Entrepreneurial Socialism

A Call to Practical People

2008-10-01T19:36:00.000-07:00

As the US Senate was passing the "Fail-out" bill, my Twitter network was popping with activity. One user in particular was adamant in his opposition. I can't blame anybody for being pissed off about bailing out a bunch of greed-heads to the tune of $700,000,000,000.00. (I like to write it out so you see how many zeros are in that outrageous number. The pennies are for fun.)

Unlike him, I'm fine with this stupidity. Well, not fine, but I'll take it.

Why? Because it's better than the alternative - a prolonged banking crisis as in the 1930s. Most economists agree that the Great Depression was deepened - not caused, but intensified and prolonged - by an illiquid banking system that was allowed to fester for years without any assistance. I pray that we never see the bank runs that occurred then, and I'm happy to have government programs like the FDIC and an active, engaged Federal Reserve to buffer these kinds of shocks. And that's what the real danger is - a systemic shock that could ripple through the US economy and the wider global economy.

I understand the conservative thinking: let the markets work. But, for my money, that's not good enough. Not by a long shot. These kinds of dicta are great in theory, in debate, but they suck in practice when things are really bad. People who insist on brutal destruction so they can "be right" don't have a place in my world. If that's really what you want out of life, I want you in a box somewhere so you can't screw things up anymore than they already are.

Most practical people recognize the limits of political, economic, religious or any kind of theory. It's great within a certain context, but in times of crisis theory goes out the window. Practical people do whatever is necessary to restore stability and move toward the normal run of things where theories have a value.

So it is to these practical people that I make this appeal.

I ask you to join me in a political movement - already extent, if scattered and confused, even self-defeating - that can transform this nation and return it, in spirit if not in circumstance, to original aims of these United States of America. Let's not deceive ourselves; we are in a crisis. Or more accurately, we are in a set of inter-woven crises. But let's start with the two main problems.

1 - We just increased the national debt to yet even more stratospheric heights. The national debt may actually be in orbit after these last 8 years. We have an enormous amount of work to do to stop the bleeding and pay off our creditors. Anybody still reading would never, EVER let their personal finances get to this point. The dollar is going to go the hell, and that will only make things harder.

2 - Worse, more dangerous, and more entrenched, we are a nation not just divided, but tied. We are a nation that has lost its national unity. We are a people who can no longer discuss, debate, agree to disagree. We are a nation of people who insist on being right, regardless of consequence. And, because there are more or less equal numbers on each side, we are paralyzed.

I take it as given that some version of the Fail-out will pass the House fairly soon and that the 2008 election will put Democrats in the White House and give them majorities in both houses of Congress. While my personal political tendencies are to the left, I don't see either of these leading to any longterm solutions.

That's what I'm after - real solutions that work in the longterm. And, as a practical person, I recognize that these will take time to achieve. So this is no quick-fix, feel good movement. It's grassroots. It's bottom up. It's blood, sweat and tears. Just like the Founders.

This is how I describe foundational concept of this movement: our politics are not left or right. Our politics exist in three dimensions, and it's the vertical axis that is most important. I'll give my tedious, geometric explanation later, but first, Green Living blogger Max Gladwell puts it beautifully in a rare for him general-politics essay:

Our political compass points neither left nor right, and we can hardly be described as centrists. Our politics is an individual viewpoint grounded in the principles of reason, morality, freedom, capitalist democracy, and the American Constitution. It is libertarian in so far as the free market is the most efficient type of economic system for a free and democratic society; it is liberal in so far as the free market lacks morality and requires government to regulate it accordingly. This is a delicate balance, which tends to skew one way or another when lobbyists and special interests get involved.

(For clarity, Gladwell has never expressed to me a desire to be part of any movement such as I describe. Nor have I asked his permission to quote his essay. Nor has there been any coordination between us. I'm just stealing his explanation 'cuz it's so much clearer than mine. I believe many, many practical people across the political spectrum share a similar belief.)

