No, not really. But part of me is tempted by the notion. Why? Because I have some real doubts about our political system's ability to resolve these problems on its own. The demands of creditors and the political realities of massive austerity could wake us up to the fact that the world's largest economy requires better stewardship, and that there is a dangerous ideology afoot, and it's not socialism. Here's what I mean:
National debt crises are political crises. The political crisis of debt often stems from logical flaws in capitalism and democracy.
First, capitalism. Employers are dependent on people buying what they sell, but at the same time, each employer would like to pay its employees as little as it can get away with. This works well as long as there's enough demand both for the goods the employer sells, and for the labor they require to make the goods. If demand for the goods slips, they lay off the labor that makes them. If they lay off the labor, nobody gets paid, and nobody buys the goods they sell. If nobody buys the goods they sell, they lay off more labor. Marx understood this. So did Henry Ford. That's exactly why he paid his workers twice the going rate-- so they would buy his Model T's. Thus, capitalism's priorities of low labor costs and high demand for what is on offer are in contradiction with one another and posing an inherent threat to itself.
Second, democracy. Politicians are in the business of negotiating their constituencies' priorities with other politicians. Anything else, like wise judgment, sacrifice, good will in negotiation, or moderation are moral considerations that are only adjudicated every few years in elections. Elections, especially when jerrymandering, 24 hour news, campaign finance, and irate fringe elements are involved, don't prioritize for moral leaders interested in the greater good. Even if they did, with endless cheap credit, there's little incentive for a politician to rein in the spending that people like, or to raise taxes to pay for it. Thomas Jefferson understood this. So does The Economist. Thus, democracy always runs the risk of spending too much, and taxing too little.
These are not original problems. What is original is that our democratic problems are magnified by the capitalists themselves, as opposed to the usual coterie of workers demanding rights and benefits, fascists demanding more fascism (which costs money), or generalized corruption that saps revenues, spending, and productivity.
Business interests have spent the past thirty years aligning themselves with America's right wing in order to free up money from labor, loosen regulations, and increase profits. This is nothing new in itself-- it's the success they've had. Business has been hugely successful in fostering political movements that demand policies which reduce federal regulation, depress wages, lower taxes, and spend greatly on agricultural subsidies, defense, pharmaceuticals and hundreds of other business interests that could use a check from Uncle Sam without a lot of strings attached.
Politicians have actually been elected to demand cuts to federal benefits, and industrial policy that supports profits above all else. A powerful group of House members will countencance nothing less without any bait-and-switch on their constituents-- this is just what they said they'd do. Vast sections of the middle class actually believe that cutting the money that props up their own spending power will somehow make all of us rich.
So here we are, cutting taxes and social spending at the threat of a total default on our nation's credit.
The people with money want to pay workers less. Understandable.
They want to pay less in taxes. Who doesn't?
They advocate to cut the subsidies to the very people who we need to spend money right now, and have convinced those people that doing so is the only way out of our mounting debts. Oh crap.
A crisis of capitalism is in an unholy marriage to a crisis of democracy.
The reptilian appetites of business for more money, and greater power have created an ideological monster. Business has created a movement that served its short-term interests very well, but represents a dangerous warping of our nation's priorities. This ideology is communism in reverse, and is as lopsided, power-driven and half-baked an idea as the imposition of such ideology was on the Soviet Union. Without its total defeat and utter discredit, this ideology will continue to erode our institutions and our nation's standing in the world. Economic ideologies, once they have gained traction in a political system, have never gone down without a disasterous fight. We're better off without them.
The healthy tensions of capital versus labor, spending versus austerity have been removed from the political equation. It's all capital, all austerity, all the time, even when all the evidence is that the working guy is suffering, and some spending can help get us back on track.
So I see three possibilities:
1. We we will cut ourselves into fewer government protections, less economic security, and a deeper recession.
2. We reach some middle ground where people can get back to work and continue to scrape by as they have for the past decade. Or...
3. We default and our creditors dictate the terms of repayment instead of our political system, the zealots are thrown out on their ears, and we can get back to rebuilding our nation.
