Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

A QUICK ONE FOR PETER

—

by

James A. Bacon
in

EMR is trying to catch up now that TRILO-G is going out for Beta Review and the fourth printing of The Shape of the Future is about to ship to Amazon, et. al. First we will do a post on the other theme raised in Peters ‘Northrop’ post (Governance Transformation) to answer some questions and respond to comment there, then we will do a post on the new TTI report (meeting related to that this PM) since there seems to be some confusion, and finally a note on why it is foolish to expect a “recovery,” but first a quick question for Peter:

What is it about these Commonwealth-based food processing plants?

First it is peanut butter, now cookie dough. Three separate E. Coli strains in cookie dough from one plant?!?

Could it be that Virginia’s “business friendly” regulatory environment spills over and impacts federal inspections?

What occurs?

EMR

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

25 responses to “A QUICK ONE FOR PETER”

  1. Gooze Views Avatar
    Gooze Views

    emr,
    you are nailing me to the cross, buddy. business friendly? are you kidding?
    Peter Galuszka

  2. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    No, No, Peter. Not bad intent. This just the sort of issue about which you have very useful insights and observations.

    EMR

  3. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    Here's a question I would ask the settlement pattern/transformative governance folks.

    Do you want MORE govt rules and regulations to further control those who produce foodstuffs like peanut butter and if you do – do you want it done at a National level or at a local level – realizing of course how very expensive it would be for each local govt to maintain a comprehensive lab for testing much less the problems with testing peanut butter that comes from afar…. at plants where local governance at the consuming level would have no authority over the producers from afar?

    which brings up an even more tantalizing question which is.. if you have a NUR and the peanuts come from the USR… then who or what administers the governance of the USR when it comes to the things supplied to the NUR?

  4. Gooze Views Avatar
    Gooze Views

    EMR,
    Just kidding. On your point, guess the more things change, the more they stay the same. We need a new Upton Sinclair these days to expose dangerous product making practices and I would think food processing which has demonstrably fatal effects is a likely candidate.
    I don't really care about the small cost it might take to upgrade processing and protect the public. I am sure that the pooh-bahs made the same argument when the Jungle came out about a century ago. (FYI, I had a great aunt who died in the early 20th century after eating a can of poisoned cherries.)
    What amazes me is that in this day and age, you have such bungled regulation and inspection that people can be sickened or die from eating peanut butter. To hell with the cost argument, let's get at least a minimum standard out there. Reports say that the firm that made the peanut butter had faulty, ill-kept buildings that allowed vermin free access to the food. Would you do that in your own kitchen? Or, if you choose to live in filth, would you say you do so because you are a proper conservative who wants to keep the government off our backs?
    Peter Galuszka

  5. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    I think one of the marks of civilization is when people through governance take actions to prevent individuals and business entities from engaging in practices that harm people.

    I also think that you must have a national capability to do this or else such individuals who would take advantage of others – will just go to the places that have the weakest protections.

    Before the EPA came along, it was standard industry practice to play off the states and localities against each other – and still do for those things that are regulated locally and not coordinated at the higher levels.

    but I still have questions about how these issues would/should work with "Home" rule or NUR-rule governance circumstances.

  6. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    EMR:

    I hope you will "practice what you preach" about resource depletion by making The Shape of the Future available on a Kindle. It is presently only available as a tree killing paper based book.

    I am very interested in reading you book in order to look for "the logical conclusions" I sometimes find missing in this blog. Your new governance structure for example. The US Constitution specifies certain rights for the federal government. It goes on to say that those rights not reserved for the federal government or reserved for the people are automatically the right of the states. There is no authority for the dooryard, cluster, NUR etc level. How would present governance structures have to be changed to accommodate your new view?

  7. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Yet another example of our perverted system of government. The American people and especially the clowns who represent us and the media, are easily bored children. It's no fun to make things work and work well and efficiently.

    Rather, we want more solutions to more problems.

    Food safety is basic. Yet, it's not being done correctly. But we have the fools in Congress passing legislation to regulate the world's climate! We have both Social Security and Medicare teetering on the brink of bankruptcy, while Congress looks at launching a government health insurance program.

    WMATA is the most incompetent agency ever and cannot perform its job today; yet we are expanding its operations to Dulles Airport and beyond. And we are setting up the line with a diversion through Tysons Corner that will make the trip between the Airport and Downtown DC longer than most experts recommend.

    I'm not arguing against change in general or any specific change. But why don't we spend five years learning to do today's responsibilities correctly and efficiently before we launch new missions?

    We are as foolish as trying to take a black belt test for Tae Kwon Do after passing the high white belt test.

    TMT

  8. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    Peter:

    You are right on with respect to inspection and food safety.

    One of our themes is that First World citizens have not been paying the full cost of civilization for the past 50 years.

    We have been living off of Natural Capital, borrowing from China, Japan, Russia, et. al. and of course stealing from future generations.

    The real crime is that in doing this we have enriched 5 % of the population, 50% is losing ground and 45% is Running Hard as they Can to keep up.

