One can only speculate. There are multiple possible scenarios. Yet our current economic recession is the largely result of moral failure. Start with unrestrained personal greed. Add the ignorance of blind ideology, the patronizing attitudes of political correctness, and the irresponsible decisions of political expediency. We are witness to a massive failure of governance. Agencies refusing to do their job because ideology is more important than the pursuit of responsibility. We look for leadership from a self-absorbed, self-important Congress that is clearly incapable of managing the affairs of nation. We suffer the consequences of a totally defective and deficient administration. Republican. Democratic. Conservative. Liberal. It does not appear to make any difference. We are a nation stumbling from crisis to crisis. Washington drowns in elitist arrogance. Is this government capable of creative intelligence?
Probably not.
Powerful political forces are attempting to reform the character of our institutions to suite their vision of a perfect autocratic society. Backed by the police power of the State, arbitrary law panders to social caste in order to gain support from blocks of voters. The sordid instincts of competitive animal behavior focus on the acquisition and preservation of political power. Voters become chattel. Ignorant ideology replaces economic justification. Individual freedom and common sense are no longer the basis for legislation. The institutions of government are rendered ineffective and excessively expensive by growing mismanagement. This form of government can last for as long as the governed will tolerate the inevitable detestation, corruption, incompetence and restrictions of an oppressive bureaucratic system.
Is our nation at the crossroads?
American democracy was originally founded by a group of largely middle class colonists based on their cultural beliefs and their knowledge of the institutional failures that had besieged the nations of Europe. They wanted to avoid the obvious mistakes, form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty for themselves and their posterity. The founders of American democracy knew a nation of free men and women could only exist if the moral character of government is guided by a faith in a supreme being. It was assumed individual freedom was interdependent with the concept of individual responsibility.
Founded as it is on the best impulses of human conduct, America will decline if it abandons them in favor of elitist ideologies that promote the acquisition of political power over the individual.
A government which seeks to elevate the human condition takes its sense of moral mission from spiritual beliefs. Although Christianity has typically been used to provide this basis, any profound and moving relationship with a supreme being that encompasses the principals of friendship, love and truth will provide the necessary visualization. Within this context, terms such as independence, industry, fidelity, caring, charity, honesty, and integrity are essential descriptors of personal behavior. And if the people of a nation wish to enjoy the profound benefits of freedom, these beliefs must guide the legislative and administrative processes of government.
Beware. If our Government continues to drift away from the traditional values of responsible democracy, it will not endure.
Is our nation at a crossroads?
TEA
February 9, 2012
December 10, 2011
Confrontation For The Soul Of America
The American economy is in a rut. Unemployment is ~ 8.6%. Underemployment is over 22%. America is living the debilitating misery of chronic recession. The stock market trembles with every European rumor. Fear of economic depression hangs in the air. Washington appears determined to make matters worse. Americans are agitated.
And that sets the stage for the 2012 elections.
Both political parties are slinging mud just as fast as they can. Caustic lies and nasty matter pollute the air. (More global warming?) Republicans are flustered. Democrats are frustrated. For both parties, venomous rhetoric is more important than substance. But while our politicians are preoccupied with smut, many of America’s potential challenges are not even on the election issue radar. Some subjects are avoided because any mention of them would be condemned as politically incorrect. Some of America’s challenges are evaded because meaningful debate would be politically inexpedient. And some are left out of the election deliberations because few politicians understand the subject.
Does that shake voter confidence?
For republicans or democrats, the downside penalty of winning in 2012 is far greater than any upside reward. For the winner there will be continuing frustration and anger. No matter who wins, Washington will still have to deal with chronic recession, a deteriorating situation in the Middle East, determined terrorist activity, incessant civil war in multiple nations, an embarrassingly ineffective and corrupt United Nations, a nasty collection of anti-American politicians, chaos in Mexico, China’s ascendancy as a self-centered political and economic power, a destabilized European Union, government corruption, domestic terror attacks, and escalating domestic anarchy.
Oh. And higher oil prices. And the threat of ruinous inflation.
Does that shake voter confidence?
Obama is pulling American troops out of Iraq. The resulting power vacuum will lead to increased political turbulence throughout the Middle East. Iran is uniting the Shia Muslim population against Sunni Muslims, forming anti-western, anti-Jewish, anti-American alliances, and funding an army of terrorists. Democracy will not survive in Iraq because this region has neither the culture nor the economic basis to support a democracy. Afghanistan and Pakistan will become armed Islamist camps. Islamist influence already dominates Egypt and multiple African nations. Regional war is inevitable. World war is possible.
Does that shake voter confidence?
All the Congressional failures of the last 25 years will come home to roost. The promise of democracy has been debased by ceaseless bickering and a cascade of outright lies. Socialist ideology has weakened America’s financial strength, desecrated the legitimacy of American media, and trashed the financial viability of America’s health care system. Free market enterprise has been debauched by crony capitalism. Bureaucratic oppression routinely sabotages entrepreneurial activity. Legislative confrontation has replaced meaningful compromise. Stalemate prevails over common sense.
Does that shake voter confidence?
In many respects, this is a very strange election cycle. The next five years could be apocalyptic. Although most Americans can not verbalize the challenges that lie ahead, they definitely know something is wrong. Voters feel helpless. Threatened. Uneasy. Congressional approval is a wretched ~ 19%. Obama’s credibility is sinking.
For republicans or democrats, winning in 2012 means losing. There are no uncomplicated answers to the challenges that lie ahead. Potential solutions will be smothered by the appalling ignorance of ideology. That will force a dramatic shift in political power. The opposition will win in 2016.
Assuming the political establishment allows free elections.
Perhaps we will sail into 2016 on the wings of angels. Four beautiful, prosperous, uneventful years. But I doubt it. This guy in Iran is unlikely to wait 4 years to make his mark on history. Ditto for the other assorted dictators, terrorists and gangs that make up the new world order. Perhaps our financial quandary can be swept under the rug. Maybe our capital structure can be held together with the glue of good fortune. Maybe cheap oil will flow in copious quantities.
But will our luck hold for 4 years?
In this election, voters are confronted by a wall of worry. The largest stone in this wall, however, is the future of America’s political system. We can choose the self righteous ignorance of blind ideology, or we can seek to restore the magnificent promise of freedom. We can choose the institutional tyranny of oppressive government, or pursue a political system that acts with moderation. We can choose leaders who will govern by edict, or leaders who respect the independent freedoms of a responsible and self-reliant population. We can support a lust for ever-greater personal political power, or the humility of a personal commitment to America’s citizens. We can choose the socialist version of crony capitalism, or believe in the wealth creating potential of managed capitalism. We can support capricious decisions centered on self-serving political expediency, or good management based on an intelligent analysis of economic and cultural reality.
The process of choice promises to be contentious.
Corruption, confrontation, and bad management eventually lead to government failure. The imperious pursuit of political power leads to self destruction. Economic decline is the handmaiden of cultural deterioration.
If Americans fail to choose wisely, cataclysmic change is inevitable
Perhaps we will sail into 2016 on the wings of angels. Four beautiful, prosperous, uneventful years. But I doubt it. This guy in Iran is unlikely to wait 4 years to make his mark on history. Ditto for the other assorted dictators, terrorists and gangs that make up the new world order. Perhaps our financial quandary can be swept under the rug. Maybe our capital structure can be held together with the glue of good fortune. Maybe cheap oil will flow in copious quantities.
But will our luck hold for 4 years?
We are at a crossroad. We can no longer pretend our problems do not exist. Bad things can no longer be blamed on someone else. Politically correct beliefs and ideological mantra only serve to obscure the challenges we face. Our nation can not continue to ignore its problems. |
In this election, voters are confronted by a wall of worry. The largest stone in this wall, however, is the future of America’s political system. We can choose the self righteous ignorance of blind ideology, or we can seek to restore the magnificent promise of freedom. We can choose the institutional tyranny of oppressive government, or pursue a political system that acts with moderation. We can choose leaders who will govern by edict, or leaders who respect the independent freedoms of a responsible and self-reliant population. We can support a lust for ever-greater personal political power, or the humility of a personal commitment to America’s citizens. We can choose the socialist version of crony capitalism, or believe in the wealth creating potential of managed capitalism. We can support capricious decisions centered on self-serving political expediency, or good management based on an intelligent analysis of economic and cultural reality.
The process of choice promises to be contentious.
Corruption, confrontation, and bad management eventually lead to government failure. The imperious pursuit of political power leads to self destruction. Economic decline is the handmaiden of cultural deterioration.
If Americans fail to choose wisely, cataclysmic change is inevitable
TEA
November 4, 2011
Why Governments Fail
We are being challenged. We are challenged to change the way we govern ourselves. We do not have a "business as usual" future. We will change our economic system and social structure in order to deal with the realities of the 21st century.
It will not be easy.
Failure
One of the fantasies espoused with fervent ignorance is that the cold war ended when Communism failed. It had finally been proven, went the argument, that Communism is an inadequate form of government. Since Democracy provides a better means of managing the affairs of State, Democracy had won the contest.
When the communist government of the USSR collapsed, liberals and conservatives of every political affiliation struggled to find an explanation. Liberals in America, Canada and Western Europe had generally supported communism as a political theory, often comparing it as a preferred alternative to what they perceived as failed democratic institutions. For them, the demise of Russian communist rule was an embarrassment. By contrast, conservatives rejoiced at what they perceived as a victory for democracy. They believed that socialist political philosophy had been trampled by the reality of current events. The accepted explanation for people of both philosophies was that communism had lost the cold war. Democracy had won.
They were wrong.
Communism failed because Russia's leaders had lost the ability to govern. Russia's convoluted, corrupt and ossified bureaucratic institutions simply stopped working. The people did not make a conscious decision to overthrow Communism in favor of Democracy. They adopted a democratic form of government because it was perceived as being the only credible alternative to their failed institutions.
