At our recent Citizens for Democracy meeting we had a discussion of plans for medical care in the United States. As the discussion progressed I was struck by the extent to which other issues became important in the discussion, especially cost.
Human beings, I believe, have a proclivity for thinking about the immediate and working their way to tangential issues as necessity seems to demand. This style of thinking, which I shall call “inside out” may be found less appropriate as the magnitude of human concerns becomes global. In what follows I want to explore a bit what happens when we think “outside in” global concerns first.
Suppose we approach the issue of health care from a global perspective. First there is the issue of health itself. Health means different things on a global, as distinct from a a national, point of view. The health of Americans, for example, may depend far more on global pandemics spawned in the massive slums of Africa, Asia and Latin America, than it does on single payer versus multiple payer health care schemes. Mike Davis discusses the dire consequences of a bird flu pandemic in his book The Monster at Our Door: The Global Threat of Avian Flu which describes the potential, if not immanent, destructiveness of such a pandemic. This global perspective strongly suggests that we get clear about the social value of health care before we start talking about the cost of health care. This shift in priorities allows us to begin addressing the issue in terms of health rather than cost. It suggests that we in the United States need to address the social consequences of NOT having universal health care. This, in turn requires that we have a primary focus on the prevention of illness. One of the anomalies of U. S. health care is that the United States, despite its expenditure on medical services, ranks 50th out of 224 nations in life expectancy according to 2009 estimates from the CIA World Factbook.
From the point of view of the human species public sanitation, for example, has been responsible for saving more lives and extending the useful life span of more individuals than the introduction of life-extending devices, e.g. pace makers and stents, into the bodies of the elderly. A 2002 study of Medicare expenses for those 65 and older found costs averaged $37,581 during the last year of life versus $7,365 for non terminal years. If prevention were the primary target of health care large proportions of the population, including the poor, would be the focus of the heath care debate now going on, not who pays for what.
From a species point of view health is closely related to survival. This suggests that a major focus of health concern and investment should be on improving the health environment of the earth's multi-million resident slums. The world's largest slum is the 2.2 million Kibera slum of Nairobi, Kenya. As the world's population continues to grow, these will be the breeding grounds of major health calamities.
The potential (inevitability?) of these slums to breed global catastrophe raises a second fundamental health issue: overpopulation. We know that the more interaction between animals, the more likely it is that the pathogens that infect them will be transmitted. This fact is compounded by the ability of these pathogens to mutate often and unpredictably. The closer that humans live to each other, e.g, the slums or the more often they come in contact, e.g. the global movement of people, the more likely a global pandemic will be created. Population growth has to be seen as a primary health issue and addressed as such. The health of the human species has to be a primary focus for reducing human population. I say this because our species has demonstrated a remarkable ability to abstract, symbolize, understand and apply our experience. There is a deeper meaning to René Descartes' “I think therefore I am.” To my mind it can be understood as I think therefor I am human.
While the above comments are by no means exhaustive, they do point, in my judgment, to something like the health care debate we should be having. We have not even established the value of health care. We have let the market do that, which is heavily biased toward those who have the money, not toward meeting health needs. We need to break out of this small box of health versus cost to health for human survival and optimization. We need to confront those institutions, whether religious or nationalist, that advocate population growth, as threatening human health. In brief, we need to keep our eyes on the fundamental meaning of health for our species, consider more specific issues in these human terms and, finally, not confuse the immediate with the real. Mankind must learn that it is its own worst enemy and its only salvation.