    Food security is one of the most blatant examples — along with the Affordable and Accessible Housing Crisis and the Access and Mobility Crisis.

    Groveton said:

    "I hope you will "practice what you preach" about resource depletion by making The Shape of the Future available on a Kindle. It is presently only available as a tree killing paper based book."

    NO, NO, NO the only paper version avaliable is used (recycled) Second Printing. The Third Printing now at Amazaon, ect. is a CD in PDF. The same with the soon to be released Fourth Printing.

    By the way Kindle II reads PDFs but not the PowerPoints that are also on the Third and Fourth Printing.

    When the Fourth Printing is avaliable I will send you a free copy of the Third if you would like. Same conclusions, just errors and unclear sentences fixed after a careful review by Fahmah.

    "I am very interested in reading you book in order to look for "the logical conclusions" I sometimes find missing in this blog."

    That is the aim of TRILO-G, The Shape of the Future is our view of the world in 2000. Still relevent but there are five big areas that were not addressed completely.

    They form the First Volume of TRILO-G.

    "Your new governance structure for example. The US Constitution specifies certain rights for the federal government. It goes on to say that those rights not reserved for the federal government or reserved for the people are automatically the right of the states. There is no authority for the dooryard, cluster, NUR etc level."

    My point exactly, and yours. For over 200 years the states have had the power to enable functional sub-state governance. They have not done it.

    "How would present governance structures have to be changed to accommodate your new view?"

    This specific is the subject of the next post on this Blog. It is dealt with in The Shape of the Future and updated in TRILO-G.

    By the way every one on our goverance ideas has been field tested and some have been the law in some states for 40 years — primarily in Urban Support Regions.

    Larry:

    You just need to read and remember with more care.

    EMR

  9. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    OK Got it. The PowerPoints are a problem. I'll buy the CD when it's available.

    You are absolutely right about state government being able to de-evolve power to localities. And you are absolutely right about the fact that many states have done this. By and large, Virginia has not. The other question is cross-state governance. The Washington, DC NUR (as I understand it) would contain parts of Virginia, parts of Maryland and all of DC. So, we not only have to get the crowd in Richmond off our backs (and out of our pockets) but we need to hybridize a governance structure with Maryland and DC too – no?

  10. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Wouldn't our pockets be picked by Maryland and, most especially, the District of Columbia if we (NoVA) were joined with them in a governmental structure?

    I'd rather that government dysfunctionality exist between VA, DC and MD, than to have my fate and wallet subservient to DC and MD.

    TMT

  11. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    Groveton:

    When EMR was first hired to look into changes in governance structure and re allocation of powers by Rockefeller in New York State if one looked around the US of A there were a few others out in front: Hawaii, Vermont, Oregon and … drumroll … VIRGINIA.

    In the early 70s all the progress was wiped out by some who are still active in the Elephant Clan.

    They still think they did the right thing…

    TMT:

    YOu are right to worry but there are things that involve all five states in the Washington-Baltimore NUR. Your core fears are based on thinking of one level or two.

    There must be much more.

    Hopefully the next post on this topic will make it more clear.

    EMR

  12. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "Before the EPA came along, it was standard industry practice to play off the states and localities against each other -….."

    You mean like health insurance? Would you support a national EPA of Health to fix that problem?

    RH

  13. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "We have been living off of Natural Capital, borrowing from China, Japan, Russia, et. al. and of course stealing from future generations."

    What do you propose we live on? Some people tseem to think that using natural capital means using something that either belongs to all of us, or belongs to our children. (Notice the inherent property rights argument here.) They think tha this is an externality that should be taxed to eliminate or reduce the use of natural capital, juast as we do with pollution.

    But whether we use natural capital and then don't have it, or tax it untilwe do without, the end result is the same: WE DON'T GET TO USE IT.

    The argument is that if the depleters had to pay the cost of depletion then renewables would be cost effecitve. They wouldn't be any cheaper, but systems that rely on depletion would be more expensive. Somehow we are supposed to do all this for "free – no cost". It turns out in this case that the cost of depletion is the same as the cost of conservation of natural capital except that with conservation you never get the advantage of actualloy using it: we save it because it belongs to our children and they save it because it belongs to theirs.

    If we are going to hold the users responsible for the costs of depletion, we had better be prepared to hold the conservors responsible for the cost of conservation.

    RH

  14. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "I think one of the marks of civilization is when people through governance take actions to prevent individuals and business entities from engaging in practices that harm people."

    And one of the failures of civilization is when we allow people to harm others through governance by claiming they are preventing harm.

    RH

  15. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "Do you want MORE govt rules and regulations to further control those who produce foodstuffs like peanut butter and if you do …."

    Some people seem to be very concerned about teh wave of "socialism" trhey see happening under the current government administration. There is going to be a cost associated with socializing the production of peanut butter, or at least socializing the supervision of the production of peanut butter.