Democracy did not win. Communism did not lose. In reality, the Russian Government had simply stopped working. The Russian people were forced to adopt democratic capitalism because the credibility and the processes of bureaucratic centralized planning had evaporated. Ideology had little to do with the practical reality of finding a way to manage the affairs of government. If the Russian people choose democracy - even a pseudo democracy - it was because democracy appeared to be more acceptable than other alternative forms of self rule.
And that provokes an interesting question: Do Americans face the same uneasy dilemma that forced a change in Russia? Could it be argued that America's democratic institutions are suffering from the same cancerous problems that ended Communism?
Absolutely.
Governments fall from power because they either ossify or become too pliable. In the former case the natural course of bureaucratic behavior creates an unworkable system of regulations backed by the stupid, overbearing and arrogant use of police power. The management functions of government become hopelessly entangled in politically motivated decisions that have nothing to do with present or future reality. In the latter case, government becomes so liberal that it can only act in a cowardly fashion. Pandering to the demands of the mob, justice and morality are continually degraded in a vain attempt to find the lowest common social denominator. Groups gain special status through the granting of exclusive privilege. In either case, personal freedom is lost. Individuals can only survive as a member of a cultural group. Individualists can only survive by acting outside the system.
It is America's sad misfortune to suffer from both malady's at the same time.
All national governments are bureaucratic institutions. The underlying political philosophy may be totalitarian, authoritarian, democratic or laissez faire. It doesn't matter. The administrative success or failure of any government depends upon how well it manages the bureaucratic processes of governing. Successful governments will normally have a strong and effective leadership. There is a reasonably clear and informed vision of goals and objectives. It will usually be proactive, rather than reactive. Leaders at all levels of government are able to combine a comprehension of the country's place in the real world with the capability to execute the work processes of administrative management. Corrupt behavior, which plagues every nation, has been minimized either by the rule of law or outright oppression.
All national governments face the same political problem. The majority of the governed will continue to support their government if it appears to sustain the satisfaction of their selfish-best-interest. But governments fail for many reasons. Bad management, oppressive bureaucracy, a lack of natural resources, economic depression, social dislocation, religious civil war, cultural conflict, endemic corruption and human oppression can destroy the ability to govern. And as the Russian and Cuban experiences show, the institutions of government will inevitably break down if they are allowed to strangle on the ravages of bureaucratic behavior. We must ask ourselves one simple question: Are democracies immune from the institutional problems that disrupted the rule of Russia's communist government?
No. Obstreperous bureaucratic behavior is an endemic problem for all governments.
It is remarkable how little collateral damage occurred when USSR shifted from communism to managed democracy. A similar transition in USA has the potential to be far more bloody because the liberal promotion of cultural diversity has created powerful opposition forces who will support their ideological solutions with fanatical zeal. If the American people are forced to restructure the institutions of government, what is their alternative? Will it be the class conscious, liberal, socialist, cultural democracy ideologues versus those who champion the integration of a homogeneous, moderate, independent, entrepreneurial, independent democracy?
A worldwide depression will trigger cataclysmic change. Economic collapse always increases the appeal of an authoritarian political message. The electorate feels betrayed by events over which they are powerless. Democracy - indeed all forms of national government - must be able to match human anticipation with cultural economic reality, or the governed will look for an alternative form of rule. And in some cases, that means that governments must do what they absolutely fear the most - they must reduce the scope of the services that they can deliver to the governed. America, France, Italy, Greece, Spain and Great Britain are among the countries that will have to decrease the welfare, health care and retirement benefits of the electorate because they will be impoverished by current events and past mismanagement.
Americans are a generous and friendly people. That is their Christian heritage. But the frustration and poverty of a depression will make the country politically unstable. Cultural diversity will become the breeding ground for raw intolerance. And if a dictatorship ascends into power over the United States, then think revenge. Think hatred. Think of war as a cathartic release for pent up rage.
Too bizarre to happen you say? You forget your history. Go back and look at what happened in Germany from 1919 to 1945. Remember the Nazis? World War 2? Concentration camps? Millions dead from bombs, guns, disease and starvation? Who would have believed these god fearing, intelligent, culturally solid and industrious people would commit such atrocities?
But they did.
When the American stock market collapsed on Tuesday, October 29, 1929, a financial tsunami surged around the world. Germany, still struggling to recover from sanctions imposed after WW1, fell into disarray. Unemployment and inflation soared. Banks closed. Savings accounts vanished. Middle class Germans were ruined.
Adolf Hitler saw political opportunity.
The tiny, fanatical, highly disciplined Nazi party was able to capitalize on the disintegration of Germany’s democratic institutions. The Reichstag, torn by ceaseless bickering, had become an irrelevant institution. Hitler was able to enlist the support of several German industrialists and upper class socialites. A charismatic speaker with a good sense of what the German people wanted to hear, Hitler was able to rally support for his campaign. When Bruening asked Hindenburg to dissolve the Reichstag and call for new elections on September 14, 1930, the Nazi Party was ready to take power with a sense of mission and a positive message. The German people were ready for a new government.
Does any of this sound familiar? If it happened in Germany, it can happen in America. As I write this (2007), American public approval for this Administration is about 37 percent among likely voters. Not good. But public approval of the job Congress is doing is under 17 percent. Voters apparently believe Congress is an abysmal failure. One would think the Democrats would be pleased with a democratic Congress. But they do not appear to be very enthusiastic. Ten percent of very liberal people, 21 percent of liberals, and 19 percent of Democrats approve of the job Congress is doing. Other voters poll lower. Fourteen percent of very conservative and conservative people polled gave Congress good marks. That approval drops t0 13 percent for Republicans and 8 percent of independents. Only 22 percent of all voters believe America is headed in the right direction.
Congress is torn by ceaseless bickering. Political power is more important than personal responsibility. Politicians pander to political expediency. Committees routinely ignore their assigned responsibility. Criminal neglect of Constitutional responsibility is common. Congress has morphed into a fossilized institution where cliques, bureaucratic rules, processes, privileges and restrictions suppress freedom of action. The system of management is outdated and unworkable.
How long can this go on? Unfortunately for America, our Constitution does not provide a reformation mechanism. Elections merely change the names of those we send to Washington. Congress remains a crippled institution.
Powerful political forces are attempting to reform the character of our institutions to suite their vision of a perfect autocratic society. Arbitrary law that panders to social caste, backed by the police power of the State, is used to gain support from blocks of voters. The sordid instincts of competitive animal behavior focus on the acquisition and preservation of political power. Voters become chattel. Ignorant ideology replaces economic justification, individual freedom and common sense as the basis for legislation. The institutions of government are rendered ineffective and excessively expensive by growing mismanagement. This form of government can last for as long as the governed will tolerate the inevitable detestation, corruption, incompetence and restrictions of an oppressive bureaucratic system.
American democracy was originally founded by a group of largely middle class colonists based on their cultural beliefs and their knowledge of the institutional failures that had besieged the nations of Europe. They wanted to avoid the obvious mistakes, form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty for themselves and their posterity. It was assumed that a nation of free men and women would share a belief in a supreme being. It was assumed that individual freedom incorporated the concept of individual responsibility.
A government which seeks to elevate the human condition takes its sense of mission from spiritual beliefs. Although Christianity has typically been used to provide this basis, any profound and moving relationship with a supreme being that encompasses the principals of friendship, love and truth will provide the necessary visualization. Within this context, terms such as industry, fidelity, caring, charity, honesty, and integrity are essential descriptors of personal behavior. America’s founding fathers firmly believed these characteristics must guide the legislative and administrative processes of government.
Unfortunately for Americans, our Federal government has neither a strategic nor a tactical plan to manage the affairs of our nation. What happens next is a random walk. Our destiny will be determined by fate and the world’s ever-changing Cultural Ecosystem. There is no mechanism that compels either Congress or the Administration to address, and resolve, the constant stream of issues and questions that confront our highly complex culture. Worse, even when decisions are made, there is no universal commitment to success; i.e. a substantial percentage of the participants hope the initiative will fail in order to bolster their own selfish objectives. Sabotage is a political weapon.
Why do we believe this management process will work? If we don’t know what we want to accomplish, how will we accomplish anything? Since we have no meaningful goals, we also have no timeline to accomplish them.
It is taking forever to do nothing.
And yet, despite the very high probability of failure (for all the reasons discussed above), and even though all political institutions suffer from an overwhelming proclivity to create an oppressive system of costly and frustrating regulation (along with rampant waste, mismanagement, and corruption), there are those who believe the government should run everything.
There is only one possible outcome. Since Government institutions use the police power of the State to protect their authority, reformation can only be achieved by revolution. Either those in power have the good sense to recognize the need for a top to bottom reorganization, or the proletariat gets fed up and rebels against an unworkable system of government.
Either an energy crisis, or a financial crisis, will force catastrophic political change. When either event occurs, when the proletariat begins to really suffer…..
Is America at a crossroad? Will democracy survive?
Probably not.
Reality Check
So Here We Are
The social pressures of an increasingly complex world invite top-down political solutions. We are aware of our environmental challenges. Energy is expensive. Food is costly. There is a rising demand for change in the midst of social turmoil. Although we look for order and personal security, diversity continues to breed division. Governments can no longer control their borders or the growing population of self centered, self absorbed factions who owe no allegiance to anyone but themselves. Will Democracy provide an adequate response to the cultural, economic and environmental strains of the 21st century?
Probably not.
Political Institutions
Our existing institutions are becoming increasingly irrelevant to the demands of 21st century governance. Good management is subordinated to political expediency. There is inadequate leadership. Congress is unable to deal with complex issues because its legislative methodology is obsolete. Adherence to ideology and the pursuit of political power are far more important than making rational decisions that will benefit the governed. Congress has repeatedly ignored its responsibility to the American people.
Unfortunately for America, these is no mechanism in our Constitution that would guide us through an overhaul of our system of governance. Elections merely replace the names in power. The institutions of government remain dominated by obsolete rules, procedures, and traditions. Cliques of old guard insiders remain in control of legislative and administrative processes. Desperately needed change is impossible to implement.
