A Scripture Lesson for Goldman Sachs (and their fat-cat brethren)

I'm working on upcoming blog posts on small-scale manufacturing and other technical subjects. This involves a bit of research, and nothing is ready yet, as I've been a bit tied up lately. I am also lining up more interviews with people who will hopefully be able to offer valuable insights into adapting to a post-Peak world.

But in the meantime, I'd like to comment on a story that caught my eye this week. It seems that some of the rich heads of some of the richest investment banks have recently been to church (maybe for the first time in years). Case in point: last month, the Anglican Church held a panel discussion at St. Paul's Cathedral in London. The panel discussed “the place of morality in the marketplace.” Goldman Sachs International advisor Brian Griffiths was a prominent speaker at the event. (Source: “Goldman Sachs's Griffiths Says Inequality Helps All,” Bloomberg, 21 October 2009)

At that conference, Mr. Griffiths defended the bonuses planned for Goldman employees for 2009, bonuses so large that they average over $500,000 per capita. (This is at a time when the official unemployment rate in Britain is well over seven percent, and British income inequality is skyrocketing.) Here are some of his outstanding quotes: “The injunction of Jesus to love others as ourselves is an endorsement of self-interest...We have to tolerate...inequality as a way to achieving greater prosperity and opportunity for all.” In the days following, bankers from Barclays Plc and Lazard International visited several London churches, delivering messages such as “Profit is not satanic,” and “Is Christianity and banking compatible? Yes. And is Christianity and fair reward compatible? Yes.” (Source: “Profit `Not Satanic,' Barclays Says, After Goldman Invokes Jesus,” Bloomberg, 4 November 2009)

Now I don't claim to be an expert on theology, but I am an evangelical Christian, and I have read the Bible a few times, and I think these banksters are in error on a few points. First, the system of usury (lending at interest) on which modern First World banking is based, was prohibited among Jews in Old Testament Israel (although I believe they were allowed to lend at interest to the Gentiles). In the New Testament, indebtedness is generally discouraged. But there is also the curious defense of inequality by the rich bankster class, at a time when unemployment among the working classes is skyrocketing and fifty percent of all American children (ninety percent of all black American children, according to one source) will require food stamps during their childhood. (Source: “High number of US kids get food stamps,” WiredPR News, 4 November 2009)

The Bible actually has some very negative things to say about inequality, especially that inequality that comes from cheating one's fellows. Yet from the remarks by the banksters, it seems they didn't read those things. So in order to save the banksters from making one Hell of a mistake (this is not frivolous swearing; I mean it literally), I have decided to post a pertinent passage from the Good Book (not that I expect them to read it):

Now there was a certain rich man, and he was clothed in purple and fine linen, living in luxury every day. A certain beggar, named Lazarus, was laid at his gate, full of sores, and desiring to be fed with the crumbs that fell from the rich man’s table. Yes, even the dogs came and licked his sores.

It happened that the beggar died, and that he was carried away by the angels to Abraham’s bosom. The rich man also died, and was buried. In Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torment, and saw Abraham far off, and Lazarus at his bosom. He cried and said, “Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue! For I am in anguish in this flame.”

But Abraham said, “Son, remember that you, in your lifetime, received your good things, and Lazarus, in the same way, bad things. But now here he is comforted and you are in anguish. Besides all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed, that those who want to pass from here to you are not able, and that none may cross over from there to us.”

He said, “I ask you therefore, father, that you would send him to my father’s house; for I have five brothers, that he may testify to them, so they won’t also come into this place of torment.” But Abraham said to him, “They have Moses and the prophets. Let them listen to them.” He said, “No, father Abraham, but if one goes to them from the dead, they will repent. He said to him, “If they don’t listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded if one rises from the dead.” – Luke 16:19-31.

Note: this Scripture is taken from the World English Bible, a public domain translation. No royalties are owed to anyone for its use, and it may be freely quoted and read in all settings, public and private.

An Inmate's View Of Federal Prison

As I have written before, we live and function in an official economy which is run by a very small group of very rich people. Their goal is the continued growth of their profits; yet because of emerging constraints on the earth's natural resources, the rich can no longer grow their profits by unlimited industrial expansion. Increasingly, the only way for the rich to maintain or grow their profits is by robbing the poor.

One way of robbing the poor is by depriving them of their liberty and turning them into extremely cheap slave labor. I discussed this in an earlier post, The Replacement of Petroleum Slaves, which described how the state and Federal prison systems of the United States were being turned into a pool of slave labor with the potential to replace cheap foreign labor for industry in the event of a breakdown of globalism. In this present post, I will expand a bit on that theme, based on some confirming information I received relatively recently.

Several weeks ago I was introduced to a person who had been incarcerated in a Federal prison in the American Southwest around decade ago. I had heard something of his background before we met, and I also had an extensive body of knowledge regarding the prison-industrial complex in various American state prison systems. I wanted to see if my conclusions also applied to the Federal system, so we did an interview.

He told me that there is most definitely a “prison industry” at the Federal level, named UNICOR, also known as Federal Prison Industries. UNICOR is a “wholly owned government corporation created in 1934,” shortly after the creation of the Federal Bureau of Prisons. (Source: Federal Prison Industries, Inc. - Wikipedia) UNICOR produces goods and services from the labor of inmates of the United States Federal Bureau of Prisons. According to Federal law, UNICOR is ostensibly restricted to selling its products and services to Federal government agencies, and cannot sell to the commercial market. (More on that later.)

UNICOR produces many products, including clothing, textiles, electronics, and office furniture. My former inmate acquaintance mentioned that UNICOR's labor rates were cheaper than Chinese labor, and said that back when he was in prison, an inmate earned between 11 cents and 26 cents an hour. He also informed me that UNICOR is publicly traded – thus capable of being influenced by the profit motive.

