Yes!!! Protect infant industries, not legacy industries. Exactly! E
Sent from my iPhone > On May 6, 2017, at 19:16, BILROJ via Centroids: The Center of the Radical > Centrist Community <[email protected]> wrote: > > > A vision for the future of American Capitalism > Moral Economics > > Alexander Hamilton's view was that we should protect infant industries > because of the potential benefits of various businesses if they are able > to take root and become part of the national economy. You can't ask > a toddler to compete with athletes or professional engineers or surgeons > at adult tasks; but with the right nurture and education, the infant grows > to maturity and then can become competitive. > > Moreover, we should protect other businesses for the sake of national > security, something overlooked in "bottom line" economics. What possible > justification is there for not manufacturing electrical transformers in > America, > for instance? If there ever is a disaster that damages the power grid > we would need to import transformers from China and in a major emergency > the Chinese might not want to sell them to us, or might decide to charge > us so much money that various businesses might become bankrupt. We almost > lost Boeing's capability to manufacture air refueling takers because > the EU offered a better price for such aircraft. That might have saved us > a few billion dollars in the short run but in event of war, especially > if Europe was hard hit, all savings would be meaningless because > we might be defeated in battle. > > In such cases strict economic efficiency is less important than some other > value. When you think about any kind of "big picture" it is no problem > to conceive of still other values that are superior to economics. > > > The environment also needs protection because, if the natural world is > exploited it not only demoralizes people it imposes economic costs > in the form of effects of pollution and destruction of secondary values; > that is, the cheapest way to extract coal is through strip mining practices > that, however, destroy the tourist potential of a region and cause medical > harm to people in an area effected by chemical runoff due to a > form of mining that exposes poisonous subsoil to the elements. There may > be other kinds of costs for other industries if, for example, a port is > silted up > or sinkholes swallow houses. > > There is also a cultural imperative. The wrong kind of culture within a > company > and the business falls apart or, at best, "underperforms." However, the wrong > kind of culture and a nation falls apart or becomes economically inefficient. > > Certain social values are necessary for a smoothly functioning society. > Other values can undermine or damage or ruin a society. At the head > of this list is greed, closely followed by excessive status seeking, > rapaciousness, and lack of community consciousness. Another way > of saying the same thing is that libertarianism or its cousin, laissez faire > Capitalism, have no solutions at all for these kinds of problems. > Indeed, by valorizing avarice and materialism, libertarianism > and laissez faire make matters worse. > > This is masked by the fact that greed can generate wealth. A monopoly > business can be very profitable. Price gouging or excessive profits > can mean that a class of people do very well for themselves and, > in the process, some economic advantages accrue to others via > "trickle down" effects. > > The question is how do we change the system so that necessary and "good" > social values become widely popular and are regarded as necessary > for any respectable business, and all "anti-values" become anathema > to just about everyone and simply are never indulged in. > > This said, we cannot eliminate economic self interest, nor should we > want to do any such thing. People are not angels, they may well have > '"better natures" but they are also creatures of passion and of an > assortment of passions, and seeking advantage, including economic > advantage, is part of human nature. > > What is the solution? > > Part #1 is identifying the problem for what it is. This means an imperative > to discredit libertarian political philosophy and also laissez faire economic > thinking. > > Part # 2 is just as necessary, or even more important. It is vital to show > that an alternative to the existing Capitalist model is feasible and can > produce > impressive results for large numbers of people. This obviously means > that we must abandon failed models like that in effect in various Communist > regimes in the past -as well as more recent failed systems like those > in Venezuela, Haiti, Burma, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, or various > kleptocracies in Sub-Saharan Africa > > The power of non-economic motivation should never be underestimated. > As Francis Fukuyama has pointed out, there is no such thing as pure > economic motivation in politics and, indeed, economics may not rise > to the level of anything more than a secondary factor. After all, was > the American revolution motivated primarily by a desire for better prices > for imports or an increased standard of living? You don't need democracy > to reach those objectives yet our forefathers chose democracy and freedom > of the press and free speech, etc., as rallying points and the multitudes > responded. Was the Civil War fought primarily for economic reasons? > Certainly economics played a part but a set of values that permitted > slavery was the main cause -along with sectional pride and the > perceived need to safeguard one's culture. > > Did the youth revolt of the 1960s revolve around a desire for money > or a desire to create a new kind of culture with new social values? > We can justifiably argue that some of the sought-for values were > not good ideas but the point is that the young rebels of that era were > willing to accept a much lower standard of living for the sake of the > values they believed in. > > So it goes through a long list of social movements, revolutions, and > mass protests. If you leave out the