Avoiding Ruin

Facing the Problems

I believe there are any number of factors forming and combining to put the United States into decline. Some of these are international, some domestic, but none of them are the work of the gods. Decline is not inevitable at this time; it would be the result of public and private choices Americans make. In this, I agree with Jared Diamond's conclusion in Collapse. However, I also think decline and collapse becomes inevitable at some point in the process. There is a point of no return.

Right now, it looks like we're headed straight for that unforgiving place at high speed. I admit I don't know exactly where it is, whether it is ahead of us, or whether we've already passed it. Most people delude themselves that we are nowhere near criticality: "Don't worry, Be happy!" It is as St Augustine said of bad habits, "Lord, save me from sin, but not quite yet." I am unable to join others in that Alfred E Neuman state, if only because I persist in my hope that, somehow, we can escape an awful fate that no one will want, and everyone will regret, (as did Faust) once it arrives.

How do we avoid a terrible fate? For starters, we need to recognize the problems which are legion. We are destroying our environment, not just locally, but globally. Sooner or later, this is going to undermine somebody's ability to live, if it hasn't already done so. The competition for this planet's goodies is getting more and more fierce, so a violent outcome cannot be unexpected. The losers will have nothing to lose. Being human, they won't just lay down and die; they will get even before breathing their last. When things get really tough, the weak, old and infirm will be sacrificed quickly enough, ending millennia of religious and ethical teachings In the end, even the strong will destroy themselves, just as sharks in a feeding frenzy eat each other.

Elbow Room

To prevent apocalyptic calamities, we must assure each person a satisfactory life, complete with the means of living and social satisfactions. Here, I suppose comfortable people don't launch nuclear missiles. This surely implies the Earth must not be denuded. There has to be a reasonable prospect that the generations will proceed, and that no group is singled out for genocide. Because we have already ruined a large fraction of the Earth's surface and waters, not all of the present population can live at the highest standard; such extravagance is insupportable. One way to solve the problem is simply to "nuke" enough people out of existence. Hopefully, there are other, less ferocious, ways open to us. For example, we could be actively controlling and reducing the population. If over time (a few generations) the population is reduced, there will be some level at which everyone can have the desired lifestyle. China's policies are a sensible example of how to handle things, when you reach the brink. Programs like China's "one child" policy needs to be introduced everywhere. Those who think that the population can continue to expand, and oppose most or all forms of birth (population) control, are perversely guilty of criminal intent to commit genocide. If we don't reduce and police the birth rate now, even more drastic and terrible actions will surely follow later.

I have written many times about population control and reducing our impact on the environment. I have also advocated "moving into space," as I think that is the last frontier where there is enough room for us human beings. The ecological rationale of becoming space creatures is the balancing of ability and risk. Humans have reached a level of competence that overwhelms Earth's limitations and defenses. Short of a giant, unexpected asteroid impact, or the Earth just blowing up, homo sapiens controls everything in sight. In space, however, humans have a tough time surviving, as that extremely hostile environment does nothing to help us. In space, the odds are evened up against homo sapiens, making it much less likely the species will run amok over the environment. (But, I think our species will eventually overcome those risks in a few hundred years, so this is a temporizing solution.)

Besides population and environment, there are human cultural factors which need to be changed, if we are to avoid a disastrous end. This can be seen in the population problem, which occurs because of both genetic and learned compulsions to reproduce. Most cultures glorify having lots of children and the growth of families. These cultural factors are probably hangovers from ancient times, when disease was rampant and people didn't live long or well. For example, the 3,000+ year-old Bible (and the teachings of other religions) urge people to be "frutiful and multiply," a perverse message for our times. The result of that outlook is no one bats an eyelash over the United States doubling its population in 50 years, or California more than quadrupling its residents in 40 years. Those rates are simply unsustainable, but very few people are worried about it because of our cultural preconceptions.

