Category Archives: Politics

My Dear Libertarian Friends

Something I have learned while working alongside fundamentalist libertarians is this: Libertarianism is a political philosophy that seems to provide a framework for the justification of isolationism and selfishness. It is an economic theory that conveniently validates the inherent stinginess of its adherents. It has an appealing and complex theoretical basis. But like all economic theories, is idealistic and requires universal alignment by the population.

That being said, I agree that the US could use a healthy dose of libertarian pragmatism these days. Government is  far too big and too many resources are being channeled into foreign adventures while the national debt accrues.  Our elected leaders resemble an angry mob with a credit card throwing debt bombs.

But when I hear libertarians talk about their resentment at sharing resources in the form of taxation (or, being forced to share their resources), I can’t help but wonder what is really behind this restrained anger.  All of my libertarian friends have benefited enormously from the infrastructure provided by the pooling of resources. They drive to work on the interstate highways, fly safely in controlled airspace, benefit from the safety provided by the military, learned to read from public school teachers, use the system of currency for their wellbeing, flush their toilets thanks to public sanitary systems, eat safely thanks to the local health department (food safety is a big one), have drugs to treat their illnesses with the help of NIH, and on and on.

Of course there are problems with all of our public institutions, some of them quite serious. But the marketplace is just as prone to corruption as the government. I think that libertarians want to get off the merry-go-round and disconnect from the manditory and expensive socialization that keeps creeping into our lives. I do too sometimes. But it seems painfully obvious that our path to this point has not been all bad and our public institutions have contributed to our stability and well being.

All organizations work better under structural tension- the balance of forces. Libertarianism is a useful counterpoint to liberal socialization and conservative militarism. Like the three legs of a stool, these competing political influences can serve the betterment of our society and keep each other in check.

Precautionary Principle or Precautionary Anxiety

Our technological culture is slipping into a kind of Nanny State where risk aversion has become institutionalized at all levels.  Much of this trend has to do with the Precautionary Principle. I won’t elaborate on it because it well presented elsewhere. 

My concern with the Precautionary Principle is not because I have dismissed the threats of deforestation or extinction or global warming. My concern is not because I believe we should freely and wantonly expose people to chemcials substances.  I am concerned about the effect of this principle on innovation.  I believe it is possible and necessary to maintain our technological advance while minimizing the total environmental insult.

In regard to chemistry, innovation is being made far more difficult because of precautionary anxiety.  Part of the issue is fear of chemicals, or what some have called Chemophobia. Chemophobes know in their heart that “chemicals” are bad. 

Chemophobia is real.  Chemophobia derives from a lack of understanding of the chemical sciences and the meaning of risk.  To the chemophobe, any “chemical” odor is a prelude to cancer or other illness.  Bad smell equals toxic.  Good smell equals safe. However, such conclusions are easily toppled when you consider manure and phosgene. Manure is foul smelling, but not especially toxic. Phosgene is fragrant but highly toxic. Stink and toxicity correlate poorly and are a weak basis to judge safety.

We need to keep safety in a proper perspective. We need to have places where we can handle hazardous chemicals for research and manufacturing. The process of education will filter out those who are uncomfortable with the risks and produce those who are willing to work in such places in order to advance science. Students who have an interest in chemical sciences need to have the chance to work with reactive chemicals without undue constraint. Yes, they need to be in a lab and under the supervision of a trained mentor.  But students need to get experience working with reactive materials in order to develop judgement.

Humble Pie for Chavez, Victory for Czar Putin

There was an outbreak of sensibility in Venezuela this weekend as that swaggering gasbag, Hugo Chavez, was set back in his bid to rewrite the constitution.  Chavez, who was recently and openly told to “shut up” by King Juan Carlos of Spain, has been on a nationalization binge in the last few years. To validate his further consolidation of power, his party attempted to alter the constitution to favor his continued tenure and further his grasp on the resources of the state.  The people of Venezuela told him to go powder his nose.

Things weren’t so democratic in Russia last weekend as a highly managed political campaign delivered the goods. That is, victory for the Party of Vlad Putin, the new Czar of Russia. With key opposition leaders temporarily in jail (Kasparov), and a state controlled media, a comfortable margin of victory was delivered as expected to Putin by his aparachiki. 

