Eugene Linden
home   |   contact info   |   biography   |   publications   |   radio/tv   |   musings   |   short takes   

Latest Musing

Imagining a Post Pandemic World

How might a post-pandemic world look and feel? Let’s imagine a creative team at a New York City advertising agency pitching a campaign in 2050 for a new perfume (more than most products, perfumes are sold by attaching to the dreams and aspirations of their times).  The Big Apple, ...

continue

Latest Book

Deep Past
Buy from Amazon

more info

Articles by Category
endangered animals
rapid climate change
global deforestation
fragging

Books

Winds of Change
Buy from Amazon

more info
Afterword to the softbound edition.


The Octopus and the Orangutan
more info


The Future In Plain Sight
more info


The Parrot's Lament
more info


Silent Partners
more info


Affluence and Discontent
more info


The Alms Race
more info


Apes, Men, & Language
more info

IS OUR BRAND OF CAPITALISM MAKING US STUPID


Tuesday August 30, 2011

 

Eugene Linden


           How can a society that contains so much individual brilliance act so collectively dumb? Does it matter that we know that there is a cliff ahead if we still go racing off the edge?  The Wikileaks publication of State Department emails demonstrated that there is tremendous expertise at the ground level in foreign policy.  That didn’t stop us from charging into what has been called the “most feckless” war in American history. The key to our success as a species has been the development of communication and cognitive skills that enable us to leverage our collective intelligence so that a group is vastly smarter than an individual.  In recent years, that seems to have gone into reverse. While individual brilliance abounds, collective stupidity prevails.

Consider a few recent examples:

The Ongoing Financial Crisis:

            The most devastating financial crisis since the Great Depression followed the dismantling of reforms put in place during and after the 1930s to prevent institutions from bringing about the very financial collapse we just experienced. While there were many tributaries to the meltdown, a common element was a system of incentives that was optimized to reward those who made the biggest bets. Penalties for failure were gradually stripped away, and the costs dumped on taxpayers. Does anyone think that the Dodd-Frank package of financial regulation package signed into law by President Obama has eliminated these incentives, or that if it turns out that new regulations actually impede financial institution profits that they will stay in place?

Given that the crisis wiped out $13 trillion in national wealth and has brought much of the middle class to the brink of insolvency, one would think that voters, who vastly outnumber the rich, would insist on enacting a robust regulatory framework. One would be wrong.
     
And now, carrying forward its proud tradition of doing the wrong thing at precisely the wrong time, Congress just forced through, and the President signed into law, a series of spending cuts in return for allowing the US government to pay bills it had already incurred. This will shrink government spending even as the economy slows, removing any doubt that we will slip back into recession and unemployment will worsen. Congress and the president have thus exactly repeated the mistake of FDR, who agreed to cuts in 1937 that plunged the US back into the Great Depression.


The Deepwater Horizon oil spill:

            The Gulf of Mexico oil spill of 2010, the most catastrophic environmental event in American history, directly followed from the neutering of regulations, safety mechanisms, and procedures put in place after earlier spills such as the Ixtoc Spill of 1979, and the Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska in 1989.  Does anyone seriously believe that new regulations that arise from this disaster won’t also be neutered?  We need oil, and the easy-to-find oil is gone so we need to drill in the most inaccessible, politically hostile, and/or environmentally vulnerable places on the planet.

Climate Change:

            Now here’s a problem perfectly designed for a species with an abilitiy to anticipate and avoid disaster! The science of the greenhouse effect that underlies concerns that emissions of C02 are changing climate is uncontroversial. There is overwhelming agreement among climate scientists that human-sourced emissions, largely traced to the use of fossil fuels, are already warming the planet; climate historians have vividly documented how civilizations are vulnerable to climate change, and since the 1980s, policy-makers have been discussing ways to reduce emissions.
        
So what has the U.S. done to avert the threat? Nothing! Despite 30 years of verbiage and negotiations, the recession has done more to limit U.S. emissions than anything we have done legislatively. The pattern for species ranging from fruit flies to elephants, and, yes, humans, has been for numbers to explode when the climate is favorable and plummet when it turns hostile. Our numbers have exploded in the climatically benign years since the end of the last Ice Age. Will it be different this time if climate turns hostile?