    My view is that if we spend money on socializing things, then there is at least some chance that I or someone I know will get some benefit from that spending. But if the Bernie Madoff of peanut butter makes off with billions while the government sits on its hands, then I will never see any good come of that money, and I may be dead, besides.

    Total Costs = Production Costs +
    External Costs + Government Cost.

    I'm in favor of finding the lowest Total Cost for peanut butter.

    RH

  16. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    here's an example RH.

    a guy owns a piece of land and decides that it's in a good location and there is a need for toilet facilities so he sets up a pay-per-use toilet… and folks are happy to use it..the price is reasonable, and the guy makes a profit.

    the only problem is that he dumps the poop in a ditch behind the toilets and that ditch flows into the city streets ….

    and so you have "others" …"we allow people to harm others through governance by claiming they are preventing harm."

    and then we end up with:

    " Total Costs = Production Costs +
    External Costs + Government Cost."

    so my question is .. how do you classify the issue of putting the poop in the ditch that then flows onto city streets…?

    is that an "external cost"

    or is that a "government cost"?

    more important – those that "harm" that guy by refusing to let him dump poop in the ditch… how would you keep them from "harming" that guy who was "only trying to make a living"?

  17. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    That would be an external cost. We can reduce that cost by increasing government cost (for regulation) and increasing production costs (for installing septic).

    The question is whether those two increases are greater or lsee than the damage caused by the former condition.

    A second question is whether the users are still happy to pay the new (higher) costs to use the toilets. If they are not, that poop is going to happen any way and it may still wind up in the streets and streams.

    It does not matter if it is a governemnt cost, an external cost, or a production cost: we constantly lose sight of the real issue when we focus on one or the other. The only thing that matters is whether we have the lowest total cost: if we do not, then someone – on one side or the other – is getting something they are not paying for, or do not need.

    What is the point of paying a billion dollars in government costs to get rid of the last atom of mercury in a ton of coal if the probable damage from that molecule is far less than that?

    Those that "harm" the guy by refusing to let him dump poop in the ditch are NOT doing him any harm UNLESS the cost of preventing poop in the ditch is MORE than the cost of damage from allowing poop in the ditch. And, in that case, the harm is not only to the operator but to the users who now must pay MORE to use the facility, because they arepaying for cleanup that is not needed.

    It isn't a matter of not allowing poop in the ditch: we know that isn't going to happen, but it is a question of whether we require state of the art transmogrifacation of the poop using nuclear reactions to utterly dismember it into its component atoms, and how much energy and other waste products that process produces.

    At some point we ALWAYS will get to the point at which our demands for fewer and fewer externalities will result in greater (if different) externalities and higher total costs. We have to examine the externalitiwes WE cause with the same vigor that we complain about the ones we endure, othwerwise we are literally shooting ourselves in the foot.

    We are not doing him any harm unless our solution causes a higher TOTAL cost, but if that IS the case then we are harming not only him, but ourselves, and our ability to do other good work, because we are wasting money doing work that isn't cost effective.

    Demanding TOO MUCH cleanup is not green, and it isn't smart.

    RH

  18. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    How To Make Sausage

    A lesson in the "Government Cost" term in Ray's Famous Equation.

    "Wind energy has long been a nonstarter in [North Carolina] because the best wind speeds are found in ecologically sensitive areas: Appalachian ridge tops and pristine coastlines. Today in Raleigh, a Senate committee of the General Assembly is scheduled to debate a proposal to ban commercial wind power development in the mountains.

    The "proposal to ban wind power," called "SB1068 and H809, Permitting of Wind Energy Facilities," began as a proposal not to ban wind power. In other words, via something called "politics" the proposal to permit wind energy has ended up as a proposal ban it."

    This is especially confusing since last year the legislature passed a bill mandating what the state's energy portfolio should look like.

    RH

  19. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    How To Make Sausage, Part 2

    "In a city of 8 million people, LADWP has found 4000 law breakers who are violating the water use rules during the current drought. If there are 1 million homes with lawns and let's assume that 25% of them are breaking the law and watering (and when we walk around Little Holmby we see many of them), then there are 250,000 "criminal waterers" out there to catch. If 4,000 have been caught then the average "water criminal" faces a 4000/250000 = 1.6% chance of being caught and the fine if caught equals $430 so the expected fine from cheating = .016*430 = $6.88. Not a very impressive deterrent!"

    You can see why increasing government costs in order to decrease external costs can easily become a losing proposition.

    RH

  20. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    " The only thing that matters is whether we have the lowest total cost"

    the lowest cost for the guy dumping the poop is for him to dump it… and not pay to have it hauled away and processed or disposed of.

    What is lowest cost for the folks who are receiving the poop?

    Isn't their lowest cost to not allow it to start with since they not only have to pay to clean it up but they have to put up with the adverse impacts to them also in terms of smell and disease threats?

    Who would you have decide who should pay and who should not?

    Would you appoint the guy who pooped and the folks receiving the poop to a committee to decide and vote?

    or would you have a person who