Bob Newhard
Friday, June 26, 2009
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Brave New World a la Corporate Capitalism and Corporate Deception
Aldous Huxley delivered his view of our future technologized world in his book Brave New World. In its May 25, 2009 issue Time Magazine delivers a Special Report detailing its view of the emerging world of work. I quote from its cover: “You can kiss your benefits goodbye too. And your new boss won't look much like your old one. There is no longer a ladder and you may never get to retire, but there is a world of opportunity if you can figure out a new path. Ten lessons for succeeding in the new American workplace.” This is a world of me-first, aggressive entrepreneurs in which everyone is responsible for themselves. Time tells the inhabitants of this inevitable and immediate future that they can forget the benefits that accompany employment such as social security, health, etc. As entrepreneurs they will buy their own “benefits.” The report is replete with statements from experts, reports from government agencies and statistics. There is no external goal to all this “creative” activity. It is Adam Smith's invisible hand writ large. Whatever the market, that monstrous creation of money, wants it will get. If people's needs cannot find a suitable place in the market, usually the needs of the poor, they will not be met.
Interestingly, the report envisions many opportunities for entrepreneurs to create franchising corporations, thereby betraying the implicit conflict between small business and small-business-destroying corporations. As has often been observed, the mark of insanity is to repeat the same thing over and over and expect to get a different result.
By way of buttressing its argument, it says that the cost of startup companies is decreasing constantly, making this form of economic effort affordable to more people. It does not mention that startups fail at a rate as high as 90% after two years. While there are many critics of this figure, mostly from business sources, a constant failure rate of even 50% would create a very unstable economy. We Americans do not appreciate the value that long-term stable companies and especially, governmental entities,contribute to the stability of our society.
Underneath all of this however is the insidious societal fragmentation that modern capitalism has introduced into our society. This is a dog-eat-dog world of survival competition between individuals, which no society can long tolerate and remain a democracy. As always it will produce top dogs who will dominate the society. This kind of raw capitalism is inimical to democracy.
There is an effort to take the edge off this economic horizon by noting that, to a significant extent, the leaders of these enterprises are likely to be women because their softer feminine style of leadership is more productive in this economy of team effort – understanding the team may consist of members scattered around the world. While women are certainly capable of management, if their's is a softer form of leadership somebody should tell Meg Whitman ex CEO of Ebay and now a Republican candidate for California governor. Meg would cut 30,000 state jobs. For this billionaire woman this is obviously preferable to going after the excessively wealthy at a time when the gap between the rich and the poor is greater than it has been in the last hundred years. So much for the softer feminine management style. It is also rumored that Carly Fiorina, ex CEO of Hewlett-Packard will seek to replace Barbara Boxer.
Why, one may ask, is a mainstream national publication publishing such an article in view of the obvious current failure of just this kind of economics? This is Milton Friedman's capitalism with a vengeance dolled up as our inevitable future. I suspect this is part of the corporate media's attempt to divert public attention from the non-market solutions to the debacle that unregulated capitalism has wrought. It is an attempt to dazzle the public, especially the young, with the manifold opportunities for wealth through entrepreneurship. What is neglected, as it so often is, is the impact on the social fabric of our society. If we let the marketplace and the wealthy who dominate it prescribe the economic system of the future we thereby let them prescribe the social welfare of the people. We have had more than enough of this gross deception. It is high time we made a major issue of the danger unfettered capitalism poses to democracy and the welfare of its people.
This then is the consummate duplicity of the corporate media: to sell the populace on a future of an entrepreneur-dominated economy, which of course would leave no room for multinational multi-product corporations. They feel safe in doing this because they have the resources to buy up any untoward competition that might develop. The bottom line is that progressives must vigorously challenge this future. First, we need to clearly and energetically demonstrate how the market is being used to structure our society. Second, it is necessary to show people why the market is a lousy paradigm for organizing a humane society. Its goals are not to create a better, more just society, but to maximize profit, which alone creates its values. Third, we need to clearly articulate an alternative to the “free market.” This latter can be done by articulating a mixed economy of regulated capitalism for social benefit. Economies such as those of the Scandinavian countries are examples. However, some believe leaving even a remnant of capitalism in place would allow it cancer-like to gain control again as wealth becomes increasingly aggregated by the few. An economy of, for and by the people needs to keep capitalism at the periphery of society. The early citizens of this country were very distrustful of corporations. Some of the colonies were themselves corporations controlled by investors in England. Hence they strictly controlled corporations, which were authorized mainly for building infrastructure, e.g roads and canals. These corporations were sunsetted at the termination of the project. Are we still wise enough to make corporations subordinate to the accomplishment of social goals?