The only recourse for the proletariat is to force radical change by acting outside the Constitution.
Culture
Traditional values are under relentless attack. Self-righteous divisionist belief systems inevitably lead to distrust and the nourishment of social conflict. Liberal elitists reject democracy, disparage traditional European American values, patronize Christianity, routinely use the courts to make law, and deride idea of national sovereignty. We are witness to a transition in progress. We are implementing a socialist autocratic culture.
Trigger Event
Uneasy fears about our personal safety and economic security, incessant conflict between cultural groups, a pervasive shift from Christian democratic values to the autocratic theocracy of Liberalism, and a belief that the Federal Government has become hopelessly ineffective all contribute to a growing sense of frustration. We are not merely looking for new political leadership, we seek a fundamental change in the organization of our political institutions. A catastrophic act of terrorism, a disruption in the flow of oil, or a severe economic recession are among the events that could trigger a demand for a new system of government.
Conclusion
The political control of social behavior requires four elements: technology (we have the tools), the institutionalized monitoring of human behavior (broadly accepted under current law), motivated autocratic leadership (a firm belief in the perfect political solution), and a continuous flow of politically correct opinion management (think of it as mind control). All of these elements are in place. Our former beliefs in the freedom of personal responsibility are gradually being replaced by public behavior regulation – all backed by the police power of the State.
At some point, there will be a backlash against existing democratic institutions for one really simple reason – they are obsolete.
TEA
.
Definitions
For the purposes of this essay, the term “Culture” includes everything we are: our political systems, religious beliefs, ethnic character, economic psychology, mores, traditions, history, customs, arts, sciences, and education. These all play a role in how we chose to organize the production of goods and services, the values we place on labor and opportunity, how we make purchase and investment decisions, and how we utilize the resources of this earth.
The term "Economics" refers to the extent and process of how we employ capital, labor and materials. In the aggregate, these drive the data that is used to measure how our economy is behaving - markets, raw materials, production, finished goods, revenues, costs, profits, inventory, employment, housing, income, savings, stocks, - and so on.
“Cultural EcoSystem” defines the cultural, economic and physical environment within which individuals and social groups function, and includes our emotional and intellectual interaction with other people.
“OECD” is the acronym for the 34 nation Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
“divisionist” is a term for actions that create racial segregation through policies of diversity.
It will not be easy.
Failure
One of the fantasies espoused with fervent ignorance is that the cold war ended when Communism failed. It had finally been proven, went the argument, that Communism is an inadequate form of government. Since Democracy provides a better means of managing the affairs of State, Democracy had won the contest.
When the communist government of the USSR collapsed, liberals and conservatives of every political affiliation struggled to find an explanation. Liberals in America, Canada and Western Europe had generally supported communism as a political theory, often comparing it as a preferred alternative to what they perceived as failed democratic institutions. For them, the demise of Russian communist rule was an embarrassment. By contrast, conservatives rejoiced at what they perceived as a victory for democracy. They believed that socialist political philosophy had been trampled by the reality of current events. The accepted explanation for people of both philosophies was that communism had lost the cold war. Democracy had won.
They were wrong.
Communism failed because Russia's leaders had lost the ability to govern. Russia's convoluted, corrupt and ossified bureaucratic institutions simply stopped working. The people did not make a conscious decision to overthrow Communism in favor of Democracy. They adopted a democratic form of government because it was perceived as being the only credible alternative to their failed institutions.
Democracy did not win. Communism did not lose. In reality, the Russian Government had simply stopped working. The Russian people were forced to adopt democratic capitalism because the credibility and the processes of bureaucratic centralized planning had evaporated. Ideology had little to do with the practical reality of finding a way to manage the affairs of government. If the Russian people choose democracy - even a pseudo democracy - it was because democracy appeared to be more acceptable than other alternative forms of self rule.
And that provokes an interesting question: Do Americans face the same uneasy dilemma that forced a change in Russia? Could it be argued that America's democratic institutions are suffering from the same cancerous problems that ended Communism?
Absolutely.
Governments fall from power because they either ossify or become too pliable. In the former case the natural course of bureaucratic behavior creates an unworkable system of regulations backed by the stupid, overbearing and arrogant use of police power. The management functions of government become hopelessly entangled in politically motivated decisions that have nothing to do with present or future reality. In the latter case, government becomes so liberal that it can only act in a cowardly fashion. Pandering to the demands of the mob, justice and morality are continually degraded in a vain attempt to find the lowest common social denominator. Groups gain special status through the granting of exclusive privilege. In either case, personal freedom is lost. Individuals can only survive as a member of a cultural group. Individualists can only survive by acting outside the system.
It is America's sad misfortune to suffer from both malady's at the same time.
All national governments are bureaucratic institutions. The underlying political philosophy may be totalitarian, authoritarian, democratic or laissez faire. It doesn't matter. The administrative success or failure of any government depends upon how well it manages the bureaucratic processes of governing. Successful governments will normally have a strong and effective leadership. There is a reasonably clear and informed vision of goals and objectives. It will usually be proactive, rather than reactive. Leaders at all levels of government are able to combine a comprehension of the country's place in the real world with the capability to execute the work processes of administrative management. Corrupt behavior, which plagues every nation, has been minimized either by the rule of law or outright oppression.
Given a reasonable Cultural EcoSystem,
it is effective management - not ideology –
that makes government a functional success.
All national governments face the same political problem. The majority of the governed will continue to support their government if it appears to sustain the satisfaction of their selfish-best-interest. But governments fail for many reasons. Bad management, oppressive bureaucracy, a lack of natural resources, economic depression, social dislocation, religious civil war, cultural conflict, endemic corruption and human oppression can destroy the ability to govern. And as the Russian and Cuban experiences show, the institutions of government will inevitably break down if they are allowed to strangle on the ravages of bureaucratic behavior. We must ask ourselves one simple question: Are democracies immune from the institutional problems that disrupted the rule of Russia's communist government?
No. Obstreperous bureaucratic behavior is an endemic problem for all governments.
It is remarkable how little collateral damage occurred when USSR shifted from communism to managed democracy. A similar transition in USA has the potential to be far more bloody because the liberal promotion of cultural diversity has created powerful opposition forces who will support their ideological solutions with fanatical zeal. If the American people are forced to restructure the institutions of government, what is their alternative? Will it be the class conscious, liberal, socialist, cultural democracy ideologues versus those who champion the integration of a homogeneous, moderate, independent, entrepreneurial, independent democracy?
A worldwide depression will trigger cataclysmic change. Economic collapse always increases the appeal of an authoritarian political message. The electorate feels betrayed by events over which they are powerless. Democracy - indeed all forms of national government - must be able to match human anticipation with cultural economic reality, or the governed will look for an alternative form of rule. And in some cases, that means that governments must do what they absolutely fear the most - they must reduce the scope of the services that they can deliver to the governed. America, France, Italy, Greece, Spain and Great Britain are among the countries that will have to decrease the welfare, health care and retirement benefits of the electorate because they will be impoverished by current events and past mismanagement.
Americans are a generous and friendly people. That is their Christian heritage. But the frustration and poverty of a depression will make the country politically unstable. Cultural diversity will become the breeding ground for raw intolerance. And if a dictatorship ascends into power over the United States, then think revenge. Think hatred. Think of war as a cathartic release for pent up rage.
Too bizarre to happen you say? You forget your history. Go back and look at what happened in Germany from 1919 to 1945. Remember the Nazis? World War 2? Concentration camps? Millions dead from bombs, guns, disease and starvation? Who would have believed these god fearing, intelligent, culturally solid and industrious people would commit such atrocities?
But they did.
When the American stock market collapsed on Tuesday, October 29, 1929, a financial tsunami surged around the world. Germany, still struggling to recover from sanctions imposed after WW1, fell into disarray. Unemployment and inflation soared. Banks closed. Savings accounts vanished. Middle class Germans were ruined.
Adolf Hitler saw political opportunity.
The tiny, fanatical, highly disciplined Nazi party was able to capitalize on the disintegration of Germany’s democratic institutions. The Reichstag, torn by ceaseless bickering, had become an irrelevant institution. Hitler was able to enlist the support of several German industrialists and upper class socialites. A charismatic speaker with a good sense of what the German people wanted to hear, Hitler was able to rally support for his campaign. When Bruening asked Hindenburg to dissolve the Reichstag and call for new elections on September 14, 1930, the Nazi Party was ready to take power with a sense of mission and a positive message. The German people were ready for a new government.
Does any of this sound familiar? If it happened in Germany, it can happen in America. As I write this (2007), American public approval for this Administration is about 37 percent among likely voters. Not good. But public approval of the job Congress is doing is under 17 percent. Voters apparently believe Congress is an abysmal failure. One would think the Democrats would be pleased with a democratic Congress. But they do not appear to be very enthusiastic. Ten percent of very liberal people, 21 percent of liberals, and 19 percent of Democrats approve of the job Congress is doing. Other voters poll lower. Fourteen percent of very conservative and conservative people polled gave Congress good marks. That approval drops t0 13 percent for Republicans and 8 percent of independents. Only 22 percent of all voters believe America is headed in the right direction.
Congress is torn by ceaseless bickering. Political power is more important than personal responsibility. Politicians pander to political expediency. Committees routinely ignore their assigned responsibility. Criminal neglect of Constitutional responsibility is common. Congress has morphed into a fossilized institution where cliques, bureaucratic rules, processes, privileges and restrictions suppress freedom of action. The system of management is outdated and unworkable.
How long can this go on? Unfortunately for America, our Constitution does not provide a reformation mechanism. Elections merely change the names of those we send to Washington. Congress remains a crippled institution.
If our Federal Government continues to drift away
from the rational processes of responsible management,
it will not endure.