Maybe that last one wouldn't be so bad after all.
Friday, July 15, 2011
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
NASA: Need Additional Space Aspirations
I was one of those kids who salivated at his particular interests. For me, it was space. My father used to tell dinner guests to "ask him anything about space," and I usually had the answer. I went to space camp. I ate astronaut ice cream and flew a space shuttle simulator. I had posters of rockets, and I launched the model kind on weekends. From about age five and well into adolescence, space was my Mecca. In many ways it remains so-- the ultimate aspiration for the human race.
I was in second grade when the Challenger exploded. That night I had a dream. Ronald Reagan was at the podium addressing the nation. He told us that America wouldn't return to space for the next 248 years (coincidentally, one Pluto year). I woke up in quiet mourning, and spent the day pouting over what I viewed as the loss of my life's central goal. But after a few days, I got over it.
In fifth grade, I saw the Discovery launch from a viewing area 5 miles off of Cape Canaveral. The anticipation of the countdown emanated from the RVs and pacing crowds around me. The ground shook mightily even from that distance, and a nearly blinding light grew under the red and white speck I'd been eyeing for what seemed forever. The roar of the craft filled the air as smoke billowed and grew into a tower that reached skyward, the tiny speck disappearing into the blue far above to the awe of everyone around me. It was one of the best days of my life.
Since then, I've followed the US space program with varying degrees of attention. I've caught a few more shuttle launches on TV, and have felt the grandeur of the vessel slip into the routine, part of the background noise of history and public life. I've been around long enough to witness the space program's culture shift from one of fighter pilots and hard-nosed engineers, to overachieving PhDs and computer nerds who are more interested in piloting rovers and studying the geology of an obscure Jovian moon than they are in getting people up there. I felt a small pang of sadness when they rolled out a Space Shuttle replacement that looks like the Apollo craft of 50 years ago, only with half its lift capacity to orbit. I know we live in austere times, but it's sad to watch these personal and national dreams fade in memory.
With the Atlantis now in orbit for the last time, every comment on the mission is prefaced with "this is the last time that..." The last time the Solid Rocket Boosters will separate and land in the Atlantic. The last time a Shuttle reaches Main Engine Cutoff. The last International Space Station docking. The last Shuttle space walk. The last jettisoning of human waste. Well, that last one hasn't happened quite yet at least.
But this is so far from the end. New nations are sending people into space. Russian Soyuz craft make the trip far more routine than any Shuttle launch ever was. Private industry is building crew capsules and heavy lift rockets, and is already selling trips to suborbital space. A viable space plane was just commissioned by the European Space Agency. Someone is building an inflatable habitat that will one day become a hotel in orbit. Ion and plasma propulsion make realistic promises of trips to Mars in weeks rather than months. And NASA is still writing grants for all of this work.
At some point not far from now, space will become profitable. With enough capital and R&D, sending tourists aloft, launching satellites, and trillions of dollars in mining and energy are just some of the possibilities. Someone will figure out how to become a billionaire up there, and then many, many others will follow. We are nearing an age where public investments in the basic knowledge of how to achieve orbit will give way to private leveraging of capital for ambitious orbital, lunar, and interplanetary projects. NASA must continue to fund the basic science-- that is the necessary and legitimate province of the state. But it won't be on a NASA vehicle that I'll make it up there.
I am more optimistic than ever about our future in space. Public investment opens up new industries with massive profit potential. History tells us that when something becomes profitable, it usually grows orders of magnitude faster than anybody would have guessed. Space will happen, and it will happen quick. My only remaining fear is that I'll be too old to pay a visit to the Lunar Hilton. But I have the same hope as I ever did.
I was in second grade when the Challenger exploded. That night I had a dream. Ronald Reagan was at the podium addressing the nation. He told us that America wouldn't return to space for the next 248 years (coincidentally, one Pluto year). I woke up in quiet mourning, and spent the day pouting over what I viewed as the loss of my life's central goal. But after a few days, I got over it.