Even more important than social and religious teachings is the outlook implicit in our economic institutions and practices. Economic institutions are of primary importance in controlling the depredations of our planet, because every one of us is involved in economic transactions everyday. Capitalism, especially, is based on growth; it demands growth and promotes growth. Capitalism insists upon an endless expansion of markets, hence a never-ending draw-down of resources. Capitalism encourages people to buy more, use more and expect even more because of its basic, neo-classical assumption that people are insatiable consumers. The global capitalist system is setup on that premise. It is also setup on the premise that scheming entrepreneurs will invent new needs or new ways to meet old needs. It also assumes that resources to supply all those needs will always be found at some market-clearing price. The neo-classical basis of capitalism does not deal with resource limitations, burned-out planets and over population.

Capitalism is an "-ism;" i.e., a systematic set of beliefs based on premises and a theory connecting those premises. It is not a final truth, but only a theory of economic behavior. Like all theories, it explains some things and not others. Capitalism is deeply imbued with Western theology, especially Calvinism, and beliefs about "progress" that developed early in the British industrial revolution. The basic tenets of Capitalism have not been adjusted for about 200 years, so most believers think of their ideology as a fixed truth. That truth includes the notion of persistent, never-ending growth (associated with Biblical doctrines). Clearly, Capitalism and any other economic doctrine like it (e.g., some forms of socialism) must be modified and reigned in, if we are to prevent picking this planet clean.

Malthus had to pile his gloomy theory on top of Adam Smith's free market, because Smith never thought about the population problem (a typical Capitalist omission). The Malthusian view also created problems for Jeremy Bentham and his Utilitarians, because a large portion of the population might suffer immensely to create pleasure for very few, yet that .would be 'the greatest good for the greatest number.' The inventors of capitalism assumed its operations would improve everyone's life, or at least optimize what is possible. Even after Malthus, systematic theorists like Ricardo preferred to ignore the possibility that the maximum, "optimal" level of life was in fact the minimum people could bear. That ignorance is especially curious in view of the use neo-classical economists make of Utilitarian notions; e.g., interpreting the 'greatest good' concept as the "demand curve." But non-economists understood the implications well-enough, so economics came to be known as the "dismal science" early on.

Boring Necessity

Those familiar with corporate capitalism and financial markets will surely agree that most private companies don't make money in stagnant markets. Groceries, for example, are almost always a low margin, low profit business. This is because most people buy only what they need, not necessarily what they could afford. Grocery stores usually have a fixed market (the neighborhood) over long periods of time. Grocery chains can and do grow, but not usually in older, developed areas. Giant firms like Wal*Mart got where they are by developing new areas, or beating out the competition in old areas. Eventually they all run out of new ideas and real estate, profits stop growing, and the stock tops out. Running an "old-line" business is not terribly rewarding or exciting, but it does provide a steady living for its employees and a sense of comfort for its customers.

The business of government is similar to a grocery store. The tasks assigned to government are routine, set by law and not well rewarded. Conservatives criticize government for being slow and inefficient, when actually it is neither. Government agencies are usually efficient in the performance of their assigned duties, according to the standards set for government (which are not the same as those for private entities). One reason government is efficient is that things are not done any faster than absolutely required. By analogy, a racing car accelerates 0-60 a lot faster than my pickup, but it also uses a lot more gas in the process. Freight trucks are optimized to carry large loads at a nearly constant highway speed, so they don't do well in stop-and-go city traffic. Government agencies are almost always funded for the average workload, not rush-hour, which means they operate more slowly than race car drivers would like. When government does take on excess capacity to deal with rush-hour situations, conservative lobbyists usually bellow loudly and often about "waste." So, there isn't any reward for overall better-than-average service. Government is in a double bind, especially in an America ruled by conservatives. Despite the constant harping and baiting, the basic design of government is to provide services and products of reasonable quality, continuously, reliably and cheaply.

The same situation applies to non-profits and public utilities. Those entities are supposed to be carrying out day-to-day "grunt" work - work that is necessary but uninspired. The much-derided nuclear-electric generation plants are not supposed to be hotbeds of experimentation, even if innovations are introduced from time to time. Nuclear plant operators are supposed to produce a certain amount of electricity every day on a schedule, according to predetermined rules, regulations and procedures designed to ensure the reliability and safety of the operation. Nuclear plants aren't supposed to be making a killing on the market; they are supposed to deliver so many MW of electricity. The same is true of other electric and natural gas producers, water and sewerage utilities, street maintenance, telephone companies and all the other utilities that make our 21^st century lives possible and tolerable.