Powerful political forces are attempting to reform the character of our institutions to suite their vision of a perfect autocratic society. Arbitrary law that panders to social caste, backed by the police power of the State, is used to gain support from blocks of voters. The sordid instincts of competitive animal behavior focus on the acquisition and preservation of political power. Voters become chattel. Ignorant ideology replaces economic justification, individual freedom and common sense as the basis for legislation. The institutions of government are rendered ineffective and excessively expensive by growing mismanagement. This form of government can last for as long as the governed will tolerate the inevitable detestation, corruption, incompetence and restrictions of an oppressive bureaucratic system.
American democracy was originally founded by a group of largely middle class colonists based on their cultural beliefs and their knowledge of the institutional failures that had besieged the nations of Europe. They wanted to avoid the obvious mistakes, form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty for themselves and their posterity. It was assumed that a nation of free men and women would share a belief in a supreme being. It was assumed that individual freedom incorporated the concept of individual responsibility.
A government which seeks to elevate the human condition takes its sense of mission from spiritual beliefs. Although Christianity has typically been used to provide this basis, any profound and moving relationship with a supreme being that encompasses the principals of friendship, love and truth will provide the necessary visualization. Within this context, terms such as industry, fidelity, caring, charity, honesty, and integrity are essential descriptors of personal behavior. America’s founding fathers firmly believed these characteristics must guide the legislative and administrative processes of government.
Founded as it is on the best impulses of human conduct,
America will decline if it abandons them in favor of elitist ideologies
that promote the acquisition of police power over the individual.
Unfortunately for Americans, our Federal government has neither a strategic nor a tactical plan to manage the affairs of our nation. What happens next is a random walk. Our destiny will be determined by fate and the world’s ever-changing Cultural Ecosystem. There is no mechanism that compels either Congress or the Administration to address, and resolve, the constant stream of issues and questions that confront our highly complex culture. Worse, even when decisions are made, there is no universal commitment to success; i.e. a substantial percentage of the participants hope the initiative will fail in order to bolster their own selfish objectives. Sabotage is a political weapon.
Why do we believe this management process will work? If we don’t know what we want to accomplish, how will we accomplish anything? Since we have no meaningful goals, we also have no timeline to accomplish them.
It is taking forever to do nothing.
And yet, despite the very high probability of failure (for all the reasons discussed above), and even though all political institutions suffer from an overwhelming proclivity to create an oppressive system of costly and frustrating regulation (along with rampant waste, mismanagement, and corruption), there are those who believe the government should run everything.
There is only one possible outcome. Since Government institutions use the police power of the State to protect their authority, reformation can only be achieved by revolution. Either those in power have the good sense to recognize the need for a top to bottom reorganization, or the proletariat gets fed up and rebels against an unworkable system of government.
Either an energy crisis, or a financial crisis, will force catastrophic political change. When either event occurs, when the proletariat begins to really suffer…..
The mob will ask two questions:
Why did you let this happen to us?
What are you going to do about it?
If the Federal Government does not have a good answer,
we the people are going to be looking for a new government.
One that actually works.
Is America at a crossroad? Will democracy survive?
Probably not.
Reality Check
So Here We Are
The social pressures of an increasingly complex world invite top-down political solutions. We are aware of our environmental challenges. Energy is expensive. Food is costly. There is a rising demand for change in the midst of social turmoil. Although we look for order and personal security, diversity continues to breed division. Governments can no longer control their borders or the growing population of self centered, self absorbed factions who owe no allegiance to anyone but themselves. Will Democracy provide an adequate response to the cultural, economic and environmental strains of the 21st century?
Probably not.
Political Institutions
Our existing institutions are becoming increasingly irrelevant to the demands of 21st century governance. Good management is subordinated to political expediency. There is inadequate leadership. Congress is unable to deal with complex issues because its legislative methodology is obsolete. Adherence to ideology and the pursuit of political power are far more important than making rational decisions that will benefit the governed. Congress has repeatedly ignored its responsibility to the American people.
Unfortunately for America, these is no mechanism in our Constitution that would guide us through an overhaul of our system of governance. Elections merely replace the names in power. The institutions of government remain dominated by obsolete rules, procedures, and traditions. Cliques of old guard insiders remain in control of legislative and administrative processes. Desperately needed change is impossible to implement.
The only recourse for the proletariat is to force radical change by acting outside the Constitution.
Culture
Traditional values are under relentless attack. Self-righteous divisionist belief systems inevitably lead to distrust and the nourishment of social conflict. Liberal elitists reject democracy, disparage traditional European American values, patronize Christianity, routinely use the courts to make law, and deride idea of national sovereignty. We are witness to a transition in progress. We are implementing a socialist autocratic culture.
Trigger Event
Uneasy fears about our personal safety and economic security, incessant conflict between cultural groups, a pervasive shift from Christian democratic values to the autocratic theocracy of Liberalism, and a belief that the Federal Government has become hopelessly ineffective all contribute to a growing sense of frustration. We are not merely looking for new political leadership, we seek a fundamental change in the organization of our political institutions. A catastrophic act of terrorism, a disruption in the flow of oil, or a severe economic recession are among the events that could trigger a demand for a new system of government.
Conclusion
The political control of social behavior requires four elements: technology (we have the tools), the institutionalized monitoring of human behavior (broadly accepted under current law), motivated autocratic leadership (a firm belief in the perfect political solution), and a continuous flow of politically correct opinion management (think of it as mind control). All of these elements are in place. Our former beliefs in the freedom of personal responsibility are gradually being replaced by public behavior regulation – all backed by the police power of the State.
At some point, there will be a backlash against existing democratic institutions for one really simple reason – they are obsolete.
TEA
.
Definitions
For the purposes of this essay, the term “Culture” includes everything we are: our political systems, religious beliefs, ethnic character, economic psychology, mores, traditions, history, customs, arts, sciences, and education. These all play a role in how we chose to organize the production of goods and services, the values we place on labor and opportunity, how we make purchase and investment decisions, and how we utilize the resources of this earth.
The term "Economics" refers to the extent and process of how we employ capital, labor and materials. In the aggregate, these drive the data that is used to measure how our economy is behaving - markets, raw materials, production, finished goods, revenues, costs, profits, inventory, employment, housing, income, savings, stocks, - and so on.
“Cultural EcoSystem” defines the cultural, economic and physical environment within which individuals and social groups function, and includes our emotional and intellectual interaction with other people.
“OECD” is the acronym for the 34 nation Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
“divisionist” is a term for actions that create racial segregation through policies of diversity.
November 3, 2011
Ideology
Ideology gets in the way of good government. Fascists, Communists, Socialists, Liberals, Conservatives, Prophets, Anarchists and their ilk are idealists. With great fervor they insist on the adoption of management systems that will not work because they either ignore the reality of human nature or the structural needs of orderly management. They almost always either do not understand, or choose to ignore, the mechanisms of successful organizations. Worse, ideology is relentless progenitor of human division, dissent and disillusion.
But ideology will not go away. Ideology is the fertile dung heap for ceaseless, self-righteous intellectual masturbation. Millions of hours have been wasted on social theories that have little to do with cultural economic reality.
We should learn from history. No specific ideological theory of government has always worked to the benefit of the governed. Installing a democracy does not equate to the achievement of independent democratic values. When voters installed Slobodan Milosevic as President of Serbia and Yugoslavia, they empowered a government policy of ethnic cleansing. Afghanistan does not have the cultural or economic basis to support a working democracy. When Adolph Hitler was selected to be Chancellor of Germany, he brought with him the values of a Nationalist Socialist (Nazi) state. Religious fundamentalist violence has accompanied democratic elections in Iraq, Indonesia, Nigeria, India, Iran and Pakistan. Communist and socialist theories have collided with economic reality and human nature in Russia, Great Britain, France, Cuba and wherever else they have been tried. Dictatorships have failed to meet the cultural and economic needs of the governed in North Korea, Iraq and almost everywhere else they have been established.
May providence save us from the oblivious, self righteous, prattle of idealists. No matter how elegant, no matter how appealing, make-believe theory seldom works in practice
May providence save us from the oblivious, self righteous, prattle of idealists. No matter how elegant, no matter how appealing, make-believe theory seldom works in practice
.
Institutions
An organization may be thought of as a group of people whose collective activities have an ordered existence that is intended to fulfill a common purpose. The group of people may have been brought together by a common cause, shared beliefs, or employment. The group's collective activities may be for a commercial, spiritual, or cultural purpose. Some form of order is imposed by influential members of the group on the activities of all group members. The rules, procedures, rituals and behavioral norms of individual participation may range from the assumption of laissez-faire attitudes to the imposition of strict responsibilities. The organization confers rights, obligations and liabilities on the individual participant. Participation will range from informal (casual) to formal (conferring implied or specific obligations).
Organizations become institutions when they take on an existence of perceived historical permanence that is separate and distinct from the lives of individual members. Institutions project a presence and authority that is larger than the influence of individual participants. There is a structure that confers power on selected members, demands obedience from all participants, and preserves the existence of the institution. For the purposes of this discussion, institutions may include churches and other religious organizations, charitable and fraternal associations, unions, political parties, government entities, corporations, hospitals, universities and so on. The Catholic Church, for example, is an institution that is separate and distinct from Catholics as a body of parishioners. The Democratic Party is an institution that projects a presence that is more important than the existence of individual democrats. The Labor Department represents the activities of thousands of (largely) faceless government employees. General Electric and Harvard University are icons that have more charisma than any of the individuals that participate in their activities.
Organizations tend to be limited by the strengths and weaknesses of their management. Successful organizations - corporations, government agencies, universities, religious institutions, charities and so on - will normally have a strong and effective management team. The organization's leadership has a clear and informed vision of goals and objectives. It will usually be proactive, rather than reactive. These leaders, including individuals at all levels of the organization, are able to combine a comprehension of the organization's place in the real world with the capability to execute an operating plan that permits the organization to succeed. Participants (employees or members) are focused on a strategy that will lead to accomplishing specific goals and objectives. There is a sense of mission, a sense of urgency and a sense of pride to be involved in the organization's mission. Most of the participants (employees or members) have a sense of belonging. The organization or institution provides a frame of reference for their daily activities. Tasks and work processes assume meaning because they are related to the success of the organization's mission. For each individual, success is measured in terms of results. Human energy is focused on the completion of assigned tasks. It is not wasted on debilitating internal political power struggles. Instead, the naturally competitive spirit of human endeavor is channeled into constructive activity that benefits the institution.