This profit motive, and the opportunity to use the Federal prison system as an instrument of private profit, has had a predictable effect: Federal prisons try as hard as possible to find excuses to keep inmates imprisoned for as long as possible, since all able-bodied inmates who are not security risks are required to work in prison, either for UNICOR or to support prison operations. Also, according to this former inmate, many people sent to Federal prison are framed, including a highly disproportionate number of minorities. Those who are framed are easy for the other inmates to spot, because in conversation it soon becomes obvious that these people do not know how to commit a crime. Native Americans accused of crimes are predominantly judged under Federal law which is much harsher than state laws, and leads to much harsher sentences.

According to my interviewee, prisoners working for UNICOR are not provided with many of the worker safeguards common in private industry. He told me of times where he and other inmates had to dispose of or recycle old electric power transformers containing PCB's, without any protective clothing or safety measures. (By the way, this statement about inadequate worker safety is corroborated by other sources, such as “UNICOR Continues To Use Prisoners To Recycle Electronics,” The Real Cost Of Prisons Weblog, 20 April 2009; and “Prisoners and Workers Poisoned By Prison Recycling at UNICOR Are Suing,” The Real Cost Of Prisons Weblog, 11 August 2009.)

As for prison culture, my interviewee told me that gangs are largely in control at the various prison units, except for the maximum security units. However, the prison guards regularly try to instigate trouble between prison gangs. We discussed the impact of prison culture on the broader American culture. At this point, the interviewee was joined by his spouse, who talked about how with many people from minority neighborhoods being singled out for lockup, the culture and families in these neighborhoods were being ruined. Children in these neighborhoods were now being conditioned to grow up as criminals, due to corrupt and excessive application of police “enforcement” in the places where these children live.

This led to a discussion of ways in which minority culture could be repaired in the United States. My interviewee had two immediate suggestions: first, get rid of mandatory sentencing laws for non-violent crimes; and second, stop the American “war on drugs” as it is now being waged. The interviewee's spouse had suggestions for how concerned and caring volunteers could go into minority neighborhoods to provide exposure to opportunities for learning that would not otherwise be available.

For me, this interview was yet another confirmation of the deliberate breaking of poor neighborhoods and minority communities by the dominant holders of power and wealth in the U.S. It was also a confirmation of the corroding, corrupting nature and effect of growth capitalism. Truly, “the love of money is root of all the evils.” (1 Timothy 6:10) In research that I did following this interview, I found more information on UNICOR's status as a publicly traded company, as well as the efforts of state prison systems to imitate UNICOR. Here are some links:

• ““Private Prison Industry” Experiences Boom,” Leslie Berenstein, Copley News Service, 11 May 2008. This describes the public trading of UNICOR stock, among other things.

• “Dr Boyce: How Companies Make Money off Prisoners,” BLACKVOICES, 28 July 2009.

• “SLAVERY ON THE NEW PLANTATION - Hugo Pinell,” Kiilu Nyasha, December 2006.

• “UNICOR VI (GSB: DCDave's Column),” a page of footnotes accompanying a longer article on UNICOR. Note 6 is troubling, as it hints that UNICOR may be selling its goods to private parties in addition to the Federal Government, in violation of Federal law.

• “Beyond the Prison Industrial Complex: Class warfare from above,” Michael Parenti, Covert Action Quarterly, 29 August 2001. This article gives a slightly different view of the possible motives behind the recent expansion of the prison-industrial complex.

• “Workin' for the Man,” Nora Callahan, The November Coalition

One last note. We live in a time of severe economic distress, with falling tax revenues at the State and Federal levels, and states that are unable to balance their budgets. Yet you can just bet that next year, in states where the private prison industry or the prison-industrial complex has gained a foothold, there will be lobbyists pushing for an expansion of harsh mandatory sentencing laws for non-violent crimes – even though there's no longer any money to enforce such laws. I think of the mess these people have already made in California, or of the mess that people like Bill Sizemore and Kevin Mannix would like to make in Oregon.

A Fight Among Cannibals

We live and function in an “official” economy which is run by a very small group of very rich people. Their goal is continued economic “growth”, yet what that really means is continued growth of their profits. In the days before the present limits on the resource base of the global industrial economy, this growth could be achieved by industrial expansion. But now that our natural resource base has become constrained, the growth of the profits of the rich increasingly comes only by the robbing of the poor.

A prime example of this is the big ongoing Congressional song-and-dance over health care “reform.” It should be fairly obvious that universal health care is not the same as universal health “insurance.” The Congress could have aimed for universal health care for all Americans, regardless of income. The money spent on bailing out the banks and Wall Street could easily have covered the cost of universal health care. The money spent on the Iraq war could easily have covered universal health care. Even under our present arrangement, there would have been lots of change left over. And the elimination of the private insurance “industry”, combined with Federal prohibitions on unjust medical price inflation by pharmaceutical companies and hospitals would have made our care just that much more affordable.

That sort of genuine reform was never seriously attempted by anyone in Congress or the Executive Branch. The medical industry was too strong, having grown to 1/8^th of the total U.S. economy, according to this source: Health Care Reform: Problems for Human Health. The best our leaders could come up with was a proposal for a Government-run insurance plan that would have competed with private insurance companies. Private insurers are at present hideously expensive, with rates that rose at an annual rate of up to 13 percent in 2002 and 2003, and are rising at a rate of five percent per year now. The private insurers were deathly afraid of the mere possibility of Government-backed insurance, let alone genuine health care reform, and worked hard to kill this option, in a Senate Finance Committee vote which took place last week.

The Senate Finance Committee has therefore settled on a “reform” plan that would force all Americans to buy private health insurance by 2013. This plan is a “compromise” worked out by Democrats in order to appeal to Republicans who were afraid of the “Government spending taxpayer money to support socialism!!!” However, under this plan, ordinary Americans would be forced to spend:

• up to 13 percent of yearly (pre-tax) income for a family of four making up to $88,000 a year;

• over $700 a month for a family of four making $66,000 a year;

• and a tax penalty of up to $1500 a year for those who refuse to buy health insurance and whose earnings are less than 300 percent of the poverty level, and $3800 a year for those who refuse to buy health insurance and whose earnings are greater than 300 percent of the poverty level. (Source: “Reform Bill Will Address GOP Fears,” Washington Post, 15 September 2009)

And our leaders call this “fixing health care”?!