I am pointing out the foregoing, which I consider obvious, because the proper arrangement of government, public utilities and other publicly regulated entities seems to have been forgotten or lost in recent times. Market fundamentalists have been very successful in convincing people that government is bad, but should be operated as some sort of business. All sorts of services are being "privatized" - turned over to capitalists for exploitation - in the name of efficiency. Thus, now we are supposedly better served by "deregulated" airline and telephone industries that regularly go broke instead of the old, tried and true services we once had. It is true that airline seats are often cheaper than they used to be, but it is also true that safety is often compromised. Airlines once provided "good jobs," but now have erased more than 30 years' worth of retirement and other benefits their employees once had. (So, now, the taxpayers are going to pick up that tab.) The same things have happened in the telecommunications industry, which has also succeeding in destroying hundreds of billions of investments by millions of people in those defunct firms. The ENRON scandal is only the tip of an iceberg composed of many thefts and lesser outrages perpetrated on ordinary people. All that in the name of "efficiency."

I have to ask, now that taxpayers will be paying billions every year to make up for private deficiencies, was the lower price of airline tickets and telephone calls only a temporary benefit? And, who got the huge profits that were stripped out of those businesses? (Think ENRON, MCI).

Contemporary conservatives and market fundamentalists (most often the same people) make a fundamental, intellectual mistake in their political philosophy regarding government. It is a simple mistake probably motivated by their embrace of the private, and rejection of the public: the notion that government is a business. In fact, historically, modern corporations were preceded by the organization of modern government. Prior to modern democracy, business was organized as an autocracy, much like the monarchies of that day. Now, corporations are still autocratic, but chartered autocracies, as in constitutional monarchy. Shareholders have increased powers, and vote their proxies in corporate elections. Management answers to its shareholder electorate. Lately, there has been an emphasis on independent Boards, and oversight of management. All of this increased democracy and regulation within corporations is the result of an external model: democratic government. It is not the case, historically, that government owes its existence and methods to business in modern times. It is the other way around.

In addition to their wrong interpretation of the historical relationship between business and government, conservative political philosophy completely misunderstands the basis of modern government. Again, even in Adam Smith, the government is not treated as a business, but as the regulator of business. More strongly, most Liberals view government not merely as a passive umpire in the Capitalist game, but as the overseer of the marketplace and economic practices. In the Liberal view, government makes the rules by which business is allowed to play. Whether passive or active, government is not in principle the same as business: it is supposed to be the omnipresent "third party" in every transaction. This notion of government is very similar to the American idea of "checks and balances" within government, with government serving in parallel to the Judiciary with respect to the marketplace.

Public Agency

Now, I have traveled a once well used route, now forsaken by those taking "shortcuts" invented by conservatives. Unfortunately, I think the shortcuts lead to dead-ends. Along that way, the citizenry is being robbed. That's because the short cuts are intended to enrich the few at the expense of the many, and to cast sucked-dry hulks into the ditch. But, if we ignore the short route to perdition, we can have a more certain, if less seemingly less glorious, result. That result depends critically upon putting government first, and regulating our society carefully and wisely.

How we should we arrange society? This is a fundamental question of political philosophy, which I am not answering completely here. But part of the answer lies in the powers we assign the government. We must keep in mind government is central in every society, since the very word means the arrangements according to which we live. That is, societies have government in some form, otherwise they aren't societies. I suppose anarchists will argue that society is possible without a governing agency, that is without government. Libertarians argue that society is possible with very minimal government. Both the anti-government Left and Right are mistaken, however, because to the extent the people co-operate in making socially-binding decisions, they are the government. Those who are without government are truly loners, properly hermits, people on their own without recourse to others. (Even families have some form of government, unless mating is just a momentary, spontaneous act without further consequence as with many reptiles.)

Almost all humans prefer having social connections, hence they submit to government. Because a social structure is assumed, the major question is what sort of government should we have? Many forms of government have been tried in human societies. Historically, most of those forms have been authoritarian, based on male power over females and children. I prefer to think we have evolved recently to democracy, but egalitarian societies are few and far between in human history. In those cases where some form of democracy is (or was) practised, the society was usually relatively poor and few in numbers. There is something about wealth and large numbers that brings on one form of autocracy or another. Of course, wealth and population are not entirely independent factors, since wealthy societies can support more children and adults, or, put the other way around, poverty kills people. As large populations are achieved, running society becomes more complex. However they acquire their position, elite classes invariably want to keep it, so oppression of the lower classes is almost inevitable. (The simplest way to ensure "order" is to employ force, hence slavery and serfdom. Since human males are larger and stronger, this gives them the upper hand in most societies.) Rulers like ruling, especially when someone else does the work, and they get the rewards.

For this paper. I prefer to pass over the sordid history of autocratic government, and come to modern times. In our times, most of us have at last concluded that democracy is the better choice, even if a significant portion of the population would prefer reversion to the Middle Ages or even farther back. (Of course, those reactionaries usually do not prefer all the conditions that accompany Medieval societies, such as short lives.) The specific implementation of democracy we have in Western countries is not necessarily the only one. "Democracy" is a very subjective term, not an objective one, so we cannot advocate a universal standard that might work everywhere. We can, however, adopt a heuristic, that if the great majority of a State's citizens believe democracy is successfully practiced there, that is a valid local version of democracy. While a slippery standard, there are certain core features of democracy, such as regularly consulting ordinary people (elections, referenda, polls, etc) and following the "will of the people," that even opponents of democracy agree are its characteristics. So, in fact, there is not a lot of disagreement most of the time over whether democracy exists in most places. When there is disagreement, it is usually between enemies, each of which claims the other is undemocratic. When we really have undemocratic societies, almost everyone knows what they are.

It is often claimed that Capitalism is an inherent component of modern democracy, a claim I oppose. Social and political democray is about ordinary people making choices, which might or might not be the capitalist system. There is a market fundamentalist argument, that the free market represents economic democracy because people "vote" with their money. I think this is just flim-flam, simply because people have been "voting" with their money for well over 3,000 years under various economic systems, usually buying the same things. Since the beginning of money (in whatever form) and human history, people have bought food, clothes, housing, medicine, education, decorations (personal luxuries) and transportation. The ancients bought and sold mules, horses and camels whereas us moderns trade trucks, cars and SUVs. Almost all of the money each of us makes and spends is devoted to those few categories. Capitalism is only the latest in a long line of economic systems that provides essentially the same goods for the same population for the same reasons. Moreover, Capitalism is not necesssarily "democratic" as any examination of modern Colonialism and Imperialism will attest. One man's Capitalism is another's Oppression. Nor does Capitalism of itself encourage democracy as can be seen in the relations of North America with Latin America. The United States maintained bloody dictatorships in Nicaragua, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Haiti, Chile and almost everywhere else in Latin America at one time or another. Everyone knows that a Banana Republic has very little to do with democracy, but a lot to do with inexpensive bananas, coffee, cigars, etc. U.S. capitalists were more than happy to operate in Pinochet's Chile, and even deal with Castro when it is profitable. These and many other examples show that Capitalism is at best an epiphenomenon of democracy , not a core component.

What is a core component of democracy is public regulation and oversight, and fulfilling public purposes. If Capitalist operations fulfill those purposes, well and good; but, if not, they are dispensable. Thus, it is my view that the central economic doctrine of democracy must be public agency. A public agent is what the term implies, an agent of the public. The electorate determines what will be done, and assigns the public agent to carry it out. The public can make its determination based on whatever criteria it sees fit. Thus, the public might be concerned about cost, quality, scheduling, employment, efficiency or a myriad of other factors.The particular mix of factors, including the effort of regulation and oversight, will probably determine the actual form in which a decision is carried out. The main distinction made here is that carrying out economic decisions is instrumental, secondary to public judgement. So, corporations - indeed all businesses - serve at the pleasure of society, not the other way around.

That assertion, which I believe to be inherent in democracy, is a primary criticism of the way things are done in the United States. In the United States, the people have lost their way by allowing business to run their society and their lives. I assume this is a result of having been seduced and overwhelmed by the goodies on offer, without thought of what follows from them. Thus, Americans, having addicted themselves to luxurious things, work a lot to live a little, whereas Europeans work only as they must to live.

Private v Public

If, as I believe, public choice comes before private interest, the question arises how should we structure the economy? I think many of the main outlines have already been established. There are functions carried out directly by government agencies. There are functions carried out by utilities, whether privately or publicly owned, under government regulation and oversight. Then there are the things done privately by individuals, small and large businesses, and other entities (such as non-profits), which are minimally regulated by the government.

It seems to me how the tasks of supplying society are parceled out depends on the nature of task, and what works best. In other words, this is a pragmatic choice, but still a choice made by government, not privately. American business interests have often turned this relationship upside down, which is not necessarily good for society. For example, the Detroit auto makers went on a campaign against public transportation after World War II. As a result of their efforts, the San Francisco Bay Area Key System was abandoned and replaced by highways, buses and cars. 25 years later, at a cost of billions, the Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BARTD) was built, much of it over the old Key route. The same thing happened in Los Angeles, which made LA into the "freeway city" and a smog capitol of the world. Now they're building a rapid transit system in LA to reduce automobile use, at a cost of tens of billions. This waste is the result of private dominance over public interest in both cases.

The freeway system is a result of public action, however much influenced by Detroit. The car manufacturers did not build the American highway system; the States and Federal government did. Cars were invented at the end of the 19^th century, but weren't practical without paved streets, a network of gas stations, repair garages and parking places - all at a sufficiently low price. Generally, almost everywhere, the public provided most of the investment required to make automobile operation practical. The same circumstances prevailed in the computer and airline industries, which were largely funded by the government in their start-up period and still earn substantial revenues and support from the government.

What these and other examples show is that private enterprises - particularly large corporations - are often not successful without government approval or intervention. The Internet is the result of military research. So are the TV cable and satellite services. Entrepreneurs may have good ideas, and may be tireless in pursuit of their dreams, but they don't get far without the government. This is most recently shown in the private development of space vehicles, which only moved ahead with government sanction and support. Thus, contrary to ultra-capitalist propaganda, there is a huge role for government, especially in pioneering efforts.

These facts lead me to setting some criteria for determining when government should do something, and when it should be left to private initiative. It seems reasonable to me to leave routine matters to the government and regulated entities. I leave new ideas and growth industries to the private sector. In most cases, this is a fairly clear dividing line, but there are a significant number of areas in which a mix of private and public efforts is needed. (For instance, most basic research is funded publicly and done privately.)

We have traditionally left or assigned to the government those functions which need to be carried out under public control and supervision. That includes police services, and all those operations which intrude in a sensitive way upon private lives and activities. Regulatory agencies such as the Federal Reserve Bank, Securities and Exchange Commission, Federal Communications Commission, Environmental Protection Agency and a myriad of others are required to insure the proper operation of markets and the economy, the safe manufacture and distribution of products, and to sanction and enforce allowed uses of our resources. Conservatives dislike all those rules and regulations, and the regulators, which are the historical result of abuses discovered from time to time. (Conservatives have routinely perpetrated and benefitted from the abuses.) At the beginning of the United States, there were no professional fire or police departments, but they became widespread during the 19^th century, when volunteer organizations proved incapable of meeting the need. It was also soon learned that it makes no sense to leave such matters to private companies, as public order and fighting fires affects everyone. Working people were oppressed (sometimes murdered) by the Pinkertons during the heyday of the Robber Barons, which shows the danger of an unregulated private police. So, as a matter of experience, new assignments have been given to government as society developed, when the situation required it and as the need arose.