In this environment, the organization's leaders are not preoccupied with finding the most politically acceptable response to the inevitable challenges that occur in the course of an organization's activity. Instead, potential conflicts are resolved through preemptive personnel communication and proactive public relations.
Unfortunately organizations that have morphed into recognized institutions have a tendency to fossilize because bureaucratic rules, processes, privileges and restrictions suppress freedom of action. As this process permeates the institution, the organization invariably deteriorates, ceases to exist, or becomes irrelevant.
In general, institutions are opposed to change because change dislocates the participant's frame of reference and perception of personal status, disrupts the political structure of the organization, may force the reformation of the institution's culture, and impacts the rules, procedures, rituals and behavioral norms of individual participation. The larger the institution, the less flexible it becomes because increased size demands the incremental imposition of formal behavior. The older the institution, the greater the resistance to change because organizational aging breeds an increasingly rigid culture.
There is a fixation of beliefs. Symbolic exercises become pedantic routine. Traditional rituals are retained even though they no longer serve any useful purpose and may actually be antithetical to how the real world actually works. Truth is standardized and eventually fossilized. Artificial rituals and mindless rules crowd out innovation. The institution's embedded culture will tend to support the continuation of doctrinaire positions that create artificial social, intellectual, spiritual and emotional boundaries. There is a tendency to venerate the past while ignoring present needs and opportunities. Such traditionalism fosters false and exaggerated ideas of sacredness and fails to make contemporary interpretations of values and practices.
Zealots, in a display of very human behavior, will defend the institution against change because change is viewed as a heresy against established beliefs. |
Organizations are the invention of the human mind. They consequently display very human characteristics. Some participants will strive to accumulate power and authority. Others prefer to avoid personal responsibility or chose to maintain a low profile in order to keep from being blown out by internal political struggles. Competitive divisions and numerous cliques will inevitably develop. They encourage discrimination, elitism, and “chosen people” attitudes. These inner circles tend to believe that everyone else is an outsider who can not be trusted. Participation in the clique confers personal status and a sense of comfort because participants are dealing with familiar relationships. An “us” versus “them” psychology inevitably develops.
All institutions run the risk of evolving into politically active hell holes where everyone is backbiting everyone else. There is a nasty adversarial elitist struggle for personal position in the hierarchy. When institutions fall into this trap, they inevitably deteriorate because the accumulation and use of political power becomes more important than achieving the objectives or performing the duties of the institution. Rather than make rational decisions based on a careful evaluation of facts, decisions within this environment are made on the basis of political power. All too often, creative ideas are destroyed simply because one or more factions within the organization chose to oppose the idea merely to demonstrate their ability to dominate the decision making process.
Institutions are afraid to take risks. Risk requires the implementation of the unknown and the results can not be guaranteed. Failure is not politically acceptable. The retention of power is based on being right and consequently it is better to do nothing (frequently while appearing to do something), than to take an action which fails. If catering to the press is an important requisite of power retention, then it is inevitable that the selected course of action will conjure simplistic images rather than creative change. This is especially true when considering the decisions of government. Badgered by the press and mindless critics, there is no allowance for error. Creative experimentation is not allowed.
Institutions create bureaucracy. Rules, Procedures and Systems are necessary to maintain order. There is the impersonal application of general rules, both to outsiders and to internal staff. Applied rules are likely to be a repetition of what has worked in the past. They are made on a blanket basis, applying to everyone without regard for sanity or common sense. Rules are often part of an overall system, work process, or procedure. Since change can be disruptive, flexibility is to be avoided.
Bureaucratic procedures are usually proposed or written by people who do not have the capacity to understand their impact. They are made by an authorized person (autocratic) or by a committee (the pseudo democratic autocracy of the proletariat). Bureaucratic committees are usually populated by individuals who are ill equipped to make reasonable rules. Individual member motivation is likely to be political, rather than rational. The larger the committee, the more likely it is most of the members will not be able to make a constructive contribution.
There is an inclination of leaders to become administrative bureaucrats or defenders of the institution rather than managers and communicators. Oppressive authority evolves. Rules and regulations replace creative leadership. Red tape and ingrained attitudes smother creative thinking. Traditionalized, dogmatized, and institutionalized organizations fail to hold the interest of adventurous people who could care less about their existence. As the institution is trivialized (becomes irrelevant), it becomes the target of scorn or is simply ignored. Although there is a retained façade of historical purpose, its actual activities invariably deviate from its original mission.
What is the lesson? The creations of human invention inevitably deteriorate.
All institutions are destined to become obsolete. It is a natural process. |
The first obligation of any institution is to ensure its survival. No matter how irrelevant it has become, no matter how uncompetitive its products or services, no matter how wide the gap between internal self perception and external assessment, institutions will continue to pursue the familiar until such actions are no longer possible.
Organizational self preservation is instinctive. It maintains the political power of those in charge (along with various insider cliques), and provides a reassuring frame of reference for other members. Outsiders are still outsiders. Members can make believe everything is OK, even while the institution continues to rot from within.
Management invariably defends a dysfunctional institutional culture. But it will do good. Institutions fail because they are no longer relevant to the community’s Cultural EcoSystem (as has happened to some service organizations), are no longer competitive within their industry (think GM or Chrysler), or are have ossified into politically ineffective institutions (think U. S. Congress). These institutions continue to exist until they eventually fade away into historical oblivion, or collapse in a spectacular display of chaotic failure.
Competitive and market driven institutions, such as corporations, can be revived by disruptive management because their continued existence depends on a positive transformation. Change is motivated by economic need. Although institutions that tend to be constrained by internal political squabbling, such as universities, are more difficult to change, they can also be revitalized. Their stature, economic success and relevance are at stake. But government institutions - legislatures, administrations, agencies - have the unfortunate ability to hide behind the protection of political dispensation and the police power of the state. Zealots will defend government institutions against change if change promises to alter perceived selfish-best-interest. Disruptive management, which could revitalize their purpose, is not allowed by the conceit of entrenched political power.
Even if they have become corrupt, irrelevant or dominated by special interest agendas, even if they are no longer needed or have strayed from their original mission, the institutions of government tend to survive. Until there is a revolution. |
.
October 9, 2011
What Your Kids Will Learn in College
And most American Universities.
When your kids go back to school at an American college or university this fall, they will be “encouraged” to join an activist group to “create real social change”. These groups will flatly refuse to allow an even handed debate on any subject because they firmly believe the cause and effect issues have all been decided. Proposals of inquiry and debate will be looked upon with arrogant disdain. The disastrous disconnect between proposed solutions and cultural economic reality will be ignored. In captive group discussions, an instructor or monitor will be there to ensure the everyone gets the “correct” information.
Your kids will be coerced into a blind acceptance of a corrupt conclusion and ruinous action plan. Dissent and free inquiry will not be allowed. All students will be encouraged to become believers. Your kids will find out that anyone who questions the integrity of this activity will be penalized. Dissidents are considered outsiders. Ostracized. Condemned. And perhaps victimized by the threat of lower grades. This is NOT education.
This is political indoctrination. Just like the Nazis did in the 1930s.
History repeats itself. Again.
What can students do? They should demand a free and open inquiry. They should be furious about vapid solutions. To do any less is to robotically accept whatever their college or university wants its captive students to believe.
Will your kid survive the peer pressures of this insidious indoctrination? Do you care? Will you take the time to find out what’s going on at your kid’s college or university? And you might want to ask yourself: Whatever happened to the intellectual freedom of a liberal arts education? Have these institutions become nothing more than political re-education centers? And what is the substance of the underlying ideology?
Is this something you want your kid to believe?
Smokey Adams
.
When your kids go back to school at an American college or university this fall, they will be “encouraged” to join an activist group to “create real social change”. These groups will flatly refuse to allow an even handed debate on any subject because they firmly believe the cause and effect issues have all been decided. Proposals of inquiry and debate will be looked upon with arrogant disdain. The disastrous disconnect between proposed solutions and cultural economic reality will be ignored. In captive group discussions, an instructor or monitor will be there to ensure the everyone gets the “correct” information.
Your kids will be coerced into a blind acceptance of a corrupt conclusion and ruinous action plan. Dissent and free inquiry will not be allowed. All students will be encouraged to become believers. Your kids will find out that anyone who questions the integrity of this activity will be penalized. Dissidents are considered outsiders. Ostracized. Condemned. And perhaps victimized by the threat of lower grades. This is NOT education.
This is political indoctrination. Just like the Nazis did in the 1930s.
History repeats itself. Again.
What can students do? They should demand a free and open inquiry. They should be furious about vapid solutions. To do any less is to robotically accept whatever their college or university wants its captive students to believe.
Will your kid survive the peer pressures of this insidious indoctrination? Do you care? Will you take the time to find out what’s going on at your kid’s college or university? And you might want to ask yourself: Whatever happened to the intellectual freedom of a liberal arts education? Have these institutions become nothing more than political re-education centers? And what is the substance of the underlying ideology?
Is this something you want your kid to believe?
Smokey Adams
.
January 16, 2011
Socialism Doesn’t Work - Literally
Cuba has been a nearly perfect example of a government controlled, centrally planned, micro-managed economy. For over 40 years, Cuba has been a socialist nation. Fidel Castro was a charismatic leader, Cuba had a closed economy, and the revolution gave the government absolute control over the people. The government confiscated millions of acres of land. Established collective farms. Initiated centralized planning. It all came together to create the perfect experiment in socialism.
But there has always been a nagging question: Would Fidel Castro be able to demonstrate the cultural and economic viability of a socialist system?