I wonder now...so many families are now heavily indebted, having been tricked into buying overpriced houses and overpriced cars, having had to make ends meet with stagnant or declining real wages while the prices of basics like food, gasoline and utilities continue to rise. So many students have been drawn heavily into debt to attend colleges whose tuition continues to rise at a rate far outpacing general inflation. So many people are now either laid off or are on involuntary part-time schedules. So many small business owners have been given the business by this present “recession” that has put them out of business. The only green shoots one sees in the vicinity of many empty and boarded-up strip mall lease spaces are the shoots of weeds rising through the cracks in the pavement. And I do see a lot more people in raggedy clothes next to freeway off-ramps, holding up signs saying something like “Please give. Anything helps. God bless!”

Is the Government going to force these people to spend $700 a month on private health insurance? Is the Government going to hit these people with a $1500 or $3800 a year tax burden if they don't buy insurance? And what kind of insurance would they buy? The insurance lobby and their Republican sock puppets would propose making insurance “affordable” by offering plans with high deductibles in order to “keep costs down.” So that means that Americans are forced to give money to private insurers, and that they get almost nothing in return? If you buy one of these plans, does that mean that eighty or ninety percent of the cost of a doctor's visit is not covered by insurance? That's like getting into an airplane and being handed a parachute the size of a handkerchief. It won't slow you down much, will it?!

Now people like Glenn Beck and the Tea Party organizers claim to be fighting for the American taxpayer. Why are they not protesting this plan to force Americans to buy private health insurance? Why isn't Fox News protesting this? Why isn't Sarah Palin outraged over this? Are the Tea Partyers all “partied-out”? Or are they on the side of the enemy, after all? And why are both Democrats and Republicans helping the insurance “industry” to rape ordinary Americans?

For a rape it is, or to use another metaphor, it is a cannibal feast. Ordinary Americans have now been reduced to little more than a pile of body parts and limbs, some of which have already been picked clean. The cannibals comprise a small group, yet among them are competing interests. Each representative of these interests wants as big a share as possible of the pile of body parts and limbs, because each competing interest wants to grow as fat as possible.

So we have the private prison lobby, which wants to grow rich locking up as many Americans as possible. But wait – if they do that, that will hurt the growth prospects of the real estate “industry,” who will not have anyone to buy their excessive housing inventory. But if people buy houses, and their wages don't rise, they won't be able to afford consumer electronics and cheap Chinese-made goods, and this would hurt Wal-Mart and other big chain stores. Now the medical/insurance complex wants its share of the cannibal feast – “hey, let's extort $700 a month from every American family to fatten ourselves!” But that will mean that people don't have money anymore to go to Starbucks or to keep their cable TV subscriptions, or to buy new cars, or to buy stocks, etc.

What to do, what to do? How will the competing cannibals sort it all out? I don't know. Perhaps they will all get into a fight with each other, killing each other off and leaving the rest of us alone. I have to confess that I would enjoy seeing such an outcome. Lord, forgive me.

Meanwhile, if you want to see an example of genuine citizen rage and not some store-bought Tea Party astroturf purchased by rich lobbyists, here's a link to a YouTube video of a woman delivering a few words to Bank of America. I must warn you that her language is not family-friendly. Yet I say “Amen” to her message. Here's the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGC1mCS4OVo

Making The World Sick, One Country At A Time

(Warning: this is a long post.)

The predicament that marks the probable end of our industrialized society has two stages. The stage most easily visualized by many of the first thinkers on this subject has its roots in the Limits To Growth scenarios first analyzed by the Club of Rome. Its most popularized images look like scenes from a dystopian science-fiction movie starring Charleton Heston or Will Smith or Mel Gibson or Harrison Ford – famine and the failure of technology; poisoned landscapes and cities with zombies running in the streets; “World of Warcraft” meets “Survivor” – in short, a “hard crash.”

However, there is a prior stage to the effects of resource scarcity: economic upheaval and contraction. The images that fit this are found in Dorothea Lange Depression-era photography; scenes from John Steinbeck's Grapes of Wrath; the Dust Bowl; tent cities; people losing jobs as the economy contracts; people being priced out of oil-based “necessities” as prices continues to increase; and people being thrown out of their homes, having their things repossessed and living under bridges due to “lack of sufficient funds.”

The second stage may be coming shortly, but the first stage is where we are now. The response to the onset of this first stage on the part of leaders in government and commerce by and large is as follows (there are, of course, exceptions): 1. A refusal to rearrange the social/political/economic systems under their control to make them more resilient in the face of the disruptions of Stage Two; and 2. A manic attempt to sustain their existing systems, which are unsustainable, and for which the writing is already on the wall. The leaders in government and commerce are now diverting all available public resources to this attempt to sustain the unsustainable.

Preparing for industrial and economic collapse in all its stages is therefore up to individual citizens. The captains of finance, economics and government will not institute the necessary changes, because such changes would reduce their power, prestige and access to wealth. This is why it's up to citizens. Yet the very nature and policies of the existing systems and their masters actively hinder the efforts of ordinary people to become resilient in the face of collapse. This hindrance comes either through government policies and laws that make resilience difficult, or through economic arrangements that bleed ordinary people dry so that they have no resources left for building resilience.

Such is the case with health care in the United States, that act of formerly selfless service embodied by the family doctors of decades ago and television doctors such as Dr Kildare, Ben Casey and Marcus Welby. This “service” has metastasized into a money-sucking “industry” so expensive that whereas the normal delivery of a live baby cost less than $100 in 1950, it now costs anywhere from $6000 to over $12000 today. According to one source, American national health spending is expected to reach $2.5 trillion in 2009, accounting for 17.6 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). Health expenditures are expected to increase at a rate of 6.2 percent per year from now to the year 2018, which is faster than even the most optimistic estimates of growth in GDP for this period. Part of the expense of American health care is due to exploding administrative costs. But there are other contributors, such as costs for prescription drugs that are rising at over twice the rate of inflation, cost increases for medical equipment and consumables, and inflation in employer-sponsored health insurance premiums which have risen at four times the rate of inflation during the past decade.

