Trump and Smog

At one time, the Los Angeles, California, area was plagued with smog (the word was formed by combining smoke and fog). It made visibility very poor at times. Worse, it caused breathing and respiratory problems for people who lived there and breathed the smoggy air.

Once science figured out that smog was caused by the interaction of various chemicals in automobile exhaust with sunlight, the remedy was to impose governmental regulations on the types and amounts of substances that cars would be allowed to pour into the air. The result? Los Angeles' air has been cleaned up in a dramatic way.

We have national regulations on so-called tailpipe emissions from cars, and California has its own, stricter emission laws. But now Donald Trump wants to take away California's right to impose tighter restrictions on tailpipe emissions than the national standards. California needs these tighter controls because the unique topography (and plentiful sunshine) of the Los Angeles area was causing smog to not only form there but settle and remain.

It seems that any liberal, progressive policy--all right, regulation--that benefits 99% of the populace at the expense of the remaining 1% (which is going to be big business and/or the very wealthy individuals) simply rankles with Trump, and he can't wait for his chance to get rid of it by executive order.

How Corporations Are Controlling America

The trend continues for America to be controlled more and more by big business—who want everything to go according to what is in their interests—meaning their profits.

For a long time this was accomplished by lobbyists. Many industries have their trade associations who maintain offices in Washington because their chief activity is to marshal lobbyists who try to persuade Congressmen and Senators to vote their way. They do this with persuasion, which is completely legal; but also with favors to Congressmen like gifts, trips, and entertainment, which is not legal. Or with promising campaign contributions, which has become legal since the recent Supreme Court decision known as Citizens United.

Here is an article on how industry influence has prevailed over the interests of the public in the case of the Toxic Substances Control Act.

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/10/13/reform-of-toxic-chemicals-law-collapses-as-industry-flexes-its-m/

Here is a bit of the history of efforts to rein in industry influence on federal governmental regulation and law-making. Some progress to reduce the influence of corporate contributions to politicians was made by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, often referred to as the McCain–Feingold Act.

McCain-Feingold was upheld by the courts in a 2003 case known as McConnell v. Federal Elections Commission.

A later ruling (2007), known as Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., created a very big exemption—but the consequences of this supposedly are still up in the air.

Most recently (2010), Citizens United partly overturned McConnell. Now corporate contributions can once again have a great influence on our elections. The party or candidate who has the most money can buy the most TV commercials. That means more persuasion, which is likely to be effective with voters. And those corporate contributions go much more heavily to Republican candidates. (Maybe now some is going to Tea Party candidates, too; I don't have information on that.) Thus corporate money is achieving a more "business-friendly" America and will continue the process of turning our country toward the Right that got such a big boost when the likes of Scalia, Roberts, and Alito gained seats on the Supreme Court.

Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein

Reagan (and Bush) on Energy and Consumer Protection

News has it that President Obama is installing solar energy-producing panels on the roof of the White House.

This item, and earlier ones, reminded us that President Jimmy Carter had also installed solar panels on the White House roof—and then Ronald Reagan removed them. Why would he do this, when it must have cost taxpayers money to remove them? My guess is, simply to thumb his nose at environmentalists.

Also, as is not very well known, on the day of his inauguration, Reagan froze all funding of alternative energy research by the Department of Energy. I can tell you that a lot of alternative energy research that is being called for today or has recently been started up, was going on in 1981 when Reagan halted it. On the smaller scale, Reagan's move cost many jobs (including, ultimately, mine—so yes, I have a personal axe to grind here) but it also set back the efforts to find new energy sources by 30 years.

Many of the bad things that Reagan did (okay, bad at least from my perspective, or any liberal perspective) were not publicized at the time. Reagan was very popular—remember, he was called "the Teflon President," and the Press was afraid to criticize him because of that popularity.

For example, he gutted federal regulatory agencies such as the EPA and FDA that were intended by Congress to safeguard our food, water, air, and so forth. He appointed as heads of these agencies industry-sympathetic people or even industry insiders who had no intention of allowing these agencies to function effectively.

Similarly, Congress passed laws to beef up (no pun) government inspections of food-processing plants. Had these measures taken effect, they might have prevented some of the recent outbreaks of food-borne illnesses such as Salmonella and E. coli from eggs, peanut butter, and so forth (there have been many in the last few years). But the stiffer inspection schedules were never implemented, because of eight years of foot-dragging by the Bush administration.

Update, August 26, 2011
I recently learned that Rodger Mudd, of CBS TV news, did at the time report on Reagan removing the solar panels from the White House. It was a very brief news item and didn't mention any possible explanation.

Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein

More on Oil Spill from Gulf of Mexico Drilling Rig

Today the news said that Mr. Obama is halting any new offshore oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. Of course I regard that as good news.

Unfortunately, that won't do anything to solve the current very serious oil-spill problem, which is beginning to look very tragic. If you follow the news, you already know that the spilled oil is going to ruin the industries for fishing for shrimp, oysters, crabs, and so forth, and seriously impact the livelihood of the fishermen, not to mention Americans' dinner tables--plus it is going to be deadly for shore birds in the Louisiana wetlands.

What is maybe even more tragic is that the oil spill probably could have been prevented. Oil-drilling platforms can be equipped with a type of shut-off valve called an acoustic valve. Had the oil rig in question been equipped with this device, the flow of oil probably could have been stemmed before very much oil spilled into the water.

Some countries, such as Norway, require this device on all offshore oil-drilling rigs. The U.S. does not. Yet another instance where government non-interference with corporations has had disastrous consequences.

Note added: The oil rig did include an explosive device that was supposed to enable shutting down the flow of oil in an emergency. However, it did not function as intended. As of the last I heard, no one knew why, other than simply that it was faulty.

Here is a link to an interesting article. http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/bp-oil-crisis-and-massey-coal-disaster-bring-blame-home/19461901/

She blames our energy-hungriness as the ultimate cause of not only the oil rig accident and subsequent oil spill; but also the mining disaster that occurred a short while before. I agree with her but, in the main. But she says we should drive less and I say, stop driving those big SUVs. Of course some drivers--probably less than 10%--who want to cause less energy consumption and less creation of greenhouse gasses from their driving have purchased hybrid cars or very small cars. The rest don't give a damn. (True confession time: I don't have a hybrid, nor a very tiny vehicle, but my car still is probably more economical than most, and I drive very little.)

Copyright (c) 2010 by Richard Stein

There Are No Cheap Cars (Thanks to U.S. Government)

Fifty years ago it was fairly simple for a foreign car manufacturer to sell his cars in the U.S. Any car sold in the U.S. had to meet U.S. federal government standards, but they were fairly simple (I've tried, as best as I'm able, to list these in approximately the order in which the standards went into effect):

• Sealed-beam headlights
• Safety glass

and maybe one or two more.

Then more requirements were added:

• Seat belts
• Exhaust emission standards
• Bumper crash resistance

and then:

• Air bags
• Engine computers with diagnostic readouts

and fairly recently:

• Tire pressure monitoring system

and, soon to come:

• Vehicle stability control

And I'm pretty sure there are a lot I have left out.

A lot of the required systems are electrical. Thus the following became necessary, even though not required by law:

• Larger battery
• Larger alternator
• Larger engine, to provide the power to drive the alternator, etc.

Add to all this the fact that there are a great many amenities that American drivers expect and even demand:

• Automatic transmission
• Air conditioning
• Innumerable power assists, electrical gadgets, "convenience features," etc.
  

The result is that there are no cheap cars. You take even a tiny and cheap (to begin with) car, and by the time it's been "Americanized" (actually, the term "federalized" is used), it has to sell for $20,000 in the U.S. A modern car has to have more "systems" than a house, so it's not surprising that a car costs a significant fraction of the cost of a house.

I am (as my faithful readers know) generally very liberal in my views; and I certainly don't want to start sounding conservative. Many, even most, of the above car features are very worthwhile, and they protect us and the environment. But I do have to say, I do wish that maybe some of these could be matters of the buyer's choice. I for one don't really like having to have the tire pressure monitoring system. Yes, it keeps us from driving on under-inflated tires, and that has safety implications. A great majority of drivers don't monitor their cars' tire pressure systematically. But I find any and all little amber warning lights on my dash to be a pain in the keister.

As to the bumper standard: Once upon a time, cars had these great, heavy, chrome-plated steel bumpers. They could contact another car and not be affected at all.

The new bumpers absorb shock and prevent damage to the rest of the car in low-speed collisions. However, the bumpers themselves, in minor encounters with another car, are too easily damaged. They are essentially plastic (with energy-absorbing blocks or a honeycomb structure behind them), and they dent, cave in, gouge, and scratch quite easily. Of course the "bumper covers" (as the body shop will call them) could be made of black rubber. Some cars have had that, and it's practical. But those big, black rubber bumpers are ugly and car buyers don't want them.

Still, makes me yearn for the old chromed steel bumpers.

What Is the Function of Government?

I just read a very interesting article in Smithsonian magazine (Oct. 2009 issue). The title is "A World Too New," and the author is Edmund S. Morgan, an emeritus professor of History at Yale. The article has to do with the knowledge and expectations that Columbus had for "the Indies," which affected the outcome of Europeans' early contacts with Western Hemisphere natives.