For awhile, it seemed to work. In theory, everyone was equal. There was a redistribution of wealth from private property owners to the State. Cuba’s centralized bureaucracy made every economic decision. Cuba’s culture was molded to fit the reality of a socialist political regime. American and European liberals gushed with euphoric descriptions of the people’s paradise. If anything went wrong, it was obviously America’s fault.
Now comes the announcement that America’s liberal media has chosen to ignore:
By government decree, over 85 percent of the Cuban workforce is on the State’s payroll. But the endemic inefficiency of a suffocating bureaucracy guarantees poor economic performance. Creative productivity is virtually non-existent. As a result, Cuba's state-run economy is in a funk. National wealth continues to decline. Personal wealth is largely nonexistent. Cuba’s infrastructure is in critical condition. Once productive farm land lies fallow.
Like the USSR and China, Cuba has discovered that a State directed micro-managed economy will ultimately fail. It took over 40 years to reach this conclusion. But the outcome was inevitable.
Now the really interesting part. Not only has Cuba’s experiment with socialism failed, but in August of 2010 Raul Castro even gave us the basic reason why socialism never works:
The Cuban Labor Federation put it this way: "Our state cannot and should not continue maintaining companies, productive entities, services and budgeted sectors with bloated payrolls and losses that hurt the economy... Our state cannot and should not continue supporting companies with inflated payrolls, losses that damage the economy, which are counterproductive, generate bad habits and deform the workers’ conduct.”
It’s the biggest employment policy change since 1959. Raul Castro wants to move over 1 million workers from state to private employment through 2012. Over 500,000 state employees are scheduled to be laid off by the middle of 2011. That move will require Cuba to issue over 250,000 self-employment and small business licenses.
We should pay attention to what has happened in Cuba. Socialism (or Communism if you prefer) will always fail because it discourages individual initiative, personal independence, and the freedom of economic opportunity. Socialism cannot tolerate any personal success that exists outside the control of government bureaucracies. Instead, personal gain depends on monotonous political and social conformance. Economic decisions become the focal point of endless bureaucratic bickering. Discouraged by the oppressive cultural environment, workers in a socialist system tend to lose all interest in being productive. There are those who:
The point is, in this social environment, there is little or no incentive to be productive. Creative and resourceful innovation is discouraged. So the work doesn’t get done.
Most people soon discover the only way to establish some sense of personal pride, and increase their personal wealth, is to work outside the system (which has been evident in every experiment with socialism). But that means self-employed persons have to resort to illegal activity in order to keep their businesses afloat.
Will the restructuring of Cuba’s socialist experiment succeed? Maybe not. The temptation of a centrally planned economic system is to keep a very tight control over individual initiative. Newly minted private enterprises may not be able to grow fast enough to provide the employment opportunities Cuba needs in order for its conversion to be a success. And the introduction of free enterprise reforms will force displaced Cubans to adopt a new work ethic. That will be a challenge.
I wish the Cuban people good fortune and pray for their success. But we must be realistic. The cultural and economic implications of these proposed changes are incredible. Thousands of Cubans will be forced to compete for jobs in the emerging private sector. Change means social dislocation and hardship. The introduction of free enterprise reform will take time.... Time Cuba may not have.
It’s ironic. Cuba has discovered it must introduce the personal motivation of private enterprise opportunity in order to revive its economy, while at the same time the Washington liberal establishment plans to impose a Cuban style, government controlled, centrally planned, micro-managed economy and social structure on the people of the United States.
Is this what we want?
Someone should tell Barack Obama and his advisors: Socialism Doesn’t Work - Literally.
Tom
But there has always been a nagging question: Would Fidel Castro be able to demonstrate the cultural and economic viability of a socialist system?
For awhile, it seemed to work. In theory, everyone was equal. There was a redistribution of wealth from private property owners to the State. Cuba’s centralized bureaucracy made every economic decision. Cuba’s culture was molded to fit the reality of a socialist political regime. American and European liberals gushed with euphoric descriptions of the people’s paradise. If anything went wrong, it was obviously America’s fault.
Now comes the announcement that America’s liberal media has chosen to ignore:
Cuba is telling us: Socialism doesn’t work.
By government decree, over 85 percent of the Cuban workforce is on the State’s payroll. But the endemic inefficiency of a suffocating bureaucracy guarantees poor economic performance. Creative productivity is virtually non-existent. As a result, Cuba's state-run economy is in a funk. National wealth continues to decline. Personal wealth is largely nonexistent. Cuba’s infrastructure is in critical condition. Once productive farm land lies fallow.
Like the USSR and China, Cuba has discovered that a State directed micro-managed economy will ultimately fail. It took over 40 years to reach this conclusion. But the outcome was inevitable.
Now the really interesting part. Not only has Cuba’s experiment with socialism failed, but in August of 2010 Raul Castro even gave us the basic reason why socialism never works:
"We have to erase forever the notion that Cuba
is the only country in the world in which people can live without working."
is the only country in the world in which people can live without working."
The Cuban Labor Federation put it this way: "Our state cannot and should not continue maintaining companies, productive entities, services and budgeted sectors with bloated payrolls and losses that hurt the economy... Our state cannot and should not continue supporting companies with inflated payrolls, losses that damage the economy, which are counterproductive, generate bad habits and deform the workers’ conduct.”
It’s the biggest employment policy change since 1959. Raul Castro wants to move over 1 million workers from state to private employment through 2012. Over 500,000 state employees are scheduled to be laid off by the middle of 2011. That move will require Cuba to issue over 250,000 self-employment and small business licenses.
We should pay attention to what has happened in Cuba. Socialism (or Communism if you prefer) will always fail because it discourages individual initiative, personal independence, and the freedom of economic opportunity. Socialism cannot tolerate any personal success that exists outside the control of government bureaucracies. Instead, personal gain depends on monotonous political and social conformance. Economic decisions become the focal point of endless bureaucratic bickering. Discouraged by the oppressive cultural environment, workers in a socialist system tend to lose all interest in being productive. There are those who:
- are preoccupied with internal struggles for political power,
- are so bored they make little or no effort to excel,
- have no idea how to do their job and really don’t care about the consequences,
- relish the occasional opportunity to sabotage the system,
- just put in their time so they can collect a paycheck, and
- all of the above.
The point is, in this social environment, there is little or no incentive to be productive. Creative and resourceful innovation is discouraged. So the work doesn’t get done.
Most people soon discover the only way to establish some sense of personal pride, and increase their personal wealth, is to work outside the system (which has been evident in every experiment with socialism). But that means self-employed persons have to resort to illegal activity in order to keep their businesses afloat.
Will the restructuring of Cuba’s socialist experiment succeed? Maybe not. The temptation of a centrally planned economic system is to keep a very tight control over individual initiative. Newly minted private enterprises may not be able to grow fast enough to provide the employment opportunities Cuba needs in order for its conversion to be a success. And the introduction of free enterprise reforms will force displaced Cubans to adopt a new work ethic. That will be a challenge.
I wish the Cuban people good fortune and pray for their success. But we must be realistic. The cultural and economic implications of these proposed changes are incredible. Thousands of Cubans will be forced to compete for jobs in the emerging private sector. Change means social dislocation and hardship. The introduction of free enterprise reform will take time.... Time Cuba may not have.
It’s ironic. Cuba has discovered it must introduce the personal motivation of private enterprise opportunity in order to revive its economy, while at the same time the Washington liberal establishment plans to impose a Cuban style, government controlled, centrally planned, micro-managed economy and social structure on the people of the United States.
Is this what we want?
Someone should tell Barack Obama and his advisors: Socialism Doesn’t Work - Literally.
Tom
June 6, 2010
America's Massive Debt: Blame Congress
.
American liberals continue to babble about the huge budget deficit Obama inherited from George Bush. Amazingly enough, a lot of people are dumb enough to swallow this dishonest propaganda
Here are some facts.
Proposed budgets come from the White House. Congress controls the budget process. The Democratic Party has controlled Congress since January 2007. Congressional Democrats controlled the budget process for FY 2008, FY 2009, FY 2010 and FY 2011. In 2007 and 2008, they had to compromise with George Bush. But for the FY 2009 budget, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid could ignore George Bush. Under liberal leadership, the Democrats passed a series of continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. Then they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the FY 2009 budget.
And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of Congress. He voted to pass these massive spending bills. And after his election, he signed the FY 2009 omnibus spending bill.
If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the FY 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Congressional Democrats (including Barack Obama) controlled the budget process.
If Obama inherited a budget mess, he inherited what he helped to create.
Yes we do have a massive budget deficit problem. But let’s put the blame where it belongs. On Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Barack Hussein Obama, and a Congress controlled by liberal Democrats. And while we’re at it, let’s also blame the useless Republican party. Lacking vision and a sense of direction, the republicans have blown their counterparty responsibility to the American people.
TEA
Acknowledgement: Chart courtesy of usgovernmentspending.com.
.
American liberals continue to babble about the huge budget deficit Obama inherited from George Bush. Amazingly enough, a lot of people are dumb enough to swallow this dishonest propaganda
Here are some facts.
Proposed budgets come from the White House. Congress controls the budget process. The Democratic Party has controlled Congress since January 2007. Congressional Democrats controlled the budget process for FY 2008, FY 2009, FY 2010 and FY 2011. In 2007 and 2008, they had to compromise with George Bush. But for the FY 2009 budget, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid could ignore George Bush. Under liberal leadership, the Democrats passed a series of continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. Then they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the FY 2009 budget.
If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the FY 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Congressional Democrats (including Barack Obama) controlled the budget process.
If Obama inherited a budget mess, he inherited what he helped to create.
Yes we do have a massive budget deficit problem. But let’s put the blame where it belongs. On Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Barack Hussein Obama, and a Congress controlled by liberal Democrats. And while we’re at it, let’s also blame the useless Republican party. Lacking vision and a sense of direction, the republicans have blown their counterparty responsibility to the American people.
TEA
Acknowledgement: Chart courtesy of usgovernmentspending.com.