There's been much controversy this year over the possibility of Federally mandated health care reform. I really don't expect the Democratic or Republican Parties at any level of government to craft genuine reform of the sort that would lighten the economic burden for the recipients of that care. Some of our expectations regarding American “health care” may also be unrealistic, including the expectation that the Government can afford to pick up the tab for health care as it is currently practiced in the U.S. for all residents of the U.S. My suspicion is based not only on the unjustifiable rate of rise in American health care costs, but also on the fact that most of the wealth we could have devoted to equitable Government-backed health care and other safety nets has been squandered on covering the monetary losses of the rich. Our remaining tax revenues will largely be dedicated to servicing our large public debt, and the ability of our government at all levels to borrow additional money will shortly be severely curtailed.

I think it is also unrealistic for the masters of the health care “industry” - the doctors, hospitals, HMO's, insurance providers, drug companies and providers of medical technology – to expect that the system they have created can survive unbroken and unchallenged once almost no one but the rich can afford to use it. Already that system has priced 86.7 million Americans out of health care from 2007 to 2008. In 2008, at least 46.3 million Americans were without health insurance for a full year, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. In 2009 these numbers will only increase, due to the explosion of job losses, exhaustion of workers' unemployment benefits and continued escalation of insurance costs.

In short, I expect the nature and experience of health care to change drastically in the United States over the next several years. Increasingly, it will resemble the care provided in many Third World countries. Hopefully we will witness the adoption of some of the more beneficial and fair systems now operating in the Third World. Yet before we all rush to the countries of the developing world for inspiration and guidance, we need to see how the architects of the present American system of health care have attempted over the years to wreck viable, low-cost Third World alternatives. These attempts at wreckage were intended to protect and increase the revenue streams from the world's poorest people to the First World providers of expensive medical intervention and treatment.

The History of Western Medicine in the Third World

In his paper, “The Life And Death Of Primary Health Care,” David Werner writes that from colonial times until recent decades, the providing of Western medical service to the Third World was not equitable. The most expensive services were directed to the privileged, whereas health services directed at the “natives” were few, and were designed mainly to keep them healthy enough to work for the rich. But in the post-World War II era, there was a dawning awareness of health and health care as fundamental human rights. This led to efforts by rich countries to make Western medical practice more widely available in Third World countries.

However, this approach to expanded health care proved to be unsustainable, since Western medicine was too expensive even then for most Third World governments to widely support, or for indigenous peoples to use. This was partly due to the influence of budding multinational pharmaceutical corporations whose advertising induced a dependence on expensive treatments while eroding traditional forms of self-care. By the late 1970's it was widely recognized that the standard Western model of health care was failing in the developing world. This realization led to an international health care conference hosted by the World Health Organization in Almaty (formerly Alma-Ata) in the former Soviet Union in 1978.

Alma-Ata And Its Aftermath

The Alma-Ata Declaration of 1978 defined health as “a state of complete physical, mental and social wellbeing, and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity...” This declaration set forth this health as a primary goal to which governments should strive, and deemed existing health inequalities to be unacceptable. In order to achieve the goal of universal health, the declaration proposed a “Primary Health Care” which was defined as “...essential health care based on practical, scientifically sound and socially acceptable methods and technology made universally accessible to individuals and families in the community through their full participation and at a cost that the community and country can afford ...”

The implementation of this Primary Health Care was to involve all major elements of community life, such as sanitation, the provision of safe and healthy food, access to clean drinking water, housing and other basic needs. Very importantly, this implementation was to be community-based, “...requiring and promoting maximum community and individual self-reliance and participation in the planning, organization, operation and control of primary health care, making fullest use of local, national and other available resources; and...developing through appropriate education the ability of communities to participate ...”

The Alma Ata Declaration was revolutionary its emphasis on addressing the root factors of health and giving ordinary people more control over their health and lives. It proved to be too revolutionary for the heads of the governments of the First World, who systematically transformed Primary Health Care into merely another program for extending conventional Western, top-down health services into the Third World. This was accomplished by the promotion of “selective” Primary Health Care by donor countries; by the increased shifting of costs of Western medicine onto end users (ordinary poor people) via “Cost Recovery”; and the takeover of health and social policies of Third World governments by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which enticed many countries into taking loans with ruinous repayment terms, then forced those debtor countries to dismantle their social safety nets as part of their repayment.

One word on “selective” Primary Health Care: one of its initiatives was the so-called “Child Survival Revolution” that focused on growth monitoring, oral rehydration therapy (ORT) (for diarrhea), breast-feeding and immunization. The approaches implemented in this “Revolution” favored expensive treatments sold by pharmaceutical corporations – especially the pre-mixed ORT packets that were pushed instead of homemade foods and liquids.

The gutting of Primary Health Care as a viable option, combined with the World Bank's forcing debtor countries to dismantle government-sponsored social safety nets, led to a deterioration of health in the developing world. In addition, the World Bank has insisted on privatization of services formerly provided by governments, and has been an active agent in expanding the role of private health insurance in Third World health care.

American-Style Health Insurance – Coming To A Country Near You

Private health insurance is a very fast-growing worldwide market. The insurance “industry” is especially interested in the developing world, where it grew more than twice as fast as in the First World from 1994 to 2004. The promotion of private health insurance is especially attractive to the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD), an association of thirty nations, most of whom are the richest in the world, and whose member countries are home to the largest multinational insurance and investment firms. One OECD study notes the extensive penetration of private health insurance in Latin America, while discussing strategies such as subsidized coverage in order to boost penetration in East Asia. However, even the authors of that study admit that the introduction of private health insurance “...might also lead to cost escalation, a deterioration of public services, a reduction of the provision of preventive health care and a widening of the rich-poor divide in a country's medical system.”