Bob Newhard
Interestingly, the report envisions many opportunities for entrepreneurs to create franchising corporations, thereby betraying the implicit conflict between small business and small-business-destroying corporations. As has often been observed, the mark of insanity is to repeat the same thing over and over and expect to get a different result.
By way of buttressing its argument, it says that the cost of startup companies is decreasing constantly, making this form of economic effort affordable to more people. It does not mention that startups fail at a rate as high as 90% after two years. While there are many critics of this figure, mostly from business sources, a constant failure rate of even 50% would create a very unstable economy. We Americans do not appreciate the value that long-term stable companies and especially, governmental entities,contribute to the stability of our society.
Underneath all of this however is the insidious societal fragmentation that modern capitalism has introduced into our society. This is a dog-eat-dog world of survival competition between individuals, which no society can long tolerate and remain a democracy. As always it will produce top dogs who will dominate the society. This kind of raw capitalism is inimical to democracy.
There is an effort to take the edge off this economic horizon by noting that, to a significant extent, the leaders of these enterprises are likely to be women because their softer feminine style of leadership is more productive in this economy of team effort – understanding the team may consist of members scattered around the world. While women are certainly capable of management, if their's is a softer form of leadership somebody should tell Meg Whitman ex CEO of Ebay and now a Republican candidate for California governor. Meg would cut 30,000 state jobs. For this billionaire woman this is obviously preferable to going after the excessively wealthy at a time when the gap between the rich and the poor is greater than it has been in the last hundred years. So much for the softer feminine management style. It is also rumored that Carly Fiorina, ex CEO of Hewlett-Packard will seek to replace Barbara Boxer.
Why, one may ask, is a mainstream national publication publishing such an article in view of the obvious current failure of just this kind of economics? This is Milton Friedman's capitalism with a vengeance dolled up as our inevitable future. I suspect this is part of the corporate media's attempt to divert public attention from the non-market solutions to the debacle that unregulated capitalism has wrought. It is an attempt to dazzle the public, especially the young, with the manifold opportunities for wealth through entrepreneurship. What is neglected, as it so often is, is the impact on the social fabric of our society. If we let the marketplace and the wealthy who dominate it prescribe the economic system of the future we thereby let them prescribe the social welfare of the people. We have had more than enough of this gross deception. It is high time we made a major issue of the danger unfettered capitalism poses to democracy and the welfare of its people.
This then is the consummate duplicity of the corporate media: to sell the populace on a future of an entrepreneur-dominated economy, which of course would leave no room for multinational multi-product corporations. They feel safe in doing this because they have the resources to buy up any untoward competition that might develop. The bottom line is that progressives must vigorously challenge this future. First, we need to clearly and energetically demonstrate how the market is being used to structure our society. Second, it is necessary to show people why the market is a lousy paradigm for organizing a humane society. Its goals are not to create a better, more just society, but to maximize profit, which alone creates its values. Third, we need to clearly articulate an alternative to the “free market.” This latter can be done by articulating a mixed economy of regulated capitalism for social benefit. Economies such as those of the Scandinavian countries are examples. However, some believe leaving even a remnant of capitalism in place would allow it cancer-like to gain control again as wealth becomes increasingly aggregated by the few. An economy of, for and by the people needs to keep capitalism at the periphery of society. The early citizens of this country were very distrustful of corporations. Some of the colonies were themselves corporations controlled by investors in England. Hence they strictly controlled corporations, which were authorized mainly for building infrastructure, e.g roads and canals. These corporations were sunsetted at the termination of the project. Are we still wise enough to make corporations subordinate to the accomplishment of social goals?
Bob Newhard
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)