Russia’s long, sad history of Big Boss rule continues.

News Poisoning- Hystrionicatoxin

I have noticed that my general level of anxiety seems to follow the extent to which I am tuned into the news. The more news I listen to, the greater the stress. Even my beloved NPR is showing chronic toxic effects.

The pace and magnitude of the news cycle seems to be tied to the level of outrageous events.  All of the detail and repetition add up to a heightened angst that eventually wears one down.

Someone once defined news as “semi-analytical show business”.  It’s a 24/7 circus in High Definition.  The whole political system has redesigned itself to synchronize its actions to interfere constructively or destructively (whichever confers benefit) with the news cycle.

I need to get off this merry-go-round.

Carbonylated Surf and Turf

As a desperate strategy to fight insomnia, Th’ Gaussling often finds himself watching C-Span at 1 AM.  Congressional testimony or a televised speech at the International Museum Docent Convention by the Acting Assistant Deputy Undersecretary of the Stratosphere is often enough to initiate somnolence.

But early this morning was different. A panel of FDA administrators were before a House Committee on Commerce Chaired by Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Michigan. At issue was H.R. 4167, the National Uniformity for Food Act. Apparently, the proposed law will remove requirements for certain kinds of food labeling, in particular the presence of certain additives may not be part of manditory labeling.

What has come to light is the industrial practice of exposing meats and fish to an atmosphere of dilute carbon monoxide (CO, ca 0.4 %) in order to maintain a red color in the flesh.  Meat naturally turns brown on exposure to air over a short period. Industry has been wrestling with this for a long time, adopting and subsequently abandoning various schemes for maintaining the reassuring red color of meats and certain fish. Carbon monoxide coordinates with iron in haemoglobin to afford a complex that renders the tissues red in color. The FDA defines CO as a fixative in this application, rather than a preservative.

As a result of the use of this scheme, it is possible to keep meats and fish with a saleable red appearance for much longer. This reduces store losses due to the non-marketability of brown meat.

The House Commerce Committee was split down the isle in terms of its concern for this matter. Democratic committee members voiced considerable concern over the subterfuge of artificially reddening meat, allowing unwary consumers to falsely conclude that the meat could be fresher than it really is. Republican members seemed disinterested in the matter and several voiced concern that the FDA should spend it’s time with Salmonella rather than CO. The honorable Republican member from Kentucky tried to suggest that as a “simple country doctor”, he was having trouble understanding the issues and pronouncing the words (Rep. Elmer T. Bonehead, R-KY).

Whereas many of the members soft pedaled their questions, Rep. John Dingell, D-Michigan, offered no quarter to the FDA group. In particular he focused his attention of Director of Food Additive Safety, Laura Tarantino.  In earlier testimony, Tarantino was a picture of confidence. Her knowledge of the statutes and the Byzantine procedural details as well as her confidence and instant recall was impressive. However, when Dingell’s time for questions came along, he went after her with rapid fire questions, not allowing time for her to qualify her answers or fend off subtext.  “Just answer the question, yes or no”. It was interesting to see.  Dingell was obviously disgusted with the FDA.  The regulations and protocols that govern FDA movement are very complex and apparently even the administrators have faint grasp on much of it.

Director Tarantino stated that no specific rule-making concerning CO fixatives had been completed because it was still under study.  The working assumption was that CO was considered GRAS- Generally Recognized as Safe. These assumptions are often advanced by industry and accepted with scant examination by FDA.

When asked about the general safety of CO in the product, one FDA manager stated that the added CO posed no hazard. I have no reason to doubt this. But the real issue is consumer deception. I think even libertarians would have to agree that without disclosure of food additives, the market cannot rationally award its demand to preferred providers. You can bank on the notion that consumers are particular about meat and freshness. HR 4167 is a step backwards for consumers and we can only hope that good sense prevails in the House.

Hometown Industry

Ah, the sweet drone of American English. It’s nice to travel, but it’s nicer to be home.