Private health insurance is threatening to displace other options, partly through advertising that seeks to induce dissatisfaction with public health care, and partly through the promotion by the World Bank of so-called “free market” policies and privatization of social services in Third World countries. In fact, since 1993 the World Bank has pushed a view of Third World health care as simply a means of enhancing worker productivity for economic growth – a view that is very similar to the colonial view of the purpose of medicine in the Third World: to keep the natives healthy so they can work for the rich.

Conclusion

Because of the power held by the medical and insurance industries in the United States, I expect that the present attempts by our leaders to “reform” our health care system will turn out as badly as the attempt by the WHO to implement the Alma Ata Declaration. As that declaration was thwarted by the rich, I expect that our health care “reform” will also wind up as simply another means of moving money from the pockets of poor people into the coffers of the rich. Ah, but that's what our health care system is already...

Sources:

• “Health Insurance Costs,” National Coalition on Health Care, http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml

• “Paying The Price: The High Cost of Prescription Drugs For Uninsured Americans,” Maryland Public Interest Research Group, http://www.marylandpirg.org/home/reports/report-archives/health-care/health-care/paying-the-price-the-high-cost-of-prescription-drugs-for-uninsured-americans

• “Employer-Sponsored Health Insurance Erosion Continues, Will Likely Accelerate Through 2009,” Elise Gould, Economic Policy Institute, September 2009, http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/jobspicture_20090306/

• “The Life And Death Of Primary Health Care,” David Werner, International People's Health Council Global Summit, 1995, www.healthwrights.org/.../Life_and_Death_of_PHC-Global_Summit_Sweden.pdf

• “Health for All Beyond 2000: The Demise of the Alma-Ata Declaration And Primary Health Care in Developing Countries,” John Hall and Richard Taylor, The Medical Journal of Australia, 7 November 2002, http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/178_01_060103/hal10723_fm.html

• “Declaration of Alma-Ata,” International Conference on Primary Health Care, Alma-Ata, USSR, 6-12 September 1978, World Health Organization, www.who.int/hpr/NPH/docs/declaration_almaata.pdf

• “Rich Countries and World Bank Must Stop Pushing Privatized Health In Poor Countries,” OXFAM International, 12 February 2009, http://www.oxfam.org/en/pressroom/pressrelease/2009-02-12/rich-countries-world-bank-must-stop-pushing-privatized-health-to-poor

• “The IMF And The No User Fees Policy In Health,” Sandra Graham, Jamaica Observer, 15 August 2009, http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/columns/html/20090814T200000-0500_157495_OBS_THE_IMF_AND_THE_NO_USER_FEES_POLICY_IN_HEALTH_.asp

• “Private Health Insurance for the Poor in Developing Countries?”, Denis Drechsler and Johannes Jütting, OECD, August 2005

• “Is there a role for private health insurance in developing countries?”, Denis Drechsler and Johannes Jütting, German Institute for Economic Research, October 2005

The Secret Lives Of Wage Slaves

There's a Russian church near my house, to which I have paid occasional visits over the last year or so. On one of my visits, a recently married young man volunteered to translate for me. (A good thing, since my Russian is rather horrible – almost nonexistent, in fact.) After the service, we got to talking and he found out that I play guitar. So he asked me if I could teach him. I told him that I'd be glad to teach him – for free. Thus he has been coming to my house once a week for the last several weeks to learn.

I'm a big fan of learning the fundamentals of music, including learning to read notes in standard notation. This is something that many guitar instruction books and teachers gloss over, preferring instead to teach a few chords and the tabs (tablature) to a few American pop hits. On the other hand, what I have been doing with my student is to teach how to read notes on the musical staff and how to play them in first position. Later, we will hopefully move on to more fun stuff.

My student does not mind my approach, and in fact he seems eager to learn. But last week, I have to admit that he sounded like he hadn't been practicing as much as he should. We have covered all six strings in first position, yet when he was playing the short version of “Spanish Study” in Frederick Noad's black Solo Guitar Playing book, he was missing some of the notes on the lower three strings.

So why wasn't he practicing as he should? Was it because he was losing interest? Was it because I was a boring teacher? Or was it because of his job, which involves on-site customer service for office equipment, and which had forced him to be on the road from 7 in the morning to 7 at night on the day he came to my house? And is it reasonable to suppose that his job regularly requires such long hours?

Why work so hard, one may ask. That's a very good question. Maybe it has to do with the fact that our cost of living is so elevated, even now. My friend is a renter. Rent for a one bedroom apartment in our town runs over $1,100 a month according to this source: Portland, Sweet Sixteen? For Singles. Rental homes cost around $1200 a month on average, although some smaller homes can be had for around $900. My friend rents a house, but I haven't asked him how much he pays each month.

(I have another neighbor, with a wife and young son, who lives very near me in Portland, yet works in Salem. He's on the road before the sun rises, and when he comes home on weekdays, he has time only to eat and get ready for bed. He's hemmed in by his circumstances, with a lack of other jobs of his type to which he could easily transfer. He's been trying to sell his house so he can move closer to where he works, but selling is next to impossible in these times.)

My guitar-learning friend also needs medical insurance, I am sure. This is especially true because of his wife, who will one day have a baby, I suppose. I've heard that having babies can be quite expensive ($6,000 to $8,000 for a normal delivery and $10,000 to $14,000 for a caesarian section if you're not insured, according to this source: http://pregnancy.thefuntimesguide.com/2009/01/cost_to_have_a_baby.php). Even those with insurance must pay over a thousand dollars for a delivery. By the way, in 1950, the cost for a normal delivery was eighty-six dollars and thirty-three cents. (Source: The Cost of Having a Baby... in 1950) The American infant mortality rate was lower in 1950 as well.

My friend drives a relatively new car. It's not an extravagant car by any means, yet it is the sort that a man would buy if he was starting a family. I know that such cars are not cheap. If a man wanted to buy a “family-mobile” like a 2009 Honda CR-V, for instance, he'd have to pay around $22,000 for a base model. With a 48 month loan and interest rate of 8.25 percent, monthly payments would run around $540 a month. And that doesn't count insurance, or the spike in operating expenses that will come once oil resumes its rise in price. (This is one reason why a car-dependent society is such a bad idea.)

