The Allegator

"I do not deny the allegation, I deny the allegator." – Jesse Jackson

Home Archives for Natural Selection

Stereotypes, Taboo, and Equality by Force

If philosophy is questions that may never be answered, and religion is answers that may never be questioned, then politics is asking the wrong questions in order to avoid unwanted answers.

There are times when truth is the bane of politics, often justifiably so. It is one of the most central tenets of our nation that everyone is treated equally under the law.

Or so we say.

If a man and a woman go out for a walk topless, only one of them will be arrested for indecent exposure.

When they turn 18, only one of them has to register for the draft.

Sometimes it is somewhat less certain. If a couple are getting divorced, which one is going to get the kids and which one is going to pay the child support? We all know the answer, most of the time.

In Arizona, if you look Mexican they will ask you for your papers.

Age discrimination is so rampant in our legal system that we wouldn’t even know how to remove it. We consider our kids to be old enough to go overseas and kill and be killed in war years before we consider them to be responsible enough to drink a beer.

And then you have groups who claim to be crusading against discrimination, arguing to mandate it in their favor in order to balance the scales. They argue that high crime rates and low test scores among their constituents are the result of  poverty and tests written by the majority for the majority. They suggest that the solution is affirmative action. Grants for minorities, hiring quotas, and legal protections against discrimination based on their minority status.

I would argue that these things cause the very things they claim to prevent. You can’t just give an opportunity to one person without taking it away from another. Denying a job to the most qualified candidate in order to give it to a lower scoring minority breeds dissension and lowers productivity. It foments racist and sexist thoughts in those who are turned down for the job they are best at.

It also creates a perception of incompetence. Would you want to be a minority who had earned their position through skill and hard work, only to have everyone figure you were given the job to fill a quota? I’m not saying such policy should never be made, but that we need to be honest about all of the effects it will have, rather than optimistic cherry picking. If the state of repression is significantly more serious than the ill will generated, such as slavery or segregated schools, then so be it, but there comes a time when the only time you approach equality is when you take the training wheels off.

I say approach equality rather than achieve equality because I don’t believe we will ever get there. There is no divine entity making sure that everyone’s weaknesses are perfectly balanced out by some hidden strength. Some people are just bad people. Some are weak, some are strong. Science tells us that many of these traits are passed on genetically.

So what do we do when science tells us that people with short index fingers are more prone to violence? What happens when a racial profile accurately predicts aptitude? When a gene predicts that you will cheat on your spouse?

Most of us don’t even want to admit that it might be possible. Pretending that such data doesn’t exist is just hiding our head in the sand. It’s out there. People read it. People act on it. The Amish riding around in buggys doesn’t prevent the existence of military satellites.

If we are to have equal treatment under the law, our only hope is to studiously prevent our government from collecting, interpreting, and acting on details of our personal data. This means in order to prevent such profiling, we also need to be rid of the quotas.

These kinds of issues are things I occasionally ponder. If you are interested in getting a much deeper understanding of the news and issues surrounding the battle between reality and social expediency, there is a blogger who seems to devote his every waking hour to the subject, and I’m sure gets a daily earful of people calling him a racist for doing so. Whether he is or not, he’ll make you think, and alert you to news you just won’t hear elsewhere, for example:

The Cherokee Nation voted to amend their constitution to remove the citizenship of descendants of slaves once owned by its members. More casino money for the rest of the tribe?

Asians pulling away in SAT scores.

Race and DNA based medicine.

Study shows other apes don’t have shared goals.

How Microsoft reduced its  taxation from 25% to 6% in one year.

Dept. of Justice legal loophole to discriminate against Americans.

The Rule of Rules and the Ethical Nature of Autonomy

In this TED Talk, Barry Schwartz speaks on a society gone over the edge with rules and regulations, and the ethical nature of autonomy.

It is easy to fall into the habit of seeing the populace as a conglomerate of ignorant sheep, and there is some truth to it. As a group we consistently make poor decisions, but the group is made up of individuals. They have their failings, but most of them get up every morning and go to work. When faced with decisions in their daily lives, they tend to make good ones.  They share your outrage over the state of the system.