Now I'll paraphrase my own comment on that essay. Politics is presented traditionally as one dimensional: a line. Some thinkers realize that the left-right distinction is only meaningful relative to the center. As one travels out to either extreme, governance becomes totalitarian. So the horizontal axis is, in fact, a loop and therefore two dimensional. For those who would build this new politics, two dimensions are also insufficient. Our politics incorporate a third dimension - a vertical axis - where the overall quality of the outcome is the paramount factor.

As in that Shriekback song:

Everything that Rises Must Converge

(I just discovered it's also a collection of stories by Flannery O'Connor. Yes, I'm frequently imperfectly informed and happy to learn.)

How would this practical, three-dimensional politics work? Let's take a difficult, complicated issue for study: use of the US military overseas. The current use of US military forces overseas is exactly why the Founders feared a standing army. But it would be irresponsible internationally to suggest that we immediately bring our forces home from areas of conflict, areas of detente or areas of longstanding peace. It would cause a systemic shock to the international security order, such as it is. Further, it would be domestically irresponsible to immediately cut drastically our spending on military procurement. It also would cause a systemic shock.

To my mind, both of these objectives are desirable, but only within a context where the requisite actions would be responsible. To put it in simple terms, I'd like to see the US Army go out of business for lack of work. I think we all would. Is that an achievable reality? Probably not. But we can get a hell of a lot closer to it than we are now.

I think I've used this example for all it's worth in this context. There's lots and lots and lots to say on this topic, but let's not. For now. Suffice it to say, this is a big issue created over a long time, so reversing it will require a big effort over a long time. All our critical issues share these qualities.

In practical terms, these kinds of changes will require a transition so carefully planned and intelligently implemented that it would withstand the inevitable shocks and challenges that would occur over time. To paraphrase Eisenhower, the plan will prove useless, but the planning will be indispensable.

These transitions will last much longer than even a two-term President, so it is unreasonable to think that executive leadership could affect these changes. Rather, they will take a sustained effort over more than a decade at the minimum. This could only be accomplished with a true grassroots movement that could attract and retain members of both, or all parties. This movement would need so strong a base that it could withstand the momentary political fads that will come and go over the many election cycles.

Where is this base? Who are these leaders? Scary questions, but not as scary as this one:

Where will this nation go otherwise?

A Second Life for Entrepreneurial Socialism?

2008-04-26T06:25:00.000-07:00

Like I don't have enough blogs already, right? Will I've had some thoughts percolating in my little brain and this seems to be the place to make it happen. Likely, I'll move this over to my servers and run it on Wordpress. Just FYI.

Managers That Hire Undocumented Workers Get Jail

2006-04-23T04:26:00.000-07:00

Well, we'll see what ends up happening, but there are some pretty unhappy manangers at IFCO. Homeland Security raided offices of the Houston-based, pallet-making company, arresting managers and undocumented workers.

This Boston Globe story is pretty good. You'll note a healthy amount of skepticism from pretty much all sides. Nobody thinks the Bushies are serious. In fact, some think this is to undermine a more stringent enforcement program rumbling around in Congress.

Loathe as I am to say anything good about the Bush administration and with all due skepticism, still I have to say that this is the right thing to do.

Here's some comments between Tas and I regarding his post on Loaded Mouth that calls for exactly this kind of action. Regardless of whether this is the start of something completely insignificant, I think it deserves recongition.

If only so we can stomp with both feet when the cave in the face of pre$$ure from companies that make something more critical than pallets.

Toll Brothers + At Risk Youth = Safer Neighborhoods?

2006-04-12T06:42:00.000-07:00

Crazy, right? I think not.

This concept pulls together issues of education, crime, "financial literacy" and urban renewal. It should cost very little to implement. In broad brush strokes, it works like this:

Teams of four carefully selected at-risk youths while still in Juvee enter an intensive training program where they:

Get their GED
Learn basic trades skills

They phase into employment with a development company like, say, Toll Brothers where they, as a team, work specifically on gutting and renovating dilapidated multi-families in the neighborhood where the kids come from.
They move into the first building completed -- figure two two-bedroom apartments per building.
They continue to work, as a team, renovating three more buildings.
At the completion of the program, each buys one building from the developer who has held a small part of their salary in escrow to build up a down-payment.

Obviously, they'll need additional training in financial management and other landlord-type skills, but you get the gist of it.