The entirety of the article is very interesting, but there were two very subordinate thoughts of Morgan's that struck me as very provocative. I've made my riff on one of those thoughts in the previous posting.

The second quote from Morgan paints a picture of the European society from which Columbus came, and which contrasted itself to that which they considered barbarian:

They had strong governments to protect property, to protect good persons from evil ones. . . .

For me, encountering this thought comes not long after I read some discussion, from different persons, about what the proper or legitimate role (or scope, or extent) of government should be. I think Morgan states it well, and succinctly. We have a Constitution and Bill of Rights that were written as they are to help ensure that the weak are not exploited or otherwise harmed by the strong (or more clever, or more ruthless, etc.) But some extreme conservatives and libertarians would not agree with this. I wonder if, if it were put to them, they would even say that we do not need or want the government to protect investors from a Bernie Madoff; or protect consumers from food manufacturers who might want to make and sell unhealthy food.

Well, actually, I think I know the answer to that one. It's easy to condemn a Madoff. Where it's just one individual, it's easy to condemn him. But, when it's corporations, or an industry—why, in that case some people almost seem to be saying that Business can do no wrong. Anti–big government people like Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush feel that business must not be hamstrung by government oversight. But the interests of a corporation—usually meaning, in one word, its profits—can and often do conflict with the interest of consumers—who are more numerous. In other words, should or should not the government legitimately protect the majority (the public, or "consumers") from a minority—one corporation or one industry? So much seems to hinge on issues like this, of protecting one group from another. And that is precisely, as Morgan says, one of the central functions of government.

Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein

The Game of Life

I was looking at a full-page magazine ad from The Teaching Company. I've known of this outfit for a while. They periodically send me CDs containing sample material from their courses, and I borrowed one of their courses from the public library. As far as I can judge, their material is authoritative.

This particular ad was headlined "Master the Rules of Competitive Behavior," and was for a course titled "Games People Play: Game Theory in Life, Business, and Beyond." Some of the individual lectures are titled "Practical Applications of Game Theory," "Pure Competition—Constant-Sum Games," "Credibility, Deterrence, and Compellence," "Encouraging Productivity—Incentive Schemes," "Bargaining and Cooperative Games," "Game Theory and Business—Co-optition," and so forth.

I'll admit that maybe I ought to listen to at least some of this course before I base an opinion solely on the ad's copy and the lecture titles. But I think one or two things are obvious, even so.

The last lecture of the course is titled "All the World's a Game." Now, I've often thought that myself. I think a lot of the people who advance themselves and garner a lot of money or power (1) realize the game nature of life, (2) know what the rules of that game are, and (3) play that game skillfully and mercilessly. (This begs for examples. I'd say maybe a Napoleon or some other general, or maybe a Roman emperor who schemed his way to power.)

If I long ago recognized that all of life is a game, why didn't I try to be a successful player of the game? For one thing, recognizing that it's game is not the same thing as being able to play that game for your advantage. Now look at video games (and I must admit I don't play them, so maybe what I have to say is not authoritative): they require certain skills or traits. If the player does not possess these skills or traits to begin with, the game fosters their development by providing reinforcement, a la what we learn about in Psychology 101. I wonder whether playing video games makes people better players of the game of life. I suspect not, for a couple reasons; but it would be getting too far off my track to go there.

Where all this is tending: Looking over the titles of the lectures of the course "Games People Play" explicitly invokes the world of business. This course (or any instruction on how to practically apply game theory) sounds to me a lot like what people are taught in business school: things like how to manipulate employees to get the most out of them, relative to your labor cost (and employees are just another "ingredient" in the product, and employees are fungible--that is, interchangeable: any chair in the company can be filled by any person possessing certain qualifications). How to manipulate your customers, to get them to buy your product. And (when necessary), how to manipulate lawmakers and government regulators so as to enable you to carry on your game-playing in the most favorable environment possible.

My feeling about all this is that it seems cynical to me, first and foremost. Also, it's arrogant. The attitude or assumption is that the bosses (executives and/or those getting their MBAs) are smarter and therefore are fully justified in exploiting people and treating them just like any resource, even an inanimate resource. To say that it’s manipulative would be to restate what I hope I've already established. It even seems to me hostile, aggressive, and evil. Why, in a society that is supposed to be egalitarian, do we accept that some people have the right to manipulate others? Why do we let our government, our bosses, our teachers, our doctors, and even the people to whom we are customers, have secrets from us? And tell us half-truths and untruths? They believe we are not entitled to know this or that (I've blogged about this elsewhere). They know what is good for us (to know and to not know).

Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein