All Politics is local

All politics is local. We have all heard that and it is attributed to so many politicians. It is only partially true today and in the future it may become even less… unless we all do something about it.


In the past, it was the community that was the center of the political world. With the exceptions of world wars, most of the issues were about what was happening on main street in your own home town. The high school curriculum, roads, the mayor’s affair with the local call girl and if the old abandon church should come down to make room for the expansion of the lumber yard were the big issues.

Yes, that is a little simplistic view of the issues but what wasn’t simplistic were the solutions. The solutions weren’t based on the left or right or some extreme agenda on either side. Solutions had to make sense to the community and the people that lived in them. Extreme ideas didn’t get tried because people at ground zero could see that it wouldn’t work in their situation. Solutions also didn’t come out of a vague philosophy that preached a point of view that may work in the macro but not on main street.

If someone was about to lose their job but politicians tried to convince them that to help them out would not let the market work like it should, they were voted out. If the local banker lost the community’s money in risky instruments that if they paid off would have only benefited the banker, he would have been run out of town. (after his house was taken and sold)

Then came centralized politics with solutions that sounded good in abstract thinking but made no sense to those living the problems. Then came big money spent on marketing and advertising campaigns that convinced people that what was bad for them was really good.

Along with all of this came the centralization of economic power. This point of view believes that the only purpose of big business is to accumulate wealth. If the local community must suffer layoffs and plant closings to maximize profits, then that is what the CEO has to do. (I guess making ten billion in profit isn’t as good as 12 billion)

But the Responsible Community takes another view. It must view solutions from ground zero of the world, the place where people and families live. Government should be run by political parties that understand they are to help people live in a safe and secure environment. Business has a fiduciary responsibility to the community, it is there to provide jobs and support the community.

This is not a naive view, it is a practical view. It is a view that means people will do the responsible thing and expect government to be responsible to them not to political ideology or big business.

There will be problems but the solutions must keep real people in mind.

-----

Buying American part two

In the last blog post for Responsible Community, the personal decision to buy American was discussed. Here we take a look at the same decision from the view point of official U.S. policy.


In the fine print it states that if you include American made products as a high percent of your total investment you will be able to bid on a project. The project is part of the stimulus package created by congress. It is for, of all things, waste water management, heavy industry items that are at the core of American manufacturing.

Meet Mr. Pokorsky owner of Aquarius Technologies Inc. located in Port Washington, Wisconsin. His company makes equipment for waste water treatment. His equipment is all manufactured in America with some suppliers located in other parts of North America. With $6 billion of the stimulus package earmarked for just what he makes, this was to be a boom for Pokorsky.

Except Canada heard about the Buy American prevision of the package. Some of Pokorsky's suppliers and many of his clients in the great country to the north didn’t like the possibility of being excluded from the contracts. As an example, the town of Halton Hills west of Toronto decided to do something about that. The town of 50,000 people is amending their procurement policies to make sure American made products don’t get used. As Mayor Rick Bonnette says, "We won't be taking any products from any country that is discriminating against us."

In response to the movement in Canada to amend procurement policies Pokorsky said, "If that sticks, well, there goes 25% of my business.  To me, Ontario may as well be Indiana."
Many people are examining the Great Depression because of the current economic climate. It is argued that the depression was made even worse because of another way of supporting American made products. The U.S. government at the start of the down turn attempted to protect American jobs by placing a tariff on foreign goods. France, England and Germany responded with their own tariffs on our products. Trade dropped dramatically and made the economy all over the world worse.

As a selling point in the unofficial market place, being made in America can be seen as a benefit to the buyer, if the buyer is American. But, if you are Canadian, Mexican or another country making decisions based on the content of the material, maybe that wouldn’t be such a great benefit.

As a community, if we want to make policy decisions based on maintaining and growing American jobs we need to avoid building the castle of protectionism. The official policy theory of buying American to protect American jobs is a great sound bite in an election. But, the way official policy works out in practice is occasionally just the opposite.

Protectionism as a community policy is a great idea… that doesn’t work.

Buy American may not be the best way to help us

Driving around town you can’t help but occasionally see a bumper sticker that says, “Buy American, the job you save may be your own.” So, given the clear choice, who would you save if you were in the situation, you, your family, your country, or the world?

It is rare that a decision in the market place doesn’t come down to that. If we buy an American car, you may be supporting yourself, your family and your country. But, that makes other countries economically weaker. If you buy a foreign product, you are helping the world and your country (storage, shipping, dealerships are all in the states, sometimes the car is even built here) but may not be helping you or your family. That is a simplistic view, but it helps set up a solution.

The reality is each country tries to control every aspect of economics so that investment and business will come to their part of the world, to the detriment of other countries. The products and services that are produced are actually secondary to the jobs that it provides. Every country knows that jobs and income create stability in a community. Illegal immigration, civil wars, terrorism and other ills are born directly from a lack of economic prosperity. If people do not feel like their future will get better for them or their children, they will look for ways to express their dissatisfaction.

To get the investment for jobs, third world countries have many tools that will make their countries interesting, both formal and informal. Taxes can be reduced to start with, environmental laws can be weakened, and regulation of the production process and of human resources can be lessened. Countries that haven’t dropped all regulation often ignore their own laws to keep a job providing company in the country. This degrades the environment and the human condition. It can be argued that it actually makes things worse because when the false promise of prosperity is found out, people will rebel.

Some of these countries are rogue states that do not deserve our support. Those countries that don’t allow the same rights and freedoms that we enjoy in America should not receive a favorable position in the market place. But, other than boycotts, there is no individual country mechanism that controls that other than legislation and taxes. No law will totally guarantee that some money will not get into the wrong hands, but it can be limited.

If we as a culture and a nation believe in the universality of human rights (as the Declaration of Independence states, “we hold these truths to be self-evident, all men are created equal”) why should the question be them or us? If we are to stop illegal immigration, civil wars, terrorism and so many other ills, we must find a way to support third world countries. It could be by just giving them money, a payoff for our own lack of direction and no united front by all successful nations.

But, the better way, to borrow from an old adage, is to teach them to fish. Instead of just giving aid, if we understand that economics and the market place do have a place in solving world problems, then maybe making a decision in the market place that supports everyone will help. Purchasing products and services from other countries spurs more investment in the host country.

When people earn money and instead of just taking it, they see a better future.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north238.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125306012124114135.html

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/may/01/opinion/la-ed-american-20100501

-----

Thank you, Clorox

How many corporations are helping make America safe by changing the way they do business? Clorox is by eliminating the use of chlorine gas in all seven of its production plants in the United States. This announcement was made by Greenpeace a few months ago and didn’t receive much media coverage. But, this is a positive move on Clorox’s part in supporting the community.


The change will make the community a much safer place by, first, eliminating the risk of chlorine gas poisoning for over 13 million Americans that live downwind of the seven plants. (Remember Union Carbide’s Bhopal chemical gas release in 1984.) It will also eliminate the risk that is posed by transporting 90 ton rail cars across the country. Finally, it will take Clorox's plants off lists that are targeted by terrorist because of the danger they present.

This makes good business sense as well. By converting to more cost effective and safer chemicals Clorox will operate in a less restrictive regulatory environment. Regulation of chemicals like Chlorine were developed and implemented because of the risk it presents to people and the environment. These regulations were not needed before the chemicals were developed. With most corporations operating in secrecy and using newly developed chemicals that all the dangers they present may not be known, the community has every right to know about their use. This enables individuals to make decisions about where to live and what products to use. These regulations empower the responsible individual.

When this conversion is completed, it will be a safer world from the manufacturing of the products, and the decrease threat of terrorist attack. These are real community solutions to real community concerns.

Thank you, Clorox.

Bhopal gas leak - http://www.bhopal.com/

Greenpeace press release - http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/press-center/releases2/clorox-to-eliminate-chlorine-d

BP Oil Spill - Gulf Leak Meter

The oil gushing from a well head a mile under the surface of the Gulf of Mexico may take until August to stop. The latest plan that has been concocted by BP could make it worse. Is everyone watching this?

Since BP’s well head in the Gulf of Mexico went up in flames April 20, 2010, a mind boggling amount of petroleum has been released into the environment. Every day 12,000 to 19,000 barrels of oil are still leaking. (1) Much of it has come to the surface and floating to the Gulf coast of the United States. It is destroying tourism, fisheries, coastal micro environments and taking a huge toll on the lives of hundreds of thousands of people that earn an income from these industries.

Our obsession with petroleum powered automobiles and power plants has placed us in this situation. Since we reached peak oil (2) many years ago, supply has not kept up with demand. This isn’t just be
cause of our usage alone, the entire world is becoming more industrialized and relying on the same resources we have for over a hundred years now.

With the tremendous growth in demand, comes greater risk taking in finding more of the fuel. Once it was relatively safe, cheap and easy to find new sources of oil, now we have to go places that apparently, we don’t know how to bridle if things get out of control. All the plans that were made to prevent and repair this oil leak haven’t worked. The problem with this one well could be small compared to the thousands (3,860 to be precise) we have in the Gulf if they get out of control. What if another one blows up?

It is bad enough that we are destroying our own coast lines. Think if the oil had gone into Mexico or Central America. Not only would this have been an environmental problem it would have been an international problem.

Now, reports are coming to the attention of the media about many of the wells in the Gulf not having the permits needed to actually do the drilling. The government has been very lax on oversight of the exploration. Also, regulators are relying on the expertise of oil company engineers instead of hiring their own experts or seeking third party examination of the company plans. (3) This is happening because both, reports illustrate that there is a much too close relationship between the regulators and the industry and the agencies in charge of the oversight are not funded well enough to be able to afford the staff they need to do the job properly.

What to do?

Tax the entire industry for these problems. This will force other companies to help pay for the problems of anyone of them. Will it raise the cost of gas at the pump? Yes. And maybe that is what we need to help us pay attention to all of this. Nothing focuses attention like paying for a problem.

Fund the agencies that are in charge of oversight appropriately so they can hire their own experts. This will allow the needed critical analyses of the plans to make sure they are going to work in a secure and safe manner.

Stop allowing the close relationship between the regulators and the industry they monitor. No gifts or entertainment with industry people and regulators. Also, make the agency people partially responsible for the problems that their lack of oversight causes.

Make stock holders of the companies that cause the problem pay some of the damages. If you hold stock in the company at the time of the problem, you pay a fine on each share. This will help keep money from being invested in companies that take undue risks and bribe regulators.

Instead of executives of the companies that cause these problems just paying for clean up and a fine from the funds of the companies they run, give them a personal fine and jail time for their poor behavior.

Finally, as a country (and the world for that matter) move away from resources that aren’t renewable. When we depend on a limited resource like oil, it will peak. When it does, risks will be taken that shouldn’t be taken.

Are these tough things to do? Yes. But ask the people on the gulf coast that depend on the fisheries or tourism what they think. If your income was cut off because of this problem, how would you feel? As a community we must work at protecting everyone and preventing this from happening again.

1 How many gallons of gasoline from a barrel of oil? - http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/eng99/eng99288.htm

2 Peak Oil - http://peakoil.com/what-is-peak-oil/

3 BP was doing what was expected - http://responsiblecommunity.blogspot.com/2010/05/bp-was-doing-what-was-expected.html

Date - http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/coal-oil-gas/bp-offshore-oil-rig-explosion

-----

BP Was Doing What Was Expected

When did we buy into the notion that corporations have the community’s best interest in mind?

Now before you think this is a blog post about bashing big corporations, consider this. Corporations by civil and criminal law are to make as much money as possible for their stock holders. If they don’t, CEO’s will be fired, boards replaced, investors will withdraw their money, civil suits will be filed and legal action will be taken. The western culture makes it very clear that corporations are to place making money above any fiduciary responsibility they may have to the communities they serve.

We could all take on the Wall Street bankers as a prime example of making money over serving their community, but there is a more current example buried in stories about BP’s oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. It comes from an article in the New York Times entitled, “Regulator Deferred to Oil Industry on Rig Safety.” It states that the Minerals Management Service, the Interior Department agency charged with regulating the oil industry “continue[d] to allow the industry largely to police itself, saying that the best technical experts work for industry, not for the government.”

The key phrase in the sentence above is, “work for”. The technical experts that the agency relied on were people that work for the oil industry, not the agency or an independent source. When an oil industry corporation, like any other corporation, makes a risk assessment, their decisions are based on making money. The risk of oil spills, accidents and other things do factor in based on the actual monetary cost and the cost to their public image. But, in the end, the question is how much money can be made.

The people that work for the corporation didn’t want this oil spill. They, it is reasonable to believe, did all they could to prevent it. But, the experts that work for the corporation are all directed to make plans that are cost effective. They will likely convince themselves that the plan will work. If they don’t get outside assessment of their plans, they could be involved in “group think.” It is, in the simplest of terms, a concept that the original premise is correct and that members of a deeply cohesive group will convince each other that it is correct. Regulators should not rely on the industry people to assess their own plans.

The mandate of corporations should be first and foremost to serve the community instead of making money. Yes, of course, they need to make money. But they must create jobs, provide a product or service that the community needs and protect the environment first. They should be held accountable to that mandate.

If a specific corporation can’t do that, let another one that can.

-----