Housing, health and transportation costs are just three examples of how people like my acquaintances are being squeezed by a predatory economic system whose masters seek to make all necessities as expensive as possible in order to maintain their profit margins. But that system has nibbled away at the working class in other ways, namely, in the stagnation or actual decline in worker wages even as worker productivity rose in the period from the 1970's until now. (Sources: http://monthlyreview.org/0607wkt.htm; http://washingtonpolicywatch.org/2009/03/12/looking-past-the-banking-crisis-stagnating-real-wages-part-1-of-3/ and http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/5/21/733001/-No-Sustained-Economic-Growth-without-Real-Wage-Growth, to name just a few.)

The average salary for white collar workers in the U.S. in 2005 was $39,629 according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. However, many people with technical degrees earned significantly more than this. (Of course, many of their jobs are now vanishing.) If we assume that my friend has a bachelors degree from an accredited university, he can expect to earn a million dollars more over his lifetime than someone with only a high-school degree – at least, that's what most advocates of higher education say. But what with the inflation of tuition costs over the years, at least one source (http://www.aei.org/outlook/100034) claims that this million-dollar figure should really be whittled down to around $120,000. Of course, all depends on what subject your degree is in. If my friend took out student loans to finance his tuition, he's probably still in the hole today. (See also Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/College_tuition#Hyperinflation_of_college_costs.) For what it's worth, I don't think my friend has had much post-secondary education.

As the prices of key necessities continue to be artificially inflated while the real earning power of working-class people continues to decline, those ordinary people who continue to rely on the system of the “official” economy begin to resemble children clinging for dear life to a merry-go-round that's spinning faster and faster out of control. Those who fall off or let go are dashed cruelly to the ground, yet to keep hanging on requires all one's time and strength. The merry-go-round is on the verge of breaking, yet those who are still hanging on have no energy left for learning to adapt to life without the merry-go-round. There's very little strength or time left for learning skills like gardening, or for beginning the steps of adaptation to economic collapse. In fact, there's not even time to learn to play the guitar.

Whole Foods, John Mackey and Single-Payer Health Care

John Mackey, CEO of Whole Foods, recently wrote an essay for the Wall Street Journal in which he argued against any real health-care reform of the sort that would lift the burden of expensive health care off the backs of the working class. Instead, he argued for easing competition restrictions on health insurers as well as making it harder for victims of malpractice to sue their health care providers. (Source: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/17/whole-foods-fight/) This is an interesting statement coming from the CEO of an upscale, “health-oriented” grocery chain that tries hard to pretend to be “progressive.”

Some might take such Mackey's deed as an awful event, but increasingly, I see it as a blessing in disguise. For too long, those who oppose our corporatist state and its masters have seemed to lack a proper target for their opposition. John Mackey has just provided such a target. By this I mean that responding to corporatism by targeting lawmakers is ineffective, since they only listen to people with money. On the other hand, targeting the people with the money is likely to get much swifter and more decisive results.

Many people have responded to Mr. Mackey by calling for a boycott of Whole Foods stores. I agree entirely. I think Whole Foods should be boycotted until one of three things happen: either Whole Foods removes John Mackey, or Whole Foods publishes a statement supporting health care reform including single-payer health care, or Whole Foods goes out of business. I would also suggest something further.

There are several Whole Foods stores in the Portland metro area, including one store on Burnside, on the east side of the river, next to the Laurelhurst Theater. If a number of picketers showed up on a Saturday or Sunday, and I was passing by, I'd be most happy to take pictures, do interviews and write a “citizen journalism” post for this blog. All I'd ask is that the picketers maintain a good testimony of politeness and abide by the law, and that they have a plan for outing and staying clear of any agents provocateurs who might try to discredit them. In this, it might be helpful to study the G20 protests in London that took place earlier this year. If there is any sort of protest or picketing, I'd also encourage other bloggers and citizen journalists to cover such events.

Is Community Resilience Possible At This Time?

My post, "Escaping the Thanatoeconomic System," marked a change of my mood from mildly optimistic to quite sober (maybe even somber), as I came to realize the full implications of some of the societal trends I have been following. For a long time I had realized that not only is our present economic system breaking, but that it is not in the interests of the masters of that system to foster local, resilient alternatives for ordinary people. Yet I had been reasonably optimistic that ordinary people of small means could engineer local, resilient safety nets of alternative systems by which they might decouple from the official economy. Of course, this ability would depend on the presence of local resources for these safety nets, as well as a certain minimum level of access to these resources.

While I still think that some members of the populace might be able to build such safety nets, I have recently come to believe that the majority of Americans will probably not be fully able to do so at present, due to lack of access to the necessary resources. While there are some things that most people will be able to achieve, there are also things that will be beyond the reach of all but the most affluent.

One thing that may be beyond the reach of most people at present is building local, permanent resilient neighborhoods and communities. The reasons for this are obviously tied to land use and ownership. Most people rent, or they “own” in the sense of making installment payments on a loan used to buy a house. During the run-up to the 2005 peak of the housing bubble, prices of homes were continually and wildly inflated, far beyond the ability of most people to pay, while wages for most workers remained stagnant or declined in real terms. Then the economic collapse began, triggered by the rise in oil prices leading to the spike in 2008. That economic collapse has resulted in millions of jobs lost, as well as further erosion of incomes; yet there has been no debt relief for people who bought houses during the bubble years. A debtor living in a regular, modest house (I'm not even considering McMansions) is not resilient in the face of economic shocks, but is brittle, and is likely to end up out in the street in the event of a job loss or some sudden large expense.

Now one thing that could have provided opportunity for many people to build resilience is a sudden, large-scale reset of real estate prices nationwide. Had prices been allowed to fall to a level that people could actually afford in this present economic climate, more people would have been able to find homes that they could afford to stay in for the long term, and they would have been free to work on other strategies of resilience, such as gardening and energy efficiency. Indeed, there were and are places where this reset has occurred – places like Detroit and Flint, Michigan, and other cities in the Midwest. As word got out about home and land prices in places like these, forward-thinking people moved to these places in order to build a more sustainable life for themselves.