While time changes most things, there is usually no need to review most governmental assignments or automatically shut them down (as in sunset laws). For example, the police function is based on some basic principles which are unlikely to change as long as humans remain what they are. Fires happen, and so do crooks, accidents and disasters of all kinds. Even well meaning pharmaceutical companies make mistakes, as happened with the 2004 flu vaccine, so government oversight is necessary to protect life and limb. In most cases, we already learned long ago that those functions are not well done by private entities, because of conflict of interest, bribes, profiteering and many other abuses. There was a reason for the 1933 Glass-Stiegal Act, which separated financial products into different companies. Conservatives deprecated that Act, which was eventually repealed during Clinton's 2^nd term (after being publicly violated and not enforced). The nearly immediate result has been the continuing rash of financial scandals. Unfortunately, if there is an opportunity to lie, cheat and steal, people will quickly find it.

I am not impressed by conservative demands to scrap regulation, unless there is a showing that the reason for regulation has disappeared. There is a reason all those government rules and regulations were made; it is very rare for those reasons to evaporate. The large government required to do all these things is not an argument against the regulations. The necessity of big government merely shows that we have a complex society that requires lots of oversight. I agree, however, that the cost of regulation should be considered in determining whether to do something, but, if the total cost is excessive, that may be a reason for not doing it. (The answer is not to junk the regulations in order to reduce the cost, as conservatives would have it.)

There are a number of areas where universal functions are in fact performed by private companies, such as public utilities. The treatment of such private entities should be essentially the same as that of government, because they are doing something in the public interest that could be done by a public agency. Thus, some cities own their own power and water companies whereas others rely on private producers. It is not a large jump to move from private to public ownership in these cases, especially since public control is already a fact of operation. The main consideration in deciding whether something will done by a private or public agency should be the public interest, including cost, efficiency and side effects. I don't think there is any presumption in favor of private operation. Each case has to be decided on its own merits, locally by those affected.

Intervention

I think government has the right to intervene in the public interest wherever a public interest is thought to exist. For example, most people believe economic busts are not a good thing, so the government should intervene to prevent and eliminate them. The government should also intervene to stop financial bubbles and other forms of speculation; for example, the present real estate bubble. It is always much harder to clamp down on a boom or bubble, because some people are making a quick buck. The trouble is, of course, the inevitable aftermath of a bubble, as we found out after 1929, 2000-2001 and other times. (The late 1970s real estate boom in California was followed by a bust that lasted until 1996, during which home prices dropped 20-40% and bankrupted thousands of people. In 2005, most new homes are being built for "investment" purposes, not as residences.) It is the likelihood that bust follows boom that justifies intervention to slow down or stop the boom, despite the howls and screams of speculators. Intervention in the business cycle is a public interest, primarilly because reduction in economic swings increases social stability.

On my view, what is left to private interests is what is not regulated. Those who discover new ideas, invent new products and develop new markets need not be closely regulated until whatever they are doing becomes a disturbing factor. Success should bring on regulation and oversight. Had we followed this principle in the 1990s. there might not have been global over-investment in global fiber optic cable. Those who invested in such grandiose telecommunications schemes got burned (including this writer). Ironically, it is those same communications cables, 100% amortized by the bankruptcy of their builders to the tune of trillions of dollars, which enabled the international outsourcing of employment in U.S.-based businesses. So, the uncontrolled over-investment represented in the 1999-2000 stock market bubble not only laid waste to millions of portfolios, but has gone on to wreak havoc on those American workers who never owned a stock or had a portfolio.

The computer boom, which started in the 1970s, brought to the fore a large number of doggedly determined ultra-capitalists. Their view is that the government only stood in the way of all that was progress. But, I totally disagree with that view. If anything, the computer boom happened on account of government investment, starting with NASA and the military. Since World War II, the electronics industry has always been heavily dependent on military spending on gadgets. The most recent "smart" weapons are the incredible and incredibly expensive results of military projects. Having been involved with the computer industry most of my working life (since the 1960s), and having by accident been near the source of many inventions, it is my personal experience that large-scale government activities have been imbedded in the computer industry since the British government started it during World War II.