In fifth grade, I saw the Discovery launch from a viewing area 5 miles off of Cape Canaveral. The anticipation of the countdown emanated from the RVs and pacing crowds around me. The ground shook mightily even from that distance, and a nearly blinding light grew under the red and white speck I'd been eyeing for what seemed forever. The roar of the craft filled the air as smoke billowed and grew into a tower that reached skyward, the tiny speck disappearing into the blue far above to the awe of everyone around me. It was one of the best days of my life.
Since then, I've followed the US space program with varying degrees of attention. I've caught a few more shuttle launches on TV, and have felt the grandeur of the vessel slip into the routine, part of the background noise of history and public life. I've been around long enough to witness the space program's culture shift from one of fighter pilots and hard-nosed engineers, to overachieving PhDs and computer nerds who are more interested in piloting rovers and studying the geology of an obscure Jovian moon than they are in getting people up there. I felt a small pang of sadness when they rolled out a Space Shuttle replacement that looks like the Apollo craft of 50 years ago, only with half its lift capacity to orbit. I know we live in austere times, but it's sad to watch these personal and national dreams fade in memory.
With the Atlantis now in orbit for the last time, every comment on the mission is prefaced with "this is the last time that..." The last time the Solid Rocket Boosters will separate and land in the Atlantic. The last time a Shuttle reaches Main Engine Cutoff. The last International Space Station docking. The last Shuttle space walk. The last jettisoning of human waste. Well, that last one hasn't happened quite yet at least.
But this is so far from the end. New nations are sending people into space. Russian Soyuz craft make the trip far more routine than any Shuttle launch ever was. Private industry is building crew capsules and heavy lift rockets, and is already selling trips to suborbital space. A viable space plane was just commissioned by the European Space Agency. Someone is building an inflatable habitat that will one day become a hotel in orbit. Ion and plasma propulsion make realistic promises of trips to Mars in weeks rather than months. And NASA is still writing grants for all of this work.
At some point not far from now, space will become profitable. With enough capital and R&D, sending tourists aloft, launching satellites, and trillions of dollars in mining and energy are just some of the possibilities. Someone will figure out how to become a billionaire up there, and then many, many others will follow. We are nearing an age where public investments in the basic knowledge of how to achieve orbit will give way to private leveraging of capital for ambitious orbital, lunar, and interplanetary projects. NASA must continue to fund the basic science-- that is the necessary and legitimate province of the state. But it won't be on a NASA vehicle that I'll make it up there.
I am more optimistic than ever about our future in space. Public investment opens up new industries with massive profit potential. History tells us that when something becomes profitable, it usually grows orders of magnitude faster than anybody would have guessed. Space will happen, and it will happen quick. My only remaining fear is that I'll be too old to pay a visit to the Lunar Hilton. But I have the same hope as I ever did.
Friday, July 01, 2011
Chicken a la Debt
As the 4th of July holiday approaches, we should eat. We should also stop to celebrate the independence of our country from the tyrannies of the past. We should remind ourselves this weekend that Joint Stock Companies colluded with the Crown to extract resources and taxes from our nation's forebears without granting them any say in the matter. For too long, we ate what they served with no complaint. This holiday, we should also think of beer and barbecuing, which brings me to chicken (that's a segue).
There are two kinds of chicken on the menu this holiday weekend.
The first is Debt Default Chicken, perhaps more aptly served as beef, specifically bull. For this recipe, two cooks turn up the heat hoping that one side will be done before the other. This game of chicken should never be served as one side is inevitably charred, the other side nearly raw, and the whole thing will taste terrible, perhaps to the point of making us all gravely ill. Anyone who would play chicken with our nation's credit rating over an empty principle is a fool and should never be allowed near open fires.
The second is Flaming Base Chicken, a delicacy enjoyed by few where only the right wing is seasoned and prepared with loving attention, paying far less attention to juicy bits in the center, and ignoring the left side, which was just as important to the chicken as the right. Most people couldn't care less about the subtleties surrounding Flaming Base Chicken. They're just hungry. The only reason for this kind of chicken is because of a fear that the right wing will flap away without the chef. No cook for the barbecuing masses would ever recommend this exotic dish to a variety of tastebuds.