The conference in Bangkok was useful in many ways. For the most part, it gave Th’ Gaussling some needed perspective in an important segment of the Asian chemical market. North America is far from doomed, market-wise, though it is critical that we curb the rate of chemical de-industrialization going on here.

Manufacturing is the bedrock of our economy and one of the major pillars of our culture. I think that the notion of clean telecommuting promoted by the computer industry leads to the expectation that the country can become one large bedroom community, with dirty heavy industry left to banana republics and Asian tigers.

This notion is absurd and self destructive. If paper mills, refineries, and coal mines are too polluting, then industry needs to collaborate better with the chemical engineering departments around the country. If semiconductor and pharmaceutical manufacturing is too costly in the states, then industry needs to collaborate better with our research institutions.

We have too many non-technical MBA’s driving the country and it has to change. Ruthless finance manipulations must be replaced by ruthless technological advance. Delicate, abstract investment contrivances should be superceded by robust scientific and engineering achievement.

Take Control of Hydrocarbon Consumption

The US petrochemical industry has had many challenges post WW-II.  The restructuring of Europe and Japan as well as the US after the war lead to an unprecendented network of markets.  Add to the economic map a whole new spread of advanced technologies resulting from the war effort itself.  Advances in piston and jet engines, rocket propulsion, aeronautical engineering, RADAR, and nuclear energy were a direct result of the war or were highly accelerated therein. 

Postwar, the aforementioned technologies were exploited in the private sector and contributed to an unprecedented economic engine driving the growth of cultures and nations. Generous US spending on cold war military hardware added somewhat to the creation of jobs and spending.  The overall explosion of goods and services not only met the demands of consumers, but raised the expectation that technology would provide an endless parade of new things. 

For the present, the range of frontier for paradigm expansion is dramatically different compared to 50 years ago.  In the context of economics, to a large extent we now live in an age of refinement rather than an age of discovery. Most of what we regard as “new” is actually derivative of more fundamental tools. Transistors, penicillin, and fission can only be introduced to the market once as new technology platforms.  Subsequent innovations are derivative. Excited speculation of the future as a place of flying cars and a cure for cancer gives way to the pragmatic adoption of cars that parallel park themselves  and treatment of cancer as a chronic condition.

Today, hucksters promote ethanol or hydrogen as fuels of the future without a syllables worth of consideration for conservation.  The search for the replacement of fossil fuels is really the search for convenient, high energy density combustible fluids that can be mass produced and shipped in the present distribution system for low unit cost. Instead of finding a new fuel stream, why not try to figure out how to get 2x performance (or 1/2 consumption) out of the hydrocarbons we are already using?

One objection might be that we have already squeezed maximum fuel performance out of the internal combustion engine. Further technological improvements to the Otto Cycle engine going forward are going to be hard to capture.

Another objection is that higher material efficiences are always being sought by the marketplace. A 2x jump in efficiency probably is generally not possible across the board, though isolated exceptions do exist.

But the easy fix, the one that no one mentions is to simply burn less hydrocarbons/ethanol by driving fewer miles. The answer is in the hand that holds the car keys. Consolidate trips. Avoid hopping in your Hummer and driving to 7-11 for cigarettes. Car pool. Demand less cheap-plastic-crap from Big Box Mart.

The main stumbling block is this:  how does a market embrace reduced consumption? I think the answer is that it cannot. But it seems clear that our US consumption trajectory cannot continue indefinitely.

The insatiable demand for hydrocarbons has brought out the worst in us. Our oilman White House has lead us into a thicket of foreign entanglements that may well get much worse before there is any relief.

Halliburton and the Bush II Krewe

Anymore, criticizing the Bush administration is like having an unproductive cough- the stuff is so deep in there that you can’t hack up the obstructing mass. And so it is with the current president and appointees, who are insinuated into the deep recesses of power like a resistant strain of waxy mycobacterium. 

Serial government haters all, the Bush II krewe has privatized large chunks of gov’t service work and handed it on a no-bid platter to loyal backers like Halliburton who are largely registered in tax haven countries.