The proof of my view is that most of the electronics industry has a hard time making money in consumer markets. Companies like INTEL ("integrated electronics") got started on government contracts, at a time when premium prices were being paid for transistors and integrated circuits (ICs) cost more than gold (by weight). INTEL continues to be a very profitable company, probably because of its commanding position in the electronics network, but its competitors barely manage to hang on. APPLE COMPUTER has survived at times on subsidies from MICROSOFT. Bankruptcy and liquidation is the most common fate of electronics companies, especially consumer-oriented companies; witness the defunct American television and stereo industry. Without repeated military contracts, or a lock on civilian government contracts, electronics companies die. This fact is the secret of success of most large, on-going technology corporations, such as IBM, MOTOROLA, CISCO, HP, etc, and even the supposedly consumer-oriented DELL. Those and many other companies all have a "Federal" division devoted solely to wheedling and maintaining their very profitable businesses with the Federal government.

The same sort of thing has happened with biotechnology and pharmaceuticals. People are claiming the rewards of recent startling advances, as if they did all the work. What is being ignored is the hundreds of billions the Federal government invested in the research and development which made commercialization possible. In fact, it is very common for research workers to leave their employers just before an obviously important discovery becomes marketable. Those leaving start their own companies, and patent the product as quickly as possible. Neither Federal nor State governments seek reimbursement for the millions spent on developing those expropriated, privatized products, which encourages their abduction.

None of this argument denies the private effort involved in the rapid technological changes we have seen in the last several decades. Nonetheless, my claim is that those changes would have happened about as fast in a more regulated environment. The deregulation of the telecommunications industry (the AT&T breakup), and the freeing of computers from the grip of major corporations (including the government), were not the central stimuli for what happened with those technologies. Rather, the technologies were "ready" for what happened, and got promoted by a certain segment of the population (mostly young men) attracted to techie-whizzie gadgets. In other words, the computer industry got started as a fad among young men who liked to play video games and do other nerdy things. For that group (including myself), there was a "fatal attraction" to the idea of building an intelligent robot (R2D2, 3PO, etc) or mastering the secrets of the universe (thus, Star Wars). It was a matter of "coming of age." This is a difficult argument to make, but I make it nonetheless: what transpired in telecommunications, computing and electronics (all inter-related fields) was the result of the "inner logic" of research and development, of the science and technology of the time. The externals - government regulation, privatization, etc - may have speeded up or slowed down progress from time to time, but those were modulating factors on underlying developments.

In my view, the argument about government regulation is demoted to a side-issue in the proper history of these and other industries. I will stipulate, however, that it is important the government not actively stifle or conceal scientific and technical development. For that matter, the same stipulation should be applied to corporations and other institutions in a position to limit knowledge and experimentation. The important freedoms which drive advancement are intellectual and academic. Both authoritarian governments and profit-seeking businesses like secrecy, and have long histories of locking up ideas that don't suit them or might benefit a competitor. Suppression of that freedom is probably far more effective in suppressing economic change than economic regulation. The intellectual freedom required to make new discoveries and bring them to market is not primarily economic, it is personal. I note that the computer and IT revolutions started here - in Northern California - a region well-known for its liberated residents, who think unorthodox thoughts and do rebellious things. Historically, it is tolerant cultures like this one that originate the new ideas that take root and change economies and societies.

So, government regulation and corporate secrecy have the power to slow down innovation, but they are probably not as good at inducing positive change. Thus, the argument about government intervention in the economy is probably not relevant to major changes. The dominant factors in social change are not economic, but intellectual and cultural. My "doctrine" would be that economy follows culture. If so, it is likely that deregulation, privatization and other, related dogmas of conservative ideology are either false or curiosities, but not arguments against government regulation and oversight.
 

I ask why Bill Gates or Warren Buffet should determine where billions should be invested every year? One of the justifications for high marginal tax rates is exactly that investment should be a public decision. Leaving huge amounts of capital in private hands is to deny democratic government, and to subscribe to plutocracy and autocracy, because there is no necessary consideration of public interest. While the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation investing in worthy causes ameliorates the fact of its enormous holdings, it doesn't change the principle. Nothing requires the Foundation to do what it is doing. The lack of principled regulation is demonstrated by those Foundations which put money to work conspiring against Democratic Presidents and politicians, and liberal causes generally. Conservatives have been the beneficiaries of huge fortunes devoted to advancing their political fortunes. This distorts the political calculus, and impedes determination of the public good. So, I think there should be rules about how those fortunes are used. The public interest needs to be evaluated in the use of huge private fortunes, if for no other reason than to protect the public from abuse.