Yet these places also attracted speculators looking to get rich by playing a real-life version of “Monopoly.” I believe they also attracted the notice of the masters of the banking and finance sector as well as their friends in various levels of government. These people had a vested interest in preventing any fall in real estate prices, since most properties had been bought on credit and these properties were collateral for securities priced at an inflated value. What has therefore emerged over the last several months is a concerted effort to keep the price of housing high by artificially restricting access.

Thus we have seen cities bulldozing abandoned properties; cities foreclosing on people who can't afford to pay their property taxes; the withholding of foreclosed houses from the market by the banks that own them; and cities creating “land banks” consisting of abandoned properties which the cities either demolish or remodel in order to collect revenue and bring housing prices back up. (Sources: “Unpaid Property Taxes Hit Cities, UPI, 30 July 2009, http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/07/30/Unpaid-property-taxes-hit-cities/UPI-99581248962645/; “Land Banks Gain Popularity As Way To Fight Urban Blight,” USA Today, 9 July 2009, http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-07-09-landbanks_N.htm; “Flood of Foreclosures: It's Worse Than You Think,” USA Today, 23 January 2009, http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/21/real_estate/ghost_inventory/index.htm)

Many of these strategies were anticipated in the United States Housing And Economic Recovery Act of 2008, signed into law by President Bush, which, among other things, set aside $4 billion for the establishment of land banks and the redevelopment of abandoned, foreclosed or “blighted” properties, in order to boost real estate prices. These strategies continue to be supported by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, signed into law by President Obama. These strategies are part of a broader effort to protect the rich from a loss of the notional value of their assets, yet they continue to put basic resources such as houses and land out of reach of ordinary people of limited means. Any regular person trying to buy a house nowadays is still likely to be subjected to an unsustainable burden.

And the attempt to reinflate the housing bubble is only one example of the imposition of unsustainable burdens on the American working class. Another glaring example is the continued bailouts of the banking sector, bailouts which now number in the trillions of dollars, just to cover the losses of bank “assets” which had been built on loans that are now unrepayable. Lest anyone take this as a signal to become stupidly partisan, let me remind any readers that this mess is bipartisan. Both Democrats and Republicans are to blame. The net effect of the bailouts will be to saddle ordinary Americans with yet another unsustainable burden – that of being turned into collateral for a huge mass of bad loans.

These are just a few examples of the way in which our predatory system is taking from ordinary people the very resources they need in order to foster resilience. These examples illustrate the extent to which the masters of our present system will go in order to maintain the status quo. It was considering these examples that made me increasingly pessimistic about our prospects for a “soft landing,” an orderly and equitable transition to a state of lower economic activity and energy use. I don't think we will achieve a “soft landing,” because the masters of the present system will do their best to keep things as they are until they simply can't any longer, and then some things will break down catastrophically.

What will such a breakdown look like? I can't say with any confidence. There are people much cleverer than I who have thought about these things. I've read Dmitri Orlov; now I may get my hands on a copy of Joseph Tainter's The Collapse of Complex Societies. Is now the time for communities and neighborhoods to try to foster resilience? I think it may not be possible at this time. (But if anyone can prove me wrong, feel free. I'd welcome it.) It may only be possible for individuals to foster resilience, and if communities try for such a goal, it may only be possible for groups of nomads or migrants. Building permanent, local resilient communities might have to wait until our present system has gone a little further down the road of collapse. In the meantime, allow me to recommend Jeff Vail's blog (http://jeffvail.net), where he tackles some of the same questions (although he does a much better job, in my opinion). His latest series is called “The Rise of the Diagonal Economy and the Transition to Decentralization,” and he's just getting started. There is also a post on the internet titled, “"Peak Civilization": The Fall of the Roman Empire,” by a man named Ugo Bardi. Note especially what he says about the emperor Diocletian.

“What advice do you have, then?” someone may ask. Unfortunately, I don't have any right now. I need time to think about this some more. These thoughts have definitely changed the character of the upcoming interviews I was planning to do for this blog; now I'll have to approach things from a different angle. Someone else might be asking, “Do you see any other examples of large-scale hindrances to community resilience?” My answer is that if I tried to think of all the potential hindrances, I'd be here typing until midnight, and I'm trying to cut down on that sort of thing... ;)

Escaping The Thanatoeconomic System

“For if they do these things in the green tree, what will be done in the dry?”

- Luke 23:31, World English Bible

Thanatos: death (Greek).

Let me begin with some insightful comments made by blogger Stormchild on my recent post, “Airlines And Moral Systems Failure.” That post dealt with the financial squeeze now being experienced by the major airlines due to Peak Oil and economic collapse, and my belief that airlines are now resorting to cost-cutting measures that are beyond the bounds of reasonableness, measures that put the flying public at risk.

Stormchild observed that, “...we live in an economic system that rests, ultimately, on human sacrifice, and almost none of us realize either this fact or its implications.” She also observed that, “In order to function, our system actually requires a permanent underclass, AND needs a certain number of people to be deprived of their livelihoods at regular intervals. [Consider the obscene fact that a company's stock price goes up when it indulges in mass firings.] This same system places little or no value on preserving human lives; business schools in this country will actually teach you how to determine when liability exceeds profitability – a.k.a., how many people you can afford to kill before it gets too expensive.”

These observations are quite accurate. The fact that our present official globalist economy functions in this way speaks volumes about the motivations of the masters of this economy. Our large-scale, energy- and capital-intensive industrial economy is a predatory machine run by predatory masters, and those of us who are not rich enough or well-placed enough to be its masters are its prey. That means that the majority of people on earth are prey. Over the duration of this economy, the conditions imposed on us who are prey have oscillated between moderately decent and horrible, against a backdrop of industrial and economic expansion due to the acquisition of ever larger quantities of natural resources and labor which served as feedstocks for this economy.

Now this economy and its masters are under stress as its resource base declines, and as its base of capital also shrinks. This should be of great concern to us who are the world's prey, because of the well-known tendencies and behaviors exhibited by predators under stress. The recorded history of such tendencies and behaviors give us a clue as to what we can expect from our present globalist, corporatist system and its masters as that system experiences increasing stress.