It isn’t until they are corralled and herded through all the little reverberating insurance policies against litigation that most of their decisions tend to be bad ones. We haven’t added rules over the years because people have become less upstanding, people have become less upstanding because society has increasingly suppressed their spirit of ingenuity and drive with rules designed to take all of the rewards in order to ensure that no risks are taken. We now reap what we have sown. Fear of innovation. Bloated government, a litigious populace, listless children, high taxes, and low-flow toilets.

Update: This unfortunate trend has only accelerated in recent years. It’s gotten to where the insurance companies have themselves become regulators, as their coverage is now mandated, but they still write most of the terms and conditions, for both doctor and patient. Doctors are now told what they will reimbursed for in a way that has reduced their doctor patient relationship to a checklist that will keep them in business. Patients are told who they can see and which treatments will be covered, all while spending more money, on average, than before the insurance.

Toyota Republicans

 

Recently on the McLaughlin Group, Pat Buchanan coined a new term for a faction of the Republican party: Toyota Republicans. The phrase is an odd one because it is far more subtle and complicated than it seems. Under the watch of the Bush administration we saw outsourcing become the norm. We didn’t slowly lose a difficult battle to China, we eagerly gave them the plans and asked them to take over our manufacturing. The Alabama foreign car manufacturers Pat referred to are an interesting case. When we can’t even lead in our own industry in our own country selling to our own people, we have failed. It isn’t about patriotism and buying American. I’ll buy American when faced with a tough choice, but in the end I’m going with the better product, as should we all. We don’t need to bail out the failures, we need to create successes. These foreign plants on U.S. soil aren’t entirely a bad thing, although they are still sending our money overseas.

An interesting point has been made about who pays the cost of medical care. If the American auto makers are saddled with responsibility for the health care of their workers, and the foreign competitors aren’t, because the government takes care of that, then we didn’t fire the first shot in the coming Cold War Race to Socialism, they did.

As Pat puts it: “America faces nationalistic trade rivals who manipulate currencies, employ nontariff barriers, subsidize their manufacturers, rebate value-added taxes on exports to us and impose value-added taxes on imports from us, all to capture our markets and kill our great companies.“

How should we respond? Pat wants us to “produce ourselves the guns and ships to defend the republic and the necessities of our national life so we could stand alone against the world.“ He suggests we do this by putting tariffs on imports in order to level the playing field. This isn’t a wise step forward in the new global economy; it leads to foreign retaliation, reducing our exports.  When you are only selling things to yourself, you don’t earn any money. It would work well here in the U.S. Until the industries got lazy and corrupt. We already can see the results of such tactics in the corn industry. The reason everything we eat is packed with corn syrup is that we tax the import of sugar and subsidize the growing of corn. What we need is to be lighter on our feet. We need small specialized manufacturers.

Pat Buchanan puts the blame on neocons for removing tariffs imposed by Reagan:

“When an icon of American industry, Harley-Davidson, was being run out of business by cutthroat Japanese dumping of big bikes to kill the “Harley Hog,” Reagan slapped 50 percent tariffs on their motorcycles and imposed quotas on imported Japanese cars. Message to Tokyo. If you folks want to keep selling cars here, start building them here.“

Alabama is now home to several automotive plants:

  • Mercedes-Benz: Headquarted in Germany
  • Honda: Headquartered in Japan
  • Hyundai: Headquartered in South Korea
  • Toyota: headquartered in Japan

These U.S. plants make a total of more than 700,000 vehicles a year and employ over 11,000 workers.  This would all be a good thing if these vehicles were being shipped out, but they are built here to be sold here. To follow the money: You buy a Toyota. Part of that money goes to the workers in the Toyota plants in Alabama and elsewhere in the US; another part goes to Japan. To some extent it is nice to have foreign industry in our country; it gives them incentive to be nice to us so they can retain their factory. On the other hand, if we are making the product in our country with our labor and selling it to our people, we could do without sending the profits to Japan.