.
May 30, 2010
Is This The End Of Wealth Creation?
.
The Roman Empire
The rise and fall of the Roman Empire is a classic example of Return On Investment (ROI). Rome essentially funded conquest through pillage, tribute and taxes, bringing rich treasures of gold and silver back to Rome. During the early years of the Empire, the ROI on conquest was very good and Rome prospered. It had plenty of coin to fund its Legions. As the years went by, however, it became more difficult to find lands worth conquering and the travel costs to send a Legion to remote lands increased. The ROI of conquest began to falter, and Roman Emperors finally concluded additional conquests were not worth the cost. Years of wealth creation came to an end. The Roman Empire shifted its attention to wealth preservation.
As the cost of maintaining the Legions went up, the ROI on having them declined. In order to pay the cost of preservation, Rome debased its currency multiple times. Debasement is a way to pay today’s bills with tomorrows worthless coins. That led to incredibly high rates of inflation. Payment in kind often substituted for worthless currency. This debasement continued until mercenary legions refused to take Roman coins, sacked Rome, and established their own government. (Reference 1)
Sound Familiar?
There is a lesson here. If economic circumstances yield a positive ROI on labor, capital and material, then a nation is able to create wealth. When a nation lapses into wealth preservation, the ROI on invested capital declines. It becomes very difficult to sustain transfer payments because the creation of wealth declines to a point where there is no more wealth to transfer.
Wealth, in this sense, has little to do with how much money the rich can command. We are talking about the wealth of a nation’s workers, and more specifically the wealth of its middle class. Rome’s declining ability to maintain the wealth of its workers led to unsustainable welfare costs. The cohesive energy of Roman culture collapsed.
This is precisely the situation in America and the European Union. The 20th century was marked by multiple opportunities to create great wealth – radio, television, movies, telephone, automotive transportation, coal, oil, natural gas, electricity, railroads, airplanes, bio-sciences, communications, electronics, semiconductors, computers, PCs, the Internet and software. Economic circumstances created multiple opportunities to create wealth for the ordinary person from the mid 19th through the end of the 20th century. The collapse of the technology bubble from 2000 – 2003 was especially significant. Beginning in the late 1960s, computers, then PCs, then networking, and finally the Internet – along with all the software to make them work – offered the last significant wealth creation opportunities of the 20th century. When the technology bubble burst, the era of wealth creation ended. Subsequent development of cell phones, computer games, and other electronic devices are merely an extension of the technology era. Important as they are, they did little to increase the GDP of most nations.
Aside from nano-technology and energy, it would appear the 21st century will be characterized by an unsuccessful attempt to sustain prior wealth. There are few significant opportunities to generate new wealth on a scale of the innovations that underpinned wealth creation over the last 160 years. We will build new cars, interesting vehicles with new energy components, but we will not create the auto industry. We can now fly anywhere in the world, but our ability to manufacture economically viable airliners has peaked. The traditional media industry is now in contraction. We have already discovered, and consumed, most of the cheap oil. And so on.
The Deterioration Of GDP
The American economy has an embedded structural problem. Our economic focus has shifted to the preservation of wealth. This is not a prediction of the future. It is already happening. The following chart shows the annual change in Current Dollar Gross Domestic Product (GDP) from 1968 – 2008. Note that current dollar GDP seldom exceeds 2% after Q2 of 1984. For the last 20 years, the average has been just over 1.2%. The “Internet Boom” of the 1990’s actually did little to increase current dollar GDP. And despite a few quarters of spectacular growth as we claw our way out of this recession (no sure thing), it would appear average annual current dollar GDP growth will continue to deteriorate.
This is why I am furious at the intellectually challenged thinking that has gone into the proposed “stimulus” bill. It does much to transfer wealth. It does a woefully inadequate job of providing the opportunity to create substantial new wealth.
Our government is currently trying to artificially elevate American Real Estate values and sustain economic activity by spending several trillion $ of taxpayer money on “bail-outs” and “stimulus” packages. Although money flow will surge for a time, these efforts will ultimately fail because they do not address the fundamental underlying problem – we have slipped into preservation mode. If we want these programs to be successful, they have to either create wealth, or facilitate the creation of wealth.
Looking Ahead
For the purposes of this article, there were four other reasons for the decline of the Roman Empire:
If we are willing to compare the decline of the Roman Empire with the current cultural and economic condition of the United States, Canada, and several nations in Europe, the parallels are too obvious to dismiss. Our manufacturing base is declining, and welfare transfer payments are increasing. There is a call for higher taxes. Aliens flood across porous borders. Corruption and moral decay is not merely the norm, it is defended with emotional fervor.
The era of wealth creation is over.
TEA
.
Reference 1. With sincere apology to those who have invested hours of time in the study of the Roman Empire. This thumbnail description is all too brief and partly whimsical.
.
The Roman Empire
The rise and fall of the Roman Empire is a classic example of Return On Investment (ROI). Rome essentially funded conquest through pillage, tribute and taxes, bringing rich treasures of gold and silver back to Rome. During the early years of the Empire, the ROI on conquest was very good and Rome prospered. It had plenty of coin to fund its Legions. As the years went by, however, it became more difficult to find lands worth conquering and the travel costs to send a Legion to remote lands increased. The ROI of conquest began to falter, and Roman Emperors finally concluded additional conquests were not worth the cost. Years of wealth creation came to an end. The Roman Empire shifted its attention to wealth preservation.
Whenever a nation slips from wealth creation
to wealth preservation,
it becomes increasingly difficult
to sustain the prior level of wealth.
to wealth preservation,
it becomes increasingly difficult
to sustain the prior level of wealth.
As the cost of maintaining the Legions went up, the ROI on having them declined. In order to pay the cost of preservation, Rome debased its currency multiple times. Debasement is a way to pay today’s bills with tomorrows worthless coins. That led to incredibly high rates of inflation. Payment in kind often substituted for worthless currency. This debasement continued until mercenary legions refused to take Roman coins, sacked Rome, and established their own government. (Reference 1)
Sound Familiar?
There is a lesson here. If economic circumstances yield a positive ROI on labor, capital and material, then a nation is able to create wealth. When a nation lapses into wealth preservation, the ROI on invested capital declines. It becomes very difficult to sustain transfer payments because the creation of wealth declines to a point where there is no more wealth to transfer.
Wealth, in this sense, has little to do with how much money the rich can command. We are talking about the wealth of a nation’s workers, and more specifically the wealth of its middle class. Rome’s declining ability to maintain the wealth of its workers led to unsustainable welfare costs. The cohesive energy of Roman culture collapsed.
The budget should be balanced, the treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed, least Rome become bankrupt. - Cicero (63BC)
This is precisely the situation in America and the European Union. The 20th century was marked by multiple opportunities to create great wealth – radio, television, movies, telephone, automotive transportation, coal, oil, natural gas, electricity, railroads, airplanes, bio-sciences, communications, electronics, semiconductors, computers, PCs, the Internet and software. Economic circumstances created multiple opportunities to create wealth for the ordinary person from the mid 19th through the end of the 20th century. The collapse of the technology bubble from 2000 – 2003 was especially significant. Beginning in the late 1960s, computers, then PCs, then networking, and finally the Internet – along with all the software to make them work – offered the last significant wealth creation opportunities of the 20th century. When the technology bubble burst, the era of wealth creation ended. Subsequent development of cell phones, computer games, and other electronic devices are merely an extension of the technology era. Important as they are, they did little to increase the GDP of most nations.
Every OECD nation will be focused on wealth preservation.
Aside from nano-technology and energy, it would appear the 21st century will be characterized by an unsuccessful attempt to sustain prior wealth. There are few significant opportunities to generate new wealth on a scale of the innovations that underpinned wealth creation over the last 160 years. We will build new cars, interesting vehicles with new energy components, but we will not create the auto industry. We can now fly anywhere in the world, but our ability to manufacture economically viable airliners has peaked. The traditional media industry is now in contraction. We have already discovered, and consumed, most of the cheap oil. And so on.
The Deterioration Of GDP
The American economy has an embedded structural problem. Our economic focus has shifted to the preservation of wealth. This is not a prediction of the future. It is already happening. The following chart shows the annual change in Current Dollar Gross Domestic Product (GDP) from 1968 – 2008. Note that current dollar GDP seldom exceeds 2% after Q2 of 1984. For the last 20 years, the average has been just over 1.2%. The “Internet Boom” of the 1990’s actually did little to increase current dollar GDP. And despite a few quarters of spectacular growth as we claw our way out of this recession (no sure thing), it would appear average annual current dollar GDP growth will continue to deteriorate.
This is why I am furious at the intellectually challenged thinking that has gone into the proposed “stimulus” bill. It does much to transfer wealth. It does a woefully inadequate job of providing the opportunity to create substantial new wealth.
Our government is currently trying to artificially elevate American Real Estate values and sustain economic activity by spending several trillion $ of taxpayer money on “bail-outs” and “stimulus” packages. Although money flow will surge for a time, these efforts will ultimately fail because they do not address the fundamental underlying problem – we have slipped into preservation mode. If we want these programs to be successful, they have to either create wealth, or facilitate the creation of wealth.
Looking Ahead
For the purposes of this article, there were four other reasons for the decline of the Roman Empire:
- Product manufacturing drifted away from Rome to outlying regions. As Rome’s importance as a manufacturing resource declined, its ability to pay for food and goods from outlying lands also declined. “Why trade with Rome?”, went the argument. “They can’t pay you and if they do, it’s with worthless debased coin.”
- In order to pay for its Legions and welfare recipients, Roman Emperors increased taxes to the point they were confiscatory. Farmers lost their lands because they could not pay the taxes, or because the tax burden made further farming uneconomical. Cultivation declined. Displaced, and often starving, thousands of farmers drifted into Rome or became bound to rich patrons (the start of serfdom).
- Thousands of slaves, displaced farmers, former Legionnaires, and aliens flooded into Rome, swelling the welfare rolls and degrading Roman culture.
