up into LoHi, where Highlands Tap & Burger makes a point of showing all the Sox games. Had a beer. Had a great burger. Had a nice time. But it wasn’t the same as being part of a shared cultural celebration that looked, from a distance, even bigger than the 4th of July.

Why? Well, my friends know that the Rockies are my least favorite team. So do some strangers, if they’ve ever made the mistake of asking why I hate the Rox. The short version is that it’s a matter of principle: in 2006 the club went public with the news that it was basing official decisions (including personnel) on religion. Specifically, they were looking for “character,” and “character” means evangelical Christianity. I wrote about my feelings on the subject at the time and I revisited the issue a year later when the Rockies made it to the World Series.

Like the Constitution, I don’t really care what religion someone is. And since it’s a privately owned business, I guess there aren’t any de jure legal problems with them running things this way (although I imagine they’re wide open to a civil suit should someone in the organization feel discriminated against). But that doesn’t mean that I don’t find the policy reprehensible to its core.

Further, since I’m no longer an evangelical Christian myself, I can’t help being a little put off by the fact that the team’s ownership just said that I lack character. Trust me, I’m a huge fan of character. I think more teams ought to make character a centerpiece of how they run things. If you’ve been paying attention, you probably realize that teams with persistent character issues always seem to find a way to underperform their talent. And, as a guy who loves competition and has been an athlete his whole life, I’m sick of the sports section reading like a police blotter. I doubt I’m the only one.

I’ve never seen any correlation between religion and character, though. Evangelical Christians, for instance, can and often are people of the highest moral fiber, and I’m proud to number several such people among my family and circle of closest friends. But growing up Southern Baptist also teaches you that it ain’t necessarily so. Some of the worst sub-humans I have ever encountered in my life were upstanding evangelicals, pillars of the community, etc., and their moral failings and hypocrisies were quite well known in their congregations.

By the same token, I know and have known lots of atheists and agnostics, and my best guess is that the saint-to-scoundrel ratio is probably comparable to what you find in any religious community.

As a result of the Rockies’ policy, which I find both socially and personally offensive, I vowed that I’d never set foot in Coors Field or in any way subsidize the team’s ignorance and prejudice with my dollars. And I have held the line, too – literally, not a penny has made its way from my wallet to theirs. I revel in their failures (and especially loved the 2007 World Series, when my Sox waxed them in four straight) and long for the day when everyone associated with this policy is long, long gone.

But. There’s always a but. I’m admittedly conflicted. I love my city and I know that a successful franchise is good for it economically. It spurs civic pride (although here in Denver it would be okay if our civic pride were a little less connected to the fortunes of pro sports teams). Yesterday, by any measure imaginable, was wonderful for the 5280, and if the Rockies remain in the pennant race throughout the season it will mean greater job security for those who make their livings from the sports industry and the restaurants and bars that serve it. I care about these issues, and passionately.

Not only that, my principled stand, while morally satisfying, represents one more high wall between myself and my community. This chasm is never more evident than when I find myself discussing (debating, arguing) the subject with friends, who often feel as though my position amounts to an attack on them. (Ironically, they frequently seem more affronted by my stance than they are by Rockies policy itself, which they always find an easy way to dismiss, even if they aren’t evangelicals.)

By now, I hope it’s clear that my real problem isn’t with friends who disagree. My problem lies in my struggle to behave ethically without further alienating myself from others.

I’m not too proud to acknowledge how much this troubles me.

It isn’t just the Colorado Rockies, either – here in the US nearly every phase of our lives is challenged by some ethical or political consideration or another. Where do you buy groceries? Really – they’re pretty anti-union, aren’t they? You like coffee? I assume it’s organic and fair trade, right? You drive a what? Not only is it not a terribly green model, one of the company board members donates a lot of money to a variety of anti-gay rights organizations. Your electricity is generated in coal-fired plants, by the way. Your shirt was made in a sweat shop. Your computer is indeed nice, but it’s also the product of one of the country’s harshest chemical production cycles. Your kids attend a charter school? Thanks for helping suck more funds out of the public school system that’s so critical to our shared national interest. Sweet hell – are you wearing a diamond? Yeah, that restaurant does do a great bowl of pasta. And the owner has supported every hatemongering politician to run for office here in the last 30 years.

Been there. Feel your pain. I mean, I’ve turned my back on Target. I won’t be going back in a Dillard’s anytime soon. I haven’t had a Domino’s pizza in decades. Even if it didn’t taste like horse piss you’d never catch me drinking a Coors. And don’t even get me started on Wal*Mart (although they are implementing some encouraging green practices across the enterprise).

Seriously – if I drew a hard line around all of my principles and then did all the research I’d need to know which companies were doing what, and then boycotted those I had problems with, what would be left of my life? I probably couldn’t eat anymore. I’d have to walk everywhere (assuming I could verify that the company making my shoes was pure). The behavior of our media conglomerates would assure that I never again came near a television, a theater, a radio, a newspaper, and for that matter, probably a book. I’d certainly not be able to watch the NFL at least until such time as Michael Vick is gone (and given the rap sheets attending most football teams, we can probably scratch the whole sport off forever).

And so on. And on and on and on.

These are ugly issues to contemplate for an ethical human trying to live in contemporary society, because frankly you’re lucky if you can get through a minute, let alone a day, without having to compromise some important value or another. If there’s a Hell, and if it is operated according to meaningful principles, we’ve all probably earned our way in by noon each and every day.

Still, it isn’t okay to just throw up your hands and accept the inevitability of compromise. If I stop insisting that principles matter, if we stop trying to live as ethically as possible, what then? For one thing, the corruption of the society gets even worse (if that’s possible), and for another we might as well sell our souls to whoever will give us a nickel.