Unwilling to make the ultimate commitment to the USA (or wanting cover its tracks), Halliburton moved its headquarters to the United Arab Emirates. Presumably to take advantage of the tax-free business environment and the lack of a troublesome extradition treaty with the USA.  The status of Halliburton as a foreign contractor needs to be examined in public. 

Yes, this is old news, but Americans should not forget this outrage.  According to HalliburtonWatch, Cheney himself increased the number of foreign tax haven subsidiaries from 9 to 44 during his time there as CEO. 

There is nothing illegal about taking advantage of tax law.  But at some point a company has to decide what country they support and what side of history they want to be on. That which is possible is not necessarily manditory. When money is the only scorecard, ethics fly out the window. Stockholders bear as much responsibility for this craven behaviour as do the officers. [*crunching* noise as I step off the soapbox]

Halliburton became a successful company in part through it’s use of resources provided by the US taxpayer.  Halliburton used US government funded highways to get its goods and services moved around the US. Their security was provided by the Army, Navy, Air Force, and the Marines.  Halliburton staff and stockholders are protected from epidemic by the Centers for Disease Control. Sewage from Halliburton office buildings goes into local municipal  waste treatment plants. Physicians trained in publically subsidized medical institutions lance their boils and treat their childrens ear infections. The list of benefits from public infrastructure is substantial.

Now these greedy corporate ex-patriots want to shelter their earnings from tax liability. They don’t want to contribute to the upkeep of the very system that facilitated their ascent to wealth.

This entire thing is so dirty and so extensive, it will take a generation to understand it and legislate corrective action. The whole fetid, reeking mess is offensive.

Chemical Business in Russia- One Experience

Hearing of the passing of Boris Yeltsin, I can’t help but remember my trip to his northern empire in 2000.  We boarded a Lufthansa flight in Frankfurt, seemingly filled to the scuppers with jabbering Russian tourists anxious to return from their trip abroad. We left rainy Germany for the port city of St. Petersburg, near the mouth of the Neva River. Most of the terrain was obscured beneath heavy clouds so there was nothing to see until our descent at 10:30 pm. The sun sets late at 60 degrees north in the spring.  As we were coming down from cruise altitude, the lush green landscape became visible through breaks in the clouds.  We were going to land in Russia.

While the purpose of the trip was business, I was determined to soak in as much of the experience as possible. I had a total of one paltry year of Russian language in college so I could at least sound out the words and recall a tiny bit of vocabulary. 

In the late 1990’s doing business in Russia- that is, buying Russian goods- could be complicated. This was late in Yeltsin’s term and a kind of cynical take on the free market was beginning to set in.  Earlier, the eastern bloc had imploded and the communist hold on Russia was in deconstruction. Under Yeltsin a select few had managed to amass wealth- the so-called Oligarchs.  But as a few like Khodorkovsky were to eventually learn, wealth does not automatically confer political power in Russia.

Doing business in Russia was a highly manual activity. In 2000, the start of the Putin years, Russia lacked much of the business infrastructure that we in the west take for granted. When I say “business infrastructure”, I refer to the whole picture- commercial credit; internationally compatible contract and tort law; credible mechanisms for the flow of currency; GAAP; a multimodal transportation network; a comprehensible market exchange for commodities; and a market place with suppliers and specialists for the many instruments of finance and insurance. 

In the Yeltsin years, many formerly state-owned factories came under control of people who conducted business in facilities through quiet arrangements behind the curtain.  Factories would operate at low intensity or would even be shut down until orders came in.  Workers were furlowed and operated taxi’s or did other odd jobs until an order arrived.  Maybe this still happens today.  I don’t know.

We needed product that was made by a very few specialists in the world and one of those vendors was in central Russia.  Russian manufacturers are as skilled as we are of course, but there are differences in business culture that may be hard to anticipate.  Western standards concerning documentation was a particular problem.  I recall that our vendor was quite carefree about lot traceability and packaging.   They also had the maddening habit of reusing old lot numbers.

Then there was the problem of shipping.  Russia did not then, and still may not, have anything remotely similar to Aldrich.  Now, you probably think of Aldrich as the “chemical supply house” and you’d be right. But I’m thinking of Aldrich as the “master of logistics”.  Logistics in Russia was a problem.  Ground transportation was unreliable. Our solution was to hire a local to bird-dog the whole process.  It was worth every penny.