I have written about the need to foster resilient neighborhoods as preparation for a post-Peak world of economic collapse. My writing has been partly a blind, groping, feeling exploration for solutions to the immediate, present threats that I see in neighborhoods, communities and cities in the U.S. In thinking about these things, I have also read many of the writings of other thinkers, people whom I believe to be far more knowledgeable than me regarding Peak Oil, climate change, and their likely societal effects.

But I have noticed a tendency among many of these writers to think only of the scientific or technical implications of the effects of resource constraints and climate change on our social arrangements. So there are endless discussions about how post-Peak oil production declines will affect finance, global shipping and land-based transportation, or about the importance of mass transit and localized food production, or about personal preparedness along the lines of organic gardening and relocating to ideal “lifeboat” locales. Those who discuss “resilient communities” have tended to approach the subject by laying out high-level theories of optimum social organization, organization whose effectiveness is often bolstered by technological advances (see Global Guerrillas: THE RESILIENT COMMUNITY, for instance). The sense of many such writings is that resilient communities are a futurist vision that's always just around the corner.

These theories have value, and I would not discourage them. Yet they do have a blind spot. Pardon me for saying so, but many of these discussions and theorizings sound so very “upper middle-class white.” Therefore, they ignore the present relation between our predatory global economy and the large numbers of people who are its prey. This is a dangerous omission. Consider the dictionary definition of resilience: “an ability to recover from or adjust easily to misfortune or change.” In order to have this ability, one must have a stable resource base from which to draw in order to deal with the stresses of misfortune and change. Those who are deprived of that resource base are not resilient, but brittle and prone to break down. Consider a well-fed, athletic, well-rested teenager who is suddenly thrown into an ice-cold pool. The experience is undoubtedly a shock to him, yet once he swims to the side and gets out, he easily recovers from it. The same is not true of someone who is seriously ill, malnourished and sleep-deprived.

Being treated as prey robs people of the reserves of strength they need in order to be resilient, for all their resources are either consumed in coping with their predators or are taken from them by their predators. Here are some recent examples of our masters treating us as prey:

• The U.S. Congress has been trying to pass broad “food safety” laws in response to public concerns over tainted food and food recalls. The problem is that these laws don't correct the bad practices of the large agribusinesses that produce tainted food, but rather, the laws impose such a huge regulatory burden that they drive small, sustainable farmers out of business. Thus they force us to rely on the big agribusinesses instead. Just last week, the House of Representatives passed such a bill – H.R. 2749.

• U.S. mortgage lenders are, by and large, not cooperating with the recently enacted $75 billion Federal program to prevent foreclosures. This is because lenders who foreclose are able to collect lucrative “junk” fees on delinquent loans. Such fees include late fees, title search fees, legal filings, and appraisal fees. (Sources: Homeowners ask government in lawsuit: Where's the foreclosure relief?, and Profit motive may trump plan to modify mortgages.) Heaven help you if you get in trouble on your mortgage, because the banks sure won't – they get more money from making you homeless.

• Amid California's recent budget crisis, the Governor was proposing a budget that would protect the outlay of State funds to the private prison industry – even though there were many headlines about the need to slash social services. At present, there are three corporations operating private prison chains in the not-so-Golden State. (Sources: Schwarzenegger Talks Private Prisons and Budget Cuts | Youth Radio, and http://reason.org/blog/show/solving-the-ca-budget-governat, from Reason Magazine which should perhaps be named Un-reason Magazine for praising such an evil arrangement.) Meanwhile, “Governator” Schwarzenegger seems uninterested in genuinely rehabilitative ways of dealing with California's prison population, as these might be bad for somebody's business.

• The City of Los Angeles has been criminalizing homelessness under the direction of its police chief, William Bratton and his “Safer City” initiative. Under this initiative, it is illegal to sit, sleep or store personal belongings on sidewalks and other public spaces. Also, if you look shabby and are caught jaywalking or loitering, the police come after you, whereas the police don't seem to notice the same offenses when done by people who don't “look” homeless. Los Angeles is just one example of the broad criminalization of homelessness in America. (Sources: Los Angeles accused of criminalizing homelessness, LA is "Meanest City" for Homeless: Study, and A Dream Denied: The Criminalization of Homelessness in U.S. Cities.)

I believe that these examples illustrate how our present economic masters will increasingly treat us as their opportunities for further enrichment through economic growth disappear. Even while it was expanding, the official economy always had catabolic tendencies – i.e., there were always some members of that economy who were consumed by it rather than being allowed to function as members of that economy. But as our economy continues to contract, its catabolic tendency will be amplified, and may well become its main characteristic. As more and more people slide from middle-class status to poverty, these people will increasingly discover what it means to be preyed upon, as they are consumed in order to satisfy those who are still rich.

If these things are so, then figuring out how to build resilient communities must take into account what sort of people are the prospective members of that community. Are they poor? Are they people of color? Are they both? If so, then they must not only contend with the general exigencies of post-Peak Oil, climate change and general economic collapse, but they must also be able to devise effective protection from their predators. (By the way, most of us are going to get a lot poorer.)

This is something that I don't hear many resource and sustainability activists talking about. I don't think, for instance, that the Transition Towns movement has thought about this. But this is what concerns me. How does someone keep from having his house repossessed? How do people of color protect themselves from police racial profiling and selective arrest? Where can homeless people go to find a place of stability where they can regroup? If you get thrown in jail – even for a stupid reason – how do you find a job afterward? Some of the abandoned houses I showed in my last post are in my neighborhood. How do we fix problems like this? How can poor people rebuild social safety nets that are now being dismantled by the rich? How can we stop getting jacked?

These are questions I've tried to answer in my posts on neighborhood resilience. I'm a little frustrated right now, because I haven't come up with satisfactory answers. Maybe I'm just not clever enough. But why are there so few other “collapse-aware” thinkers who are trying to tackle these things? We need answers, and right now.