Tag Archives: deregulation

WP Daily Prompt: elicit


I’m a progressive democrat. As such, I’ve been subjected to a choir of talking heads saying I need to understand the America that voted for D. Understand their perspective. Understand their grievances. And I’ll be honest, this seems like regular old liberal masochocism, but still….

This morning, prompted by a slew of Two Americas headlines, I thought, yes, indeed. We have two Americas. If you look at the voting map of America, you see very clearly that large cities overwhelming voted for HRC and smaller towns voted for D. But wait, there’s more. And no, this isn’t a scree about social wedge issues. It’s about Regulation.

Because Regulation is one of those issues that the 1% cares a lot about. Regulation elicits a cri de coeur from every corner, whether banking, industry, land use, construction, water, plastic bags and taxes. And while there are examples of successful deregulation, it is at the heart of many of our historic failures such as subprime mortgages and cable deregulation of 2003, oil transport without double hulls and subsequent spills (Cuyahoga River).

Ok, ok. So here’s the thought: Population. In big, big cities, population is an issue. You have millions of people counting on the same water, the same air, the same lane on the freeway at the same hour every day. You have millions of people sharing boundaries with other people and trust me, you in that small town somewhere in the middle of america, you don’t really know how dicey that becomes, or how quickly.

You don’t understand all those regulations about water use and the imperatives to be smarter about something as simple as storm runoff. You don’t understand about the pollution of several hundred thousand cars on the freeway, having to share space with you. You don’t understand that wildlife areas really are precious, seriously precious, because you have lots of them. We do not. We used to, but now we have people and neighborhoods and sprawl.

Don’t get me wrong, I love city living. But without Regulations? I think it would be a living hell taken over by the least attractive elements of our demographic. So instead of us bending over backwards to try to see it your way, maybe in this one area you could stretch a little as well and understand that we are dealing with problems you don’t have to think about. At all. Regulations, rules, guidelines are often there for a reason. A drag, I know. But true.

Take the time: Nick Werle on Free Markets and Nature

We tell ourselves stories, and sometimes we can see with frightening clarity the impact of those stories on our behavior.

A recent essay in 3 Quarks Daily by Nick Werle (Competing to Live: On Planet Earth and Being in Nature) takes a careful but wide ranging look at the many stories we tell ourselves about Nature.  He looks at David Attenborough’s Planet Earth series and the focus on the delicate balance in nature…and its requirements.  He looks at Darwin’s story in The Origin and sees similar threads regarding competition and the urge to survive. They both have a keen interest in understanding the mechanism of competition.

“In the rain forest, which we have seen has both high productivity and unceasing conflict, ‘competition for resources ensures that no one species dominates the jungle.’”

David Attenborough, Planet Earth

All of Nature is Regulated and Interconnected…and we are part of Nature

At the end he raises the obvious question of how we humans, the closest relative to the marauding gangs of chimpanzees that are depicted wrecking havoc in the jungle, care or alternately don’t seem to care about our place in the balance of nature.  Deregulationism has at its core a willful faith that the market will balance out all transgressions, that it is a marvelous–nay, Magic–self-regulating machine that is well within the bounds of Nature itself. It is a faith that ignores the obvious issue of interconnectedness.  Witness the global concern over Japan’s under-regulated, under-managed, growth focused nuclear program in the last month.  Earthquakes and tsunamis are natural disasters; nuclear meltdowns as a result of deregulation are not, and no market forces  can adjust the damage done.

As we have seen with increasing regularity, our wave of deregulation–from bubble to bust, from drilling and chemicals to “clean-ups,” implosions,  and overpopulation, we are not living in balance with the planet we call home.

We have managed to upset the balance of so many systems that it seems to me we are now living well outside of nature.  Plastic may well be the iconic metaphor for all we have become. The story we tell ourselves, and what we are actually doing, are not concordant, even as they could be.  Attenborough makes an argument that yes, we are part of Nature, and our particular playing field is uniquely human, but is nonetheless part of the large balance we would do well to have an interest in. The point Attendborough makes is more subtle than those put forth by deregulationists:

It positions humanity not as an alien force superimposed on an independently existing natural world but as a part of the same precariously balance system. The argument is so affective because it refuses to plead. Instead it suggests that we reconsider the boundaries we draw between systems we hope to keep in balance.

Instead of defining the jungle as the wild and unthinkable state of nature, this naturalist approach seeks to fuse man’s understanding of himself with the complexities of Nature in order to ensure that Planet Earth never becomes a stunning monument to irrecoverable beauty.

Running on ice + Naomi Klein and when “being against” is better than “being for”

Yesterday I got up thinking: this snow ain’t got nuthin on me.  I’m running today, no way I’m not running.  Well, some things got in the way, like a broken furnace (now fixed, happily) and a number of other tasks.  It all worked out well, though, because in the back of my mind I was plotting my escape.

I figured that if I could just get down to the beach walk in the park near our house, I’d find a sun dried stretch of running ground that I could just loop back and forth on.  That plan was true–but getting down there was a trick.  What I found was that the process of running in ice and snow makes the run intense and focused–no gawking at scenery–but a real meditative eye towards where your next step will land.  Once on the dry walk by the beach, I could take in the sights, but getting in and getting out was a mind focusing exercise–and lovely!  3.75+ miles, my first good run since my cold.  Can’t wait to repeat today.

Naomi Klein is profiled in the New Yorker (Dec 8th) and it’s well worth spending some time on.  She’s an amazing woman with an honest, clear eye on the scoundrels who would fix the game of life in their favor at every turn. I first learned about her way back with her first book, No Logo and really resonated with her approach. Her new book, The Shock Doctrine, takes apart the Milton Friedman theory of “free markets” (good lord, has there ever been a more insidious example of double speak?) that has evolved over the last 30 years into a manipulated game in which disruptive events are either created or alternately seized upon in order to push through a whole slew of market deregulating legislations and market focused actions.


Southeast Asia post-tsunami: the shoreline which was once inhabited by local populations is now sold off to Resorts, with a capital R.  Ditto Katrina.

Terrorist attacks of 911: the list is too numerous, but think broadly about the Patriot Act, the stike-first declaration of war, the appointment of czars and outsourcers like Blackwater.  Too numerous.

The subprime and Big Three bailout: we’re in the middle of a very nasty hostage crisis wherein we’re being told the end of the world will come if we don’t pay up.  To some degree, of course, very bad things will happen if these companies collapse, and those bad things will hit us hard.  But the thing is: seems like those bad things are happening anyway and we’re getting hit hard–so, what’s up?

Klein believes we’re beginning to learn, we’re beginning to recognize and pay attention to that little voice that says, Hmm, haven’t we been here before?

The New Yorker article reflects on her life and approach, and there’s an interesting section which explores the benefit of recognizing a bad approach and working to change it, while avoiding the trap of being stuck in “favor” of anything.  That alone is worth meditating on.

Her new book, which is definitely on my wish list, is The Shock Doctrine.