A Global Pandemic of Willful Blindness

            America has no monopoly on collective dumbness – after all Japan, perhaps the most rational nation on the planet, saw fit to site nuclear power plants in areas vulnerable to both earthquakes and tsunamis, and Europe continues to pile blunder upon blunder as it tries and fails to contain its own financial crisis. Time and again the best and brightest have alerted society to looming problems, but a persistent pattern has been to ignore the warnings, ridicule the experts, and suffer the consequences.

The pathetic refrain of recent years  -- “nobody saw this coming” –is always a self-serving lie.  Something is making us stupid.  My candidate is the way we practice capitalism, specifically the skewed incentives that promote hyper-focus on short-term gains, while leaving us effectively blind to long-term threats.
      
In each case cited above, actions to head off a threat were perceived to impinge on present profits, and, in modern market economies, we consistently make the decision that we’d rather head off a cliff in the future than limit the gains of those with access to the levers of power. In all these cases, economic interests ultimately control the lawmakers.  We’ve created a system that leaves us constantly surprised by the obvious.
          
I’m certainly not arguing for central planning – the failed communist states constitute a monument to collective stupidity. But there is a middle ground. Consider Canada, the friendly giant to the north, which seems to be able to regulate without suffocating innovation. Can this be fixed in the U.S.? Sure! Will it be fixed? Probably not, at least, not without shock therapy far worse than what we have recently endured, and that’s exactly what we are rocketing towards right now.

contact Eugene Linden

Short Take

Relaxing COVID-19 Restrictions will Kill, not Save, the Economy


 

[This is a more developed version of the previous Short Take}

Those who want to relax mandates on self-isolation and social distancing to save the economy have got it exactly backwards. Reopen society too soon, and we risk destroying the economy as well as public order and our shaky democratic institutions. The reason comes down to two words: supply lines.

 Supply lines for necessities such as food are already under stress. Those going to grocery stories encounter random instances of empty shelves and vegetable bins. Smithfield Farms shut down a South Dakota plant that supplies roughly 4% of the pork in the nation after over 500 of its workers tested positive for the coronavirus. Other giant meat processors such as Tyson have also shut down plants for similar reasons. Farmers in the West are having trouble finding workers to harvest the crops now reaching maturity in the fields. And even if they manage to get the crops picked, farmers are out of luck if the truckers fail to show up, or the flow of packaging for their products get interrupted. 

Right now, these disruptions are episodic, but that should be concerning because we haven’t even seen the end of the first wave. What we have seen is that vital front-line workers such as nurses, doctors, EMT’s, and other first responders have had trouble finding protective equipment and maintaining morale. Some have staged walkouts over the dangerous conditions, and these are workers with a sense of mission.

By contrast, for most of the hourly-paid workers who keep supplies made, distributed, and sold, their work is a job that pays the bills. It would be appropriate if society recognized that they played a vital role, but mostly these workers encounter demanding bosses, monotony, and surly customers. If sick, they are not going to work – nor would we want them too. And they are not likely to risk their lives if going to work exposes them to contagion.

Disruption of one link, e.g. the trucker that delivers food the last mile, could halt a supply chain. COVID-19 is a threat to every link. Should a second wave hit before there is a readily available, cheap and effective treatment, it’s a very high probability that many supply lines will be disrupted and filling the gaps could easily overwhelm the nation’s businesses. 

Even today, on the evening news, we see images of vast caravans of cars lined up to get supplies from food banks. Imagine two weeks of empty shelves in the stores that feed our cities. How likely is it that civil order could be maintained in that situation? Will people suffer in silence if they realize that they can’t buy food for their kids because our leaders reopened the economy before a treatment was available because they wanted to prop up the stock market (which is how it will be portrayed)? If we want to look analogues for what life is like once supply chains break down, they’re readily available today in cities like Mogadishu, Kinshasa, and Port au Prince. 

 Thus far, the Trump administration’s response to the pandemic seems to be a mélange of Boss Tweed, Don Corleone and Inspector Clouseau. For the next act, the administration has a choice: Churchill, who bolstered British morale during the London Blitz, or Pol Pot, who sacrificed millions of his countrymen for a bad idea. Let’s hope those around Trump can convince him that the cure for the disease is the cure for the economy.
 



read more
  designed and maintained by g r a v i t y s w i t c h , i n c .
© Eugene Linden. all rights reserved.