Pat is afraid that if we don’t do whatever it takes to keep the big three in business, that these foreign owned manufacturers will take over their market share.

Agreements like NAFTA aren’t really free trade, they are managed trade. In the end, under NAFTA, manufactuuring and agriculture find advantage in moving to Mexico. This includes companies like Toyota. The question is, are these Toyota republicans opposing the bailout on strong free trade principles, or are southern politicians trying to remove the competing U.S. manufacturers in Detroit to better their own foreign owned manufacturing?

From here on I will be using the term ‘Toyota Republican’ to describe the NAFTA loving portion of the party that is partially responsible for outsourcing and the exodus of  industry.

 

Update: Leo Gerard, the president of the United Steelworkers Union, went on Bill Moyers Joural with his take on the auto bailout and the Toyota Republicans.

Too Big to Fail?

The latest group to ask for bailout is the automobile industry. Most of their argument for bailout hinges on the thought that if they fail, they will take the economy with them. They are framing the problem backwards. The real problem is not that they are too big to fail, but that they are too big to succeed. Any time you try to have your company do everything, you risk not being very good or efficient at any of it. What the companies really need is to be more modular. If cars were built like computers, you could choose your own build out of the most appropriate components, knowing that all of them were built by people who specialize, and that replacement parts would be standardized enough to be cheaply available. TechCrunch has a good article about the concept .

What we need is to be lighter on our feet. The days of massive self sufficient manufactueres with big pension plans should be a thing of the past. We need small specialized manufacturers. When they see a need in the market they should specialize in creating the best product at the best price to fill the need. When the need is gone, there shouldn’t be any crying about lost jobs; just restructure, retool, retrain, transfer if neccesary, and get back to work. Benefit packages should be made more easily transferrable. If another nation is seriously subsidizing an industry in order to gain market share, I think we would be better served by putting more international economic pressure on that country, which is stronger the more global the industry is. We should encourage  distributed international industry in order to make it unprofitable to cheat. The alternative is a cold war race to socialism.

Do Superpowers Inevitably Degrade Into Socialism?

The economic miracle that has been the United States was not produced by socialized enterprises, by government-union-industry cartels or by centralized economic planning. It was produced by private enterprises in a profit-and-loss system. And losses were at least as important in weeding out failures, as profits in fostering successes. Let government succor failures, and we shall be headed for stagnation and decline. –  Milton Friedman

As our government continues to bail out big corporations, a pattern is emerging. The current bailout targets the big auto manufacturers, and just like with the banks, the government is saying that the companies are failing due to poor decisions. This presents the government with a dilemma. If it does nothing, the economy could continue a steep decline. If it bails out the failing companies, it risks the loss of the additional money, and encourages other large corporations to play dead for a handout. In order to avoid the appearance of rewarding and subsidizing failure, the government is attempting to get a share in the companies and regulate their decisions. This presents a host of difficulties.

  • With no fear of failure, the company doesn’t feel the hunger to optimize and make a better, more competitive product, they just throw their newfound weight around.
  • Domestic competitors who were not failing now have the problem of a rival who has an artificial advantage. This actually serves to increase monopolistic tendencies. This is illustrated with our bailed out banks taking the opportunity to buy out competitors rather than loan money.
  • As the company attempts to find loopholes to wriggle free of its new bonds, the government counters with additional regulations, thus digging us deeper.

If we follow this to a logical end we see American car companies being given a global competitive advantage by having their cost of doing business artificially reduced. This has the same effect upon foreign competitors as the kind of corporate bullying you see when a Wal-Mart arrives in a small town and drives all of the local businesses under. Foreign governments will then have a choice. They can either let their auto manufacturers die because America played dirty, or they can subsidize their own auto manufacturers. What this could lead to is a new cold war in which we have a race towards socialism in order to conquer the global market.

Do Superpowers Inevitably Degrade Into Socialism? Well, I suppose there are other ways to fail, buy it certainly looks like the default for inexorable decline. And each step along the way is paved with good intentions.