One of the differences I found was in the attitude of the few manufacturers I was in contact with.  They were usually aware of western prices for their goods and were never afraid to demand Aldrich-type pricing.   In the west, the customer is king.  That is just taken for granted.  Uppity suppliers are soon former suppliers. 

What I ran into in Russia was something that I hadn’t seen anywhere else, including China or Taiwan.  Our Russian supplier wanted to dictate terms and was unwilling to budge- I think they call it “Vlast”.  We absolutely needed better prices for the raw material.  I’m sure that there were urgent arrangements behind the curtains that were part of the need to stand fast. But in the end, it was their absolute inflexibility that caused them to lose the business. 

While in Russia I did try to source other raw materials and “vendors” who could supply spot buys of particular compounds.  At the time, many chemical factories were partially shuttered, so custom chemical processing capacity was very much hit and miss.  Processing equipment sat in dark and idled buildings waiting for a purchase order and prepayment. 

We met with principals in an empty flat to talk about the manufacture of custom compounds. But the same problem always arose. They wanted cash up front, preferably deposited in a European bank.  I was very clear that this was not the transaction model that we were accustomed to and in fact, this requirement was a showstopper. My Russian contacts were mystified that an American would come all this way only to refuse to pony up the cash to get the ball rolling. And that is where my attempts at trying to do business with Russia ended. 

The operators of the factories I was in contact with had the pots and pans, skilled staff, and expertise in the technology- these guys were first rate technocrats. At first glance, what they lacked was the benefit of investment capital to plow into their operations to find and service customers.  But, digging deeper, it wan’t just the hard cash they lacked. There was a system-wide lack of free market history and culture that, elsewhere, would have provided the institutions and mechanisms to exploit opportunity. 

I admire Russia and I believe that they will eventually get their system working well.  But they do need to get away from the fascination with the strongman model of governance. From my travels I have concluded that countries with cultures that date far back are simultaneously blessed and cursed by it.  They are blessed by the warm embrace of cultural richness. But they are also cursed by it because it can be a sort of ball and chain that complicates the adoption of change.

Note: This was written a few months prior to posting.

Copyright 2007

American Parliament, part II

In a previous posting, I daydreamed about an American system that more resembled a parliamentary system. The motivation for this is that our executive branch has apparently gone astray with the presidents military ambitions in nation building under the guise of the war against terrorism. The ability to dissolve a government off the election cycle and repopulate it with different characters seems like a desirable attribute.

Viet Nam and GW-II are examples of ideological pageantry lead by stubborn presidents. Like the fighter pilot who is so target fixated on his opponent that he follows him into the ground, we cannot allow our presidents to drag the country into self-inflicted disaster.

As suggested by Zbigniew Brzezinski, the noises now coming from the White House concerning Iran resemble the noises made by the same White House about Iraq.  What is strange about this distressing circumstance is this: The checks and balances that are provided by the constitution seem to be inadequate to restrain the executive.  The congress seems to be genuinely flummoxed.

Despite popular sentiment and wise counsel by very well regarded citizens, the president continues to press for ideological conquest in the middle east.  Despite the floundering dollar, no-child-left-behind-except-for-4-million-uninsured-kids, and tera-dollars of debt accumulated in the “War Against ______”, our executive continues to press on within the bounds of the constitution.

The question is this: Does the US Constitution provide adequate checks and balances against the abuse of power?

I suppose it is inevitable that a president would be elected who didn’t have both oars in the water. Who knows if this guy really is disturbed. But the executive retains substantial control of the military.  The president is able to amass a vast force of civilian security contractors who seem to be beyond the audit of the congress.  Does your view change when they pack weapons and answer only to the executive branch? Did the framers miss this possibility?

The US has a president that is hell-bent on performing a script that is neither transparent nor mandated by anything other than the enchanting voices of a few dark characters who are temporarily burrowed in the White House. We’ve had 2 terms of a war president. It’s enough.