There are lines. There are standards that have to be at least a bit flexible. And if people like me insist on the absolute when all around us are finding ways of making peace with reality, we quickly wind up like Ethan Brand, the doomed anti-hero of the famous Hawthorne short story, staring into the fire and contemplating our intimate knowledge of the perfect sin: the rejection of the fellowship of man.

In the end, we have to find our way into subcultures that are themselves defined by the principles we value, so that our lives are not defined by a choice between values and community. This isn’t easily accomplished in a nation that often seems dedicated to the eradication of principle, but it is necessary.

As long as we feel the tension associated with a need to choose between the two, we will know that the battle isn’t yet over.

Building the New Paradigm for Money in Politics

Joe Brewer — Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:34:54 +0000

The single largest problem in American politics is corporate control of the democratic process. We have watched over the years as moneyed interests have built vast networks of think tanks, bought up and consolidated media, and increasingly gained influence over elections and policy-making.

At the heart of this problem is money. Those who have accumulated capital are best positioned to dominate the system. And those who have little money are left feeling powerless to do anything about it. This has got to change.

Many of us are aware of the Supreme Court decision last year nefariously titled “Citizens United” that opened the flood gates to allow corporations unlimited access to influence the political process. The significance of this decision is made abundantly clear in this special comment by Keith Olbermann.

(A more ‘kid friendly’ overview can be found at The Story of Citizens United for those who prefer a visual presentation.)

This is why our team is actively pursuing approaches to funding political and social change efforts by leveraging the power of crowds. We realize that much higher levels of engagement and cooperation are needed if we want any hope of restoring democracy to our currently corporate-controlled system. I wrote about this in How We’ll Fund The Progressive Movement and it is the primary motivation behind our current crowdfunding project to create A Crowdfunding Manual for Social Change.

We need a new paradigm for money in politics, one that is fundamentally empowering to everyday citizens. The new paradigm must be based on principles of open collaboration, transparency, and empowerment. I have been inspired by the power of collaborative consumption for shifting social norms, conceptual frames, and standard practices for how we address funding issues in politics. In this new approach to sharing based on trust and open exchange resides a hint of what could be possible in the new world of collaborative finance.

Our team doesn’t simply want to create a How-to-Guide on crowd-based approaches to funding. We are seeking to build a new community of practice where we can all learn together as we figure out how to implement this new paradigm. There’s still a lot that needs to be figured out. And it’s going to take many trials and errors to get the new tools to work properly.

So we need your help. Will you help us fund our project and then join us as we learn together in the collaborative space that follows? The stakes are just too high for idle conversation. We’ve got to start building new and better tools for restoring trust in politics so that we can build stronger communities empowered to address the big challenges unfolding all around us.

The basic fallacy of “privatization”

Adam Lambert — Wed, 02 Mar 2011 14:45:03 +0000

I put “privatization” in quotes because it is really corporatization, and quite frankly is a much better term for the further theft of taxpayer dollars for the well connected corporate class.

The arguments that the right and the pro-corporate/”free market” crowd make are in direct conflict with the entire rationale for ~~privatization~~ corporatization of public services – regardless of whether it is the school system, toll collecting, motor vehicle inspection (all of which have been done/proposed in New Jersey), or taking it a step further, the fire department. It goes something like this:

Corporations are supposed to maximize profits and their responsibilities lie with their shareholders and increasing shareholder value. So, cutting corners (BP, anyone), using cheaper materials (as we have seen in building houses as compared to decades ago, or even in household goods that break down after a few years) or reducing quality control in order to make more cheaper or do more with less. Even if this isn’t all willful and there are just fewer people doing the job, there is inherent quality control issues from less people doing more. All in the name of maximizing profit and being accountable to shareholder value.

Contrast this with the basic premise of public service – to serve the public. There is an underlying goal of making sure that the public receives the services that it needs as opposed to the services that a private company wants to deliver based on cost and interpretation of the contract, regardless of needs.

Now, let’s take the argument for corporatization of services – it goes something like this:

The public (schools, garbage removal, government) is full of waste and bloat and there are too many layers and too much money being spent to provide services. Therefore, it must be put out to bid, so private companies can compete for these services – usually based on the lowest cost bid (if there is a competitive bidding process – which of course, would at least ensure that an overbudget sweetheart no-bid contract wouldn’t be abused, but that is another issue altogether). So let’s just assume that there is a competitive bidding process for the purpose of this argument. In theory, public employees would be fired, department costs reduced and the cost of “government” would decrease – assuming that the cost of corporatization is even lower than the cost of keeping the services publicly run.

Remembering the old adage, “you can only have two of the following three things: (1) quality, (2) timeliness and (3) inexpensive”, the arguments of corporatization and the “corporate priority manifesto” will ultimately lead one of two things – neither of which is good:

A lowball bid will get the job, and in the interest of maximizing corporate profits, a subpar effort would generally be undertaken, as “precious corporate resources” wouldn’t want to be wasted on an effort that doesn’t generate as much profit as other initiatives; or
Bloat, waste, inefficiencies, mismanagement and overruns will increase the cost of the corporatization, or even worse, lead to a stalemate and potential disruption of services as a new agreement is negotiated.

The two ideals can’t mutually coexist. Either a corporation is interested in maximizing its’ profits and shareholder value, or the pro-corporatist argument is a fallacy. And if the interest is in maximizing profits, then doing the work that is in the public interest would only work if that also serves to (1) reduce the overall cost and (2) happens to also meet the goal of maximizing corporate profits and value, in which case it really isn’t serving the public good.

Corporate profits and public service are at odds with each other at the very core as the primary driving force behind these goals. And that’s where the argument for corporatization of public services falls on its face.