These kinds of simple, scalable programs that marry diverse or even conflicting interests can transform our country. Let's make it happen.

Why Google is Google

2006-03-08T04:41:00.000-08:00

I have had, heard and read far too many conversations about Google not to share these thoughts. Many in the financial services industries and the associated press say repeatedly that Google is prone to competition from existing and future players.

Well, duh. Has been since day one. What's the point? The point is that any time they feel like it, Yahoo!, MSN, Ask.com or whomever can take the Google point-of-view and deliver products and services that mimic what Google is doing. (I feel like I'm in 2nd grade here, but I'm going somewhere with this.)

What's more, any of these organizations could have done this years ago. The important question is: Why haven't they?

The answer is simple: management.

For any company to compete with Google, they will have to unlearn everything about their corporate culture. Specifically, they will have to stop treating users like saps and start treating them like human beings.

As the obvious and dominant example, let's examine how these various players treat advertising. Immediately, we see two camps: Google and everybody else. If anybody ever wants to get fired from Google, they just have to suggest that the company implement "Road Block" ads.

((For those unfamiliar, Road Blocks are the ads that load instead of the page you clicked. No ads are more hated by users, and users hate virtually all ads.))

Yahoo!, where I first encountered this evil technique, must have thought it was a good idea. Trap users between the ad and where they're trying to go. An easy sell to the advertiser and, therefore, a good thing for the publisher.

This is how you have to think when you are subject to the Tyranny of the Marketplace.

Lucky for us, Google has developed a company that is, at least to a large degree, free from TotM.

At Google, the concept of a Road Block is completely anethema to the policies of the company. Google sees clearly that these techniques, while profitable in the short run, only drive users elsewhere. As if the prove the point, Google has grown to be the #1 internet company at the direct expense of Yahoo!.

There is a mountain of scientific research about what users like and what they hate. I've been reading Alertbox for a decade. People at Yahoo! or MSN could read it, too.

In fact, some of them probably do. But when they try to implement these ideas, management sees nothing but red ink.

So, yes, Google is prone to competition. The basic business model is very, very simple. So simple that an understanding of its value eludes virtually every Internet executive in the world.

A Study in Contrasts

2006-01-30T07:11:00.000-08:00

Let's not kid ourselves: mining, even under the best of circumstances, is a risky business. How businesses and governments approach that risk defines their approach to governance and oversight.

Mosaic, the Minneapolis-based firm that manages a mine in Esterhazy, Sasketchewan cares enough to have installed "safe rooms" within their mines in case of fire.

Probably not a company idea, when you think about it. Sounds more like some of that socialism from up in Canada. There's about 72 miners right now feel pretty good about it.

Apparently, when the fire broke out, the retired to the safe rooms for food, water, clean O2 and some shut eye. A far cry from West Virginina

Mad Money Supports Tyranny

2006-01-12T02:30:00.000-08:00

On his CNBC show Mad Money, Jim Cramer claims "You are never responsible for the actions of the companies you buy." Uh, wrong, Jim. (See TOTM Part II.) His claim is so exactly opposite from reality, that we wonder why nobody else calls him on this.

The answer is simple: everybody, Cramer included, wishes is were true. But it's not.

The fact is that shareholders, AND ONLY SHAREHOLDERS, are responsible for the actions of the companies that they own.

While it's true that us regular people own so little of any given company that we couldn't even voice our concerns at the annual meeting. Or at least I own so little...

But Jim Cramer -- and this is his real crime -- he owns enough to make some noise, to have some say. The famous "Hedge Fund" that Cramer ran, his "Charitable Trust" are the very institutional investors that can influence corporate behavior.

So shame on you, Jim. You seem like a decent guy. Why don't you have some sack and tell us all what you think about Haliburton. At least tell your viewers the truth.

Don't you have enough money already?

Disappearring Industrial Accidents

2006-01-05T18:38:00.000-08:00

Amid all the heartbreak of the Sago explosion, all the bungling, all the profiteering, I was reminded of another industrial accident -- a fire at a chicken processing plant, an Imperial Chicken plant in Hamlet, NC. It killed 25 low-wage workers on September 5, 1991.