It's July 1 and I've had enough chicken already. Our leadership should never have allowed the festivities to carry on this long. Debt Default Chicken is such a mess that it could kill us, and leaders who resort to Flaming Base Chicken out of irrational or petty fear do not deserve the complements of the vast majority of the voting public who find right wings disagreeable or unimportant.
As we approach this holiday we should think about our representative democracy, where we leave the cooking to trusted experts, who must work in a large institutional setting and still cook well, but also healthy food that's palatable to most tastes. We should have no time for leaders who seek notoriety by stuffing people of similar tastes with their own fatty pleasures of endless tax cuts, throwing out the fresh vegetables in the face of spiraling debt, and shunning everyone else to cook for themselves, even as profits and obscene wealth are protected by the cooks as a matter of gustatory principle, while our nation's food bill is the lowest it's been over 50 years.
As we sit down for dinner, and tuck into the courses served to us by our leadership, the policies around revenues and spending, we should consider not whether this is the most amazing meal we've ever had, everything we ever desired, but rather whether we find it nourishing, the company pleasant, and the experience of eating these cooks' meals one worth repeating.
As we stop to think about the freedom we enjoy, we should look towards the modern-day collusion of wealthy interests with government to end all public benefit, like Medicaid for the poor, or not important to their bottom line in old age, like Medicare is for everyone else. We should question the wisdom of those chefs who tell us that this is the only way to prepare chicken, even as most of us find it repulsive. We should ask why we need to eat what they serve when there are so many other options.
There are two kinds of chicken on the menu this holiday weekend.
The first is Debt Default Chicken, perhaps more aptly served as beef, specifically bull. For this recipe, two cooks turn up the heat hoping that one side will be done before the other. This game of chicken should never be served as one side is inevitably charred, the other side nearly raw, and the whole thing will taste terrible, perhaps to the point of making us all gravely ill. Anyone who would play chicken with our nation's credit rating over an empty principle is a fool and should never be allowed near open fires.
The second is Flaming Base Chicken, a delicacy enjoyed by few where only the right wing is seasoned and prepared with loving attention, paying far less attention to juicy bits in the center, and ignoring the left side, which was just as important to the chicken as the right. Most people couldn't care less about the subtleties surrounding Flaming Base Chicken. They're just hungry. The only reason for this kind of chicken is because of a fear that the right wing will flap away without the chef. No cook for the barbecuing masses would ever recommend this exotic dish to a variety of tastebuds.
It's July 1 and I've had enough chicken already. Our leadership should never have allowed the festivities to carry on this long. Debt Default Chicken is such a mess that it could kill us, and leaders who resort to Flaming Base Chicken out of irrational or petty fear do not deserve the complements of the vast majority of the voting public who find right wings disagreeable or unimportant.
As we approach this holiday we should think about our representative democracy, where we leave the cooking to trusted experts, who must work in a large institutional setting and still cook well, but also healthy food that's palatable to most tastes. We should have no time for leaders who seek notoriety by stuffing people of similar tastes with their own fatty pleasures of endless tax cuts, throwing out the fresh vegetables in the face of spiraling debt, and shunning everyone else to cook for themselves, even as profits and obscene wealth are protected by the cooks as a matter of gustatory principle, while our nation's food bill is the lowest it's been over 50 years.
As we sit down for dinner, and tuck into the courses served to us by our leadership, the policies around revenues and spending, we should consider not whether this is the most amazing meal we've ever had, everything we ever desired, but rather whether we find it nourishing, the company pleasant, and the experience of eating these cooks' meals one worth repeating.
As we stop to think about the freedom we enjoy, we should look towards the modern-day collusion of wealthy interests with government to end all public benefit, like Medicaid for the poor, or not important to their bottom line in old age, like Medicare is for everyone else. We should question the wisdom of those chefs who tell us that this is the only way to prepare chicken, even as most of us find it repulsive. We should ask why we need to eat what they serve when there are so many other options.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)