Regulating Growth

One of the most important reasons I have in supporting the primacy of public interest is solving the problems presented above: population, environment, resources, climate change, etc. These are not small problems, and they won't just go away. Unsolved, any one of these problems threatens to liquidate the human race and a large number of other species as well. It is even possible to leave this Earth totally devoid of life by making a few bad choices.

Unfortunately, nothing in the private sector takes account of these large, long term factors. Even if free-market Capitalism was appropriate for our early modern ancestors, it has become a disastrous system now that enormously powerful technologies are commonly available. Capitalist corporations are primarily interested in their own profits and existence, however internally distributed. They are not set up to determine the long-run good of homo sapiens, or even a single city or town beyond their corporate towers. The same outlook extends all the way to the bottom of a capitalist economy, as the mom-and-pop shops are even more self-interested to the extent that it is harder for them to survive. The managers of the typical large corporation are unable to forecast futures beyond the next quarter, or sometimes a few quarters. Most economic forecasts confine themselves to period of one year or less. And that is all they are concerned about: if we are all blasted to smithereens next year, it matters not.

Most people are only concerned about their daily lives, rarely thinking beyond this week or this month. Corporate myopia is not as severe, but only improves the time horizon by a few months. This leaves the government or a similar agency as the only one that could make decisions representing the long run good of society. If we disable that power, then we are adrift; Que sera, sera.

If there were some impossibility in knowing or estimating the future, then our short term outlook would have to do; we would have to accept whatever befalls us. But we need not be that fatalistic in these post-modern times. We have lots of sound science and people who know how to use that science to guide our judgements. It is perfectly possible to predict medium and large scale futures many decades in advance. Oddly enough, we still cannot predict what happens to individuals, but it doesn't matter because our methods are statistical in nature. We don't have to depend on things happening a certain way to individuals; it is only required that things happen a certain way to people in the aggregate. Thus, we can be fairly certain that every year there will be so many accidents, deaths, diseases, marriages, births, etc. For the purpose of making societal decisions, it is only those central tendencies and probabilities that we need to know.

On my thesis, global climate change is a very good instance of the sort of problem government should handle. We do not know the details of climate change, but we do know that some regions will benefit and others severely undermined. We don't know exactly the extent of climate change, but we do know its gross parameters and sign posts. We know what to look for along the way, as it happens. Most importantly, we know enough about how what we do today affects tomorrow. Example: we know that sufficient carbon burning induces a greenhouse effect which brings on climate change. We know that "sufficient carbon burning" is an on-going human activity. In short, we know that human use of carbon-based fuels is directly linked to (I hesitate to say "causes") global climate change. Having this knowledge, the government can make decisions and implement programs which allow people to come to terms with the changes.

Here is the crucial point: government has the right and duty to act in these circumstances because no other agency in society is equipped to do so. It's the government or nothing. It's criminal for the government to obscure the truth, or lie about the facts, so as to avoid its responsibility, or in order to undertake unwarranted actions. Alas, the latter is exactly what is happening in the United States.

I am unwilling to throw myself over the cliff and wait to see what happens. I want my government to act to prevent or reduce some of the dire consequences that I am quite sure will befall us. I believe the majority of citizens feels as I do, even if they are temporarily deluded about what is happening. If the majority opposed any action, and were willing to accept whatever fate has in store, I would be stuck. But I don't think that is the way it is.

The plea of this paper is very simple: government has the right and the duty to act in the interests of society. It should use the best available knowledge in carrying out its assignments. It should not be deflected by the flak thrown up by special interests which pits one segment of society against another. The government should root out and expose propaganda and activities involved in misdirecting and misusing the government for private purposes.

If enough people understood this message, and acted promptly upon it, I believe the present government would disappear by sundown.