- Rampant political corruption and moral decay demeaned the value and quality of life. Desperate for spiritual fulfillment, thousands abandoned pagan beliefs in favor of emerging Christian doctrine.
If we are willing to compare the decline of the Roman Empire with the current cultural and economic condition of the United States, Canada, and several nations in Europe, the parallels are too obvious to dismiss. Our manufacturing base is declining, and welfare transfer payments are increasing. There is a call for higher taxes. Aliens flood across porous borders. Corruption and moral decay is not merely the norm, it is defended with emotional fervor.
The era of wealth creation is over.
TEA
.
Reference 1. With sincere apology to those who have invested hours of time in the study of the Roman Empire. This thumbnail description is all too brief and partly whimsical.
.
November 25, 2009
The Simple Math of CO2 Reduction
.
Those who propose draconian measures to curb CO2 production need a math refresher course. Let’s get real. Look at the projections. Assuming existing CO2 reduction policies are not changed, by 2030, human activity will account for about 3.3% of global CO2 production (NASA). By itself, the United States is projected to contribute 15.8% of world human emissions in 2030 (IEA/EIA). Therefore:
Barack Obama has pledged that by 2030, America will have decreased its CO2 emissions by 42%. How effective will that cut be versus America’s projected emissions? Do the math.
There is, unfortunately, a critical problem with Barack’s pledge.
Barack Obama assumes Americans are willing to endure the destructive misery of chronic recession in order to reduce total world CO2 emissions by a tiny little .22%, and human emissions from the consumption of fossil fuels by only 6.64%. Barack is telling the world we Americans are willing to turn off the heat , eat uncooked food, and turn off the lights 42% of the time. We will have to drive tiny little cars and trucks. The buildings we work in (or live in) will be insufferably hot in the summer and icy cold in the winter. Curtailing economic activity means more of us will be unemployed and even if we do have a job, it will not pay a living wage. (Unless of course, you happen to be a Washington insider.) More of us will be living in poverty. Health care will definitely deteriorate. In other words, by 2030 America’s economy will look just like Cuba’s economy.
Is this what we want?
I have three questions:
There IS a correlation between economic growth and energy consumption. At no time in human history has there ever been a sustained increase in human wealth without a corresponding increase in the consumption of energy. We Americans can increase the efficiency of our consumption (and we are), but we can not sharply decrease our energy consumption without doing serious damage to our economy.
Do our people in Washington care that the proposed CO2 reductions will drive up the rate of unemployment, increase the rate of inflation, and force Americans to accept poverty as a way of life?
Apparently not. . One can only conclude certain persons in Congress and the Obama Administration are either math challenged, or these people have a deceptive agenda that has little to do with global warming.
Hopefully, it’s only a problem of simple math.
TEA
References:
Carbon cycle data. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Earth Science Enterprise, Carbon Cycle.
The IEA’s International Energy Outlook 2009, Projects CO2 emissions at 40.4 billion metric tons in 2030. Developing nations, including China, India and the Middle east, will account for 97% of the increase in CO2 emissions from 2006 through 2030. The United States, along with the other OECD nations, will cause only 3% of the increase in CO2 emissions, assuming there is NO change to existing fossil fuels consumption policies.
The Energy Information Administration (EIA), Annual Energy Outlook 2009 with Projections to 2030, projects United States CO2 emissions in 2030 at 6.4 million metric tons. Energy-related CO2 emissions in the AEO2009 reference case grow by 0.3 percent per year from 2007 to 2030. The U.S. Energy Information Administration expects the country's emissions of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels to decrease 5.6% in 2009. Most of this decrease is due to the recession which has reduced economic activity (and GDP).
From the EIA International Energy Outlook 2009, Reference Case.
“Over the 24-year projection period, the average annual increase in non-OECD emissions from 2006 to 2030 (2.2 percent) is seven times (my emphasis) the rate projected for the OECD countries (0.3 percent). In 2030, non-OECD emissions (25.8 billion metric tons) exceed OECD emissions (14.6 billion metric tons) by 77 percent.”
“Coal is the most carbon-intensive of the fossil fuels, and it is the fastest-growing carbon-emitting energy source in the IEO2009 reference case projection, reflecting its important role in the energy mix of non-OECD countries—especially, China and India. In 1990, China and India together accounted for 13 percent of world carbon dioxide emissions; in 2006 their combined share had risen to 25 percent, largely because of strong economic growth and increasing use of coal to provide energy for that growth. In 2030, carbon dioxide emissions from China and India combined are projected to account for 34 percent of total world emissions, with China alone responsible for 29 percent of the world total.”
“In the IEO2009 reference case, U.S. energy-related carbon dioxide emissions are projected to grow at an average annual rate of 0.3 percent from 2006 to 2030.” …. “The highest growth rate among the non-OECD countries is projected for China, at 2.8 percent annually from 2006 to 2030, reflecting the country’s continued heavy reliance on fossil fuels, especially coal, in the projection.”
The US plans to pledge a 17% cut in emissions from 2005 levels by 2020, 30% by 2025, 42% by 2030 and 83% by 2050.
.
Those who propose draconian measures to curb CO2 production need a math refresher course. Let’s get real. Look at the projections. Assuming existing CO2 reduction policies are not changed, by 2030, human activity will account for about 3.3% of global CO2 production (NASA). By itself, the United States is projected to contribute 15.8% of world human emissions in 2030 (IEA/EIA). Therefore:
America’s projected share of total world CO2 emissions in 2030
is 3.3% x 15.8% = 0.52%.
Barack Obama has pledged that by 2030, America will have decreased its CO2 emissions by 42%. How effective will that cut be versus America’s projected emissions? Do the math.
3.3% x 15.8% x 42% = .22% of total world carbon emissions
in 2030, and
15.8% x 42% = 6.64% of all human emissions
from the consumption of fossil fuels.
There is, unfortunately, a critical problem with Barack’s pledge.
A reduction of that magnitude
will definitely trash America’s economy.
Barack Obama assumes Americans are willing to endure the destructive misery of chronic recession in order to reduce total world CO2 emissions by a tiny little .22%, and human emissions from the consumption of fossil fuels by only 6.64%. Barack is telling the world we Americans are willing to turn off the heat , eat uncooked food, and turn off the lights 42% of the time. We will have to drive tiny little cars and trucks. The buildings we work in (or live in) will be insufferably hot in the summer and icy cold in the winter. Curtailing economic activity means more of us will be unemployed and even if we do have a job, it will not pay a living wage. (Unless of course, you happen to be a Washington insider.) More of us will be living in poverty. Health care will definitely deteriorate. In other words, by 2030 America’s economy will look just like Cuba’s economy.
Is this what we want?
I have three questions:
1. Who gave Barack permission to make this commitment?
2. Why is he pursuing a policy of economic self-destruction?
3. Are we willing to trash our economy for a tiny little change in world CO2 production?
2. Why is he pursuing a policy of economic self-destruction?
3. Are we willing to trash our economy for a tiny little change in world CO2 production?
There IS a correlation between economic growth and energy consumption. At no time in human history has there ever been a sustained increase in human wealth without a corresponding increase in the consumption of energy. We Americans can increase the efficiency of our consumption (and we are), but we can not sharply decrease our energy consumption without doing serious damage to our economy.
Do our people in Washington care that the proposed CO2 reductions will drive up the rate of unemployment, increase the rate of inflation, and force Americans to accept poverty as a way of life?
Apparently not. . One can only conclude certain persons in Congress and the Obama Administration are either math challenged, or these people have a deceptive agenda that has little to do with global warming.
Hopefully, it’s only a problem of simple math.
TEA
References:
Carbon cycle data. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Earth Science Enterprise, Carbon Cycle.
The IEA’s International Energy Outlook 2009, Projects CO2 emissions at 40.4 billion metric tons in 2030. Developing nations, including China, India and the Middle east, will account for 97% of the increase in CO2 emissions from 2006 through 2030. The United States, along with the other OECD nations, will cause only 3% of the increase in CO2 emissions, assuming there is NO change to existing fossil fuels consumption policies.
The Energy Information Administration (EIA), Annual Energy Outlook 2009 with Projections to 2030, projects United States CO2 emissions in 2030 at 6.4 million metric tons. Energy-related CO2 emissions in the AEO2009 reference case grow by 0.3 percent per year from 2007 to 2030. The U.S. Energy Information Administration expects the country's emissions of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels to decrease 5.6% in 2009. Most of this decrease is due to the recession which has reduced economic activity (and GDP).
From the EIA International Energy Outlook 2009, Reference Case.
“Over the 24-year projection period, the average annual increase in non-OECD emissions from 2006 to 2030 (2.2 percent) is seven times (my emphasis) the rate projected for the OECD countries (0.3 percent). In 2030, non-OECD emissions (25.8 billion metric tons) exceed OECD emissions (14.6 billion metric tons) by 77 percent.”
“Coal is the most carbon-intensive of the fossil fuels, and it is the fastest-growing carbon-emitting energy source in the IEO2009 reference case projection, reflecting its important role in the energy mix of non-OECD countries—especially, China and India. In 1990, China and India together accounted for 13 percent of world carbon dioxide emissions; in 2006 their combined share had risen to 25 percent, largely because of strong economic growth and increasing use of coal to provide energy for that growth. In 2030, carbon dioxide emissions from China and India combined are projected to account for 34 percent of total world emissions, with China alone responsible for 29 percent of the world total.”
“In the IEO2009 reference case, U.S. energy-related carbon dioxide emissions are projected to grow at an average annual rate of 0.3 percent from 2006 to 2030.” …. “The highest growth rate among the non-OECD countries is projected for China, at 2.8 percent annually from 2006 to 2030, reflecting the country’s continued heavy reliance on fossil fuels, especially coal, in the projection.”
The US plans to pledge a 17% cut in emissions from 2005 levels by 2020, 30% by 2025, 42% by 2030 and 83% by 2050.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)