Funny, er, not at all funny thing -- that outrageous crime turned into a figment of the liberal elite's imagination. It has largely disappeared from the MSM.

My Google searches for relevant phrases like 'imperial chicken 9/5/91' turn up tens of links. TENS! And they're from sources like Maoist International Monthly, from which much of what follows is drawn. Great thing about the Commies; they always give you footnotes.

Searches for 'imperial foods fire' delivered many useful links mostly coming from educators, fire prevention groups and unions. Here are two particularly chilling accounts:

An emergency responders' website
A public education support site's middle school cirriculum (AP and Time compilation)

I guess it's not surprising that the MSM, Wall St., and, especially, the progressive government in NC, don't want to talk about the Good Ole Boys policies that led to the deaths. Or the palty $800k fine that Imperial paid. (Yes, the owner served 4 yrs., but his son, the Operating Manager, walked.)

Anyway, here's a highly edited version of the MIM piece. This is the non-spun, basic reality part of the story. Scares me stupid. But the AP/Time stuff from the education site is the scariest:

FIRE AT IMPERIAL... FOODS

by MA20

...lead para sucks [ed.]...

...[unsustantiated but probably accurate assertions about race- and gender-based hiring, ed,] and the plants choose their locations based on the availability of cheap labor. Imperial Foods opened in the early 1980s, initially employing more than 250 people, making it Hamlet's second largest employer. Hamlet is a town of 6,900 in south-central North Carolina.(2) ...blah blah blah which is one of the reasons that the plant was never inspected...

...more partisan sniping...

No ethnic or national breakdown of the victims has been released by the bourgeois media [read MSM, ed.], to MIM's knowledge. But news reports confirm our suspicions. "Most of the 90 workers caught in the fire were Black, said friends, relatives and onlookers."(2) A relative and friend of many of the fire's victims, Doris Fairley, "said she's convinced that because so many plant workers were Black, improper safety procedures were tolerated."(3) One of Fairley's relatives, Peggy Anderson, who died in the blaze, "stopped by every day after work ... and talked about how the bosses yelled at her and kept up pressure to produce."(3)

The average hourly wage at the plant was $5. "Working conditions are unsanitary, pay is poor and complaints about malfunctioning equipment are sometimes ignored."(2) "The people here care more about the chickens than they do about people," said one Hamlet resident.(1)

Many of the exit doors at the plant were either locked or blocked. One door marked "Fire Exit" was actually a broom closet.(4) Trapped workers, firefighters and passersby had to kick open one door, cut a lock off another, and remove a trash bin and a tractor trailer which were blocking other escape paths. Twenty-two workers
died inside the plant, and three others died after escaping the toxic fumes of the fire-engulfed structure.(3)

Notes:
1. National Public Radio 9/6/91.
2. Winston-Salem Journal 9/4/91, p. 4.
3. Greensboro News and Record 9/5/91, p. 8.
4. NBC News affiliate 9/4/91.

* * *

Tyranny 208, Workers 12

2006-01-03T04:05:00.000-08:00

(editor's note: As of 1/4/06, a sole survivor has been rescued from the Sago Mine.)

Please join us as we send our prayers and thoughts deep underground in West Virginia where we need a miracle.

It goes without saying that methane levels in the mine were unsafe at the time of the explosion. We do not yet know what role was played by the 48 alleged safety violations or 208 citations filed by federal inspectors against the mine in 2005.

The following comes from the SF Chronicle. Note that the federal fine for a violation is $250.

ICG acquired the Sago Mine (pronounced SAY-goh) last March when it bought Anker West Virginia Mining Co., which was bankrupt. In 2004, the latest year for which figures are available, the Sago Mine produced about 397,000 tons of coal.

Federal inspectors cited the mine for 46 alleged violations of federal mine health and safety rules during an 11-week review that ended Dec. 22, according to records.

The more serious alleged violations, resulting in proposed penalties of at least $250 each, involved steps for safeguarding against roof collapses, and the mine's plan to control methane and breathable dust. The mine received 208 citations during 2005, up from 68 citations in 2004.

The state Office of Miners' Health Safety and Training issued 144 notices of violation against the mine in 2005, up from 74 the year before.