economic factor you would > be foolish, it is always there in some form, but if you insist that > economics necessarily is primary you could not be more wrong. > > But how do we demonstrate that there is a better alternative to the > existing economic regime? The reason this is essential is that otherwise > any claims to an economically superior system could be perceived as > will-o-the-whisps, so much wishful thinking with no basis in reality. > > Therefore we need to use examples from the actual economy that are > far less than what is being proposed here yet similar enough that people can > understand the logic and ideas involved, sufficient that no great stretch > of the imagination is required to conceive a working system. The proposal > is to build upon parts of some currently existing system. > > There are several models for what this might be but Fox News TV > provides a very useful example. This is not an endorsement of > everything that Fox does, most of what it broadcasts is news-tainment > and is basically not worth much at all. However, Fox discovered that > there was a huge untapped market for conservative (conservative-lite) > news coverage and opinion. You might say that MSNBC made use > of the same format for Left-wing news except that it has such low standards > of journalism that it has almost no value for our purposes here and would > simply muddy the waters. > > The point about Fox is simply that it operates on the basis of a > point-of-view, > in this case more-or-less conservative in character. Fox management and > ownership take the view that some values that are under-reported by the > mainstream media are worth putting time and effort into, seeking to change > public opinion rather than simply trying to be neutral in reporting news. > > This is manifestly not a screed in opposition to objective news coverage. > Quite the opposite, objectivity should be the primary goal, but to state > an obvious fact of media life. > > The libertarian / laissez faire position, while it is not honored in reality, > is that any and all values are equal in merit. Whichever values win > the national popularity contest are the best because they have the > largest market share. Actually, what this is, is promotion of nihilism, > amorality, or even criminality, but to speak of the public image > the media seeks to convey. > > > Another example of an institution that seeks to change public opinion > is Liberty University, which was founded in an attempt to create a > counterweight to Left-dominated higher education in America. > In effect, Liberty U. was created by a large Baptist church and > its political allies. > > There are also foundation supported institutions that would like to change > social values, these organizations funded by consortia of like-minded > individuals > or businesses that share common interests. Hence American Enterprise > Institute and the Brookings Institution. > > Fox, however, is not the object of philanthropic concern. It is a profitable > business that needs no outside help to survive and thrive. But it could not > have begun unless its potential was recognized by investors and a man > with far sighted vision, Rupert Murdoch. Again, not to overstate the case. > Murdoch also was responsible for the wreckage of News of the World, > a newspaper that indulged in shady practices and was not above violating the > law. > > The point of everything is that corporations do not need to be obsessed > with the bottom line nor with maximizing shareholder profitability. > Yet public service enterprises can be profitable if they are based upon > well conceived business models that, in turn, are built up a sense > of values that are treasured by millions of people. > > That is, there is such a thing as citizen good will -with customers happy > to make purchases or otherwise contribute to the success of a business > they feel represents the social values they hold dear. > > Do institutions such as AEI and Brookings change public opinion? > It is difficult to say "no" when considering the fact that they allow > opinion leaders to flourish and produce some of their best work > -that is then "consumed" by TV viewers or people who read books > or attend lectures and seminars. > > ---------------- > > > The objective is to work with a new kind of business model that borrows > from these examples as a starting point -but with a new set of social values > that the model seeks to promote. This is to discuss the kinds of values > which are associated with Radical Centrist philosophy. However, this concept > could be adopted by people with different outlooks, actual conservatives, > actual liberals rather than today's Leftists, and so forth, including Greens > and Constitution Party people and still others. > > This is not about philanthropy. However, it also is not about bottom line > profitability. There may well be profits but, if so, they would be secondary > to the purpose of promotion of values that, by reasonable standards, > are in the best interests of American citizens seeking to maintain > a "melting pot" society based on modern democratic principles. > > That is, Radical Centrism is opposed to libertarian emphasis on > "freedom" as a universal solvent for all that ails us. We certainly need > as many freedoms as feasible but the objective is identifying what is > in our actual best interests, not free-for-all ethics that have > no moral grounding. > > Think of it as a secular version of Christianity if you will, but it could > also be conceived as secular Judaism or secular Buddhism, et. al. > This is anti-nihilist, and takes the view that some behaviors are > objectively good and some that are evil, and likewise for the realm > of ideas and social values. It is time to abandon the view that > "anything goes" values are something other than a form of insanity. > > What is possible? What is thinkable? > > The idea is promotion of corporations based on the premise that profitable > businesses need to cultivate the best in people, which primarily means > US citizens even if, with luck, other societies might adapt the ideas > in question for themselves. > > Set aside the ways that "public service" is ordinarily conceived by American > business firms at this time in history. By that standard public service means > a form of charity primarily intended to burnish a company's image. Instead, > this is all about a company's mission statement and the deepest social values > of its leadership. The concept is not only to make money but to make better > people generally. Hence the bottom line is not gross profit but literally > making the world a better place. It is assumed that no-one in a firm > will stop making useful products or providing valued services > that can be appreciated prima facie for what they are. However, > the model assumes that business reputations matter greatly and that > with even a few significant examples most businesses would feel > compelled to do likewise. > > In other words, a business has two responsibilities, not just one, to the > shareholders. A business also has a responsibility to the community, > including those members of the community who are its employees. > > This would not apply to the smallest businesses except to minimum extent. > A business with 10 employees is in no position to invest much of anything > in the wider community. But at some point, we can use 100 employees > as a benchmark, responsibility to the community should become a factor > of consequence, perhaps calling for a 1% investment. At 1000 employees > this might become 5%, and so forth up to 10% or so for the very largest > and most profitable corporations. > > This does not mean government regulation, it means transparency by law, > so that a company's expenditures for genuine public service can be known > to anyone with an interest, including elected officials, journalists, > and educators. > > Where the government would play a role would be in expediting the process > by passage of laws that would make things easier for businesses to live up to > these standards. Where there would be regulations would be in passage > of laws that requite foreign businesses to adopt systems for their US > operations > that are consistent with those enacted by American business companies. > Exactly what might be involved would be left for future determination; > there are many kinds of businesses, including those with few employees > in America but that feature large sums of money. Under no circumstances > should American companies be disadvantaged with respect to non-American > firms doing business in the United States. > > > This is not a "tax." Monies spent for public service as outlined here would > be > disbursed at the discretion of each business. Moreover, simply because a > business provides a public service does not need to mean that it operates > in the red. Like Fox TV it might even earn a good deal of capital > and be positive financially for a business sponsor. Still, by their nature > some public services might not be able to do more than break even. > But any such venture that loses money could be terminated with short > notice so that a new and better service can be launched that > can be self-sustaining. > > The objective is to create a new kind of competition: Who can do the > most good for the community? This means every type of business > from bakeries to mega-banks will billions in assets. > > The objective is not simple charity, to repeat this point. What is intended > is that a business would invest in a public service venture that has some > direct relationship to its core enterprises. A publishing giant might want to > set up a new kind of university, a software business might want to establish > an online college that offers training in computer skills to people who > are seeking employment after an industrial company ceased operations. > A medical supplier or pharmaceutical firm might want to create a program > that offers low cost dental services based on low incomes. Or, for example, > a consortium of companies might want to take part in a joint venture > for a massive project such as cleaning up Salton Sea in southern > California and turning it into a middle class community with a world > class school system. There are numerous possibilities. > > Any business should benefit directly from whatever public service project > in takes part in. This is not meant to feature false modesty whereby > a company is recognized by a plaque in a park or a credit on a TV show, > but full recognition for services rendered. Something that can realize > maximum good publicity and due recognition by political and > other leaders. > > Some projects, if not all, might well be innovative and create new products > as part of the public service, or test existing products for reliability or > new uses. Any project should be directly associated with its business sponsor. > > "We are Random House, we publish quality books and we created > Writers University, in a league of its own, rated as highly in its subject > areas as any Ivy League school -and we did it with a performance based > system that has no faculty tenure, which integrates written text with > innovations in computer software, and which is so good that our > graduates are in demand all over the world." > > Think of your own examples of what can be done. > > The objective is to mobilize American business in a national competition > not to make America great in ways that we can scarcely imagine today. > > The objective, and this is only a first sketch for this idea, > is to create an economic system that re-creates Capitalism such that > doing entirely good things for American communities throughout > the country and, just maybe, sets an example for other nations > to emulate. Capitalism should not only be synonymous with making > money, it should do good things for American citizens -structurally, > as part of the process of being profitable. > > > Billy Rojas > > > -- > -- > Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community > <[email protected]> > Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism > Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