Politics in the Third Dimension (P3D)

2005-12-28T04:48:00.000-08:00

There's a song by the band Shriekback called "Everything that Rises Must Converge." That's why how ole' John McCain could get so makey-outey with Russ Feingold, intellectually speaking, of course. Lemme splain.

Traditionally, we're taught to envision the political arena as a spectrum that offers Left, Right, Center, and the various spots inbetween. That's politics in one dimension, and most people are pretty much stuck there.

Some people, YT included, argue that the spectrum is, in fact, a circle that connects at totalitarianism. In plain English, Communisism IS Fascism IS Monarchy IS Colonialism. It's all Tyranny. This is politics in two dimensions. Not really that great a leap.

(If you went to public school in the 70's, you may now flash on that math movie, "Flat Land" about the square that encounters a sphere. Oh, yeah, and did you see "Why Man Creates?" Pretty trippy.)

Politics in three dimensions adds a vertical axis to the equation, and our visualization takes a remarkable turn. While Left and Right remain unchanged, that point where Tyranny joined the ends of the political spectrum descends to become the south pole of a sphere.

Totalitarianism's opposite -- Democracy -- ascends to become the north pole. (Santa, chillin' with the 76ers.)

Policies, laws and, most importantly, outcomes, can be judged as taking us up a notch to greater democracy, or taking us down a notch to greater tyranny.

At the tactical level, the question of left or right is immaterial. If the Christers actually get low recidivism in their drug rehab programs, God bless 'em. I'd far prefer closing the door on a prosteletizer to getting robbed by a crackhead. No question.

Wonks, Cranks and The Unwashed Masses

2005-12-27T10:52:00.000-08:00

Science And Politics: Wonks and Cranks

The post at the link above is way too long to re-post here. The basic discussion is about whether policy experts (wonks) or political tacticians (cranks) are more valuable to Left Blogistan. But the author gives us real value with his breakdown of political movements into strata of involvement.

So far so good, but when they get down to the people they really need on their side to get anything done -- The Unwashed Masses -- they instantly fall into that "if you don't agree with me you're an idiot" wanking that served the Democrats so well in 2004.

(Sarcasm doesn't translate very well in print, does it? I'll put it straight: just because somebody disagrees with you, they are not necessarily stupid. And saying again and again and again how stupid Bush supporters are doesn't seems to help, either.)

I give my $0.02 in a comment at the end, pointing out that all the wonkery or crankery in the world does nothing to motivate the 50% of the country that sits out presidential elections. This is where anybody who wants to move the political needle needs to focus their energy.

Own the State

2005-12-26T05:55:00.000-08:00

Know how commies are all "Smash the State" and such? I'm not crazy about cleaning up all that broken glass, so I have a better idea: Own the State.

Either way, the workers end up owning the means of production. And, my way, the means of production won't be on fire.

The hard part is not becoming the bourgeoise in the process. Clearly, it can be done with companies like Ben & Jerry, Starbucks, Costco, etc. proving that businesses don't have to screw the workers to make a buck.

But it is, oh, so tempting to take that little bit extra for yourself. I mean, "that little two percent is just sitting there kinda lonely. It'd probably be happier over here with these other percents."

But we will show discipline and hold ranks. It doesn't take a tremendous amount of wealth to leverage some serious reform. The key is to concentrate the force in a specific area like a particular a market niche or set of interrelated issues.

The important initial goals are to prove the value of progressive ecomonics in a free-market environment. (What the hell does that mean? Somebody tell me.) Only demonstrated success will create the mindset where socially conscious reform is again an accepted mainstream idea.

Entrepreneurial Socialism

2005-12-07T13:07:00.000-08:00

I very much enjoy getting into political conversations with people who don't know me. I think of these as intellectual ambushes. My favorite target is conservatives, particularly the economic ones, but most GWLs fall for the bait, too.

If I say the words "national healthcare" or "public schools" without derision, I unerringly find a conversation. It usually goes something like this:

"I think a national system like in the rest of the industrialized world might not be a bad idea."

"Oh, great, more taxes to pay more beauracracy. You pinkos just love to raise taxes 'cuz you're never the one payin' em."

"Oh, you're probably right. Hey, what's your experience rate?"

"My what?"

"Your experience rate. Most states calculate a business's unemployment tax based on their history, or experience, in hiring, firing and laying off. Mine is 2.25%, but I'm a new business. Hell, I don't even know if that's high or low. What's yours?"

"I dunno. My company pays it."

"What, you're not an employer? What the hell do you know about paying taxes. I pay enough taxes to whine like a Republican. But I don't whine. I pay my share and them pour myself a nice cup of STFU."

"Oh, I..."

"Frankly, I'm not so concerned about what I pay. I'm pissed about what we get in return. Overseas wars and trickle down..."

And so on.

Do yourself the favor: start a business, pay your taxes and then ambush unsuspecting losers. It's great.

TOTM Special -- Tyranny in Action

2005-12-05T17:30:00.000-08:00

Professor Hubbard's commentary on NPR's Marketplace is all the proof you need that the US markets are not only manipulated, but manipulated by such moron's that any politicos to the left of and with a greater heart rate than Increase Mather should fire themselves immediately for general incompetence. (Not you, Governor Dean, please return to your seat.)

His (Dean of Columbia Business School Professor Glenn Hubbard's) thesis -- that workers pay the employer portion of Social Security and Medicare taxes in the form of lower wages -- is so boldly ridiculous that I scarcely heard his commentary for my laughter.

One problem with your dreamland scenario, Professor Hibbard. The capitalists never seem to raise the wages. Productivity in the US is at an all-time high. Wages, meanwhile, are dropping! Check it!

Nobody at Marketplace seems concerned with the fact that they're enabling a tyranny. (Note to Public Radio (Intl): Check facts on commentators!)

I hope nobody asked Santa for some TrickleDown(R) for Christmas...

Tyranny of the Marketplace -- Part II

2005-11-30T17:44:00.000-08:00

To absolve themselves from any appearance of abject greed, we often hear a CEO, a securities analyst, a member of The Board, or some other pompous windbag say "We are beholden to the shareholders, and it is they who demand these profits."

In these cases, we are asked to believe that "the shareholders" are some broad section of America, a large class of individuals much like ourselves, as we hold shares in this or that mutual fund.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

In the so-called free market, it's not one-person-one-vote. More like one-dollar-one-vote. Only the largest shareholders have voting rights that mean anything, and those largest shareholders are mostly institutions. And those institutions are themselves beholden to their largest shareholders, again institutions.

So the moral buck is passed, circle-jerk style. No one ever comes right out and says "We're greedy bastards. F*** the workers."

It's those shareholder that made us do it.

Tyranny of the Marketplace -- Part I

2005-11-28T13:37:00.000-08:00

Tyranny of the Marketplace represents the main body of thinking for Entrepreneurial Socialism. Here, I will argue that appropropriate regulation is the essence of a free market. It's the part that keeps the market free. Conversely, I will argue that an unregulated market is inevitably a manipulated marketplace. Shouldn't be too difficult...

Appropriate regulation could mean requiring corporations to meet certain standards for disclosure, or it could mean preventing the government from creating an undue burden on a class of business, a particular industry or even all businesses. The deciding factor is the appropriateness of the regulation to the end of creating and maintaining a truly free market.

We recognize that "the market" cannot monitor itself without external oversight. Any Republican-type whiner who would like to debate this point will have to explain how they want to eliminate the Federal Reserve.

And don't even come around with that libertarian "We wanna eliminate the Fed" crap. We sacrifice tiny portions of our liberty to connect ourselves together in the face of an aggressive and ignorant world. It's called civilization. You should try it sometime.

So if the market cannot monitor and regulate itself, what is the appropriate mechanism? In a word, Government . Yes, Mr. Kudlow, I said Government. My government exists to protect people like me from people like you.

To be continued

Romney Loves Chavez

2005-11-23T15:15:00.000-08:00

So it's really happening: Massachusetts has cut a deal with the Venezualan government to sell 2 million gallons of heating oil to low-income Mass residents at up to 40% below market value. It simply boggles the mind. Mitt Romney praises the deal, but doesn't ever mention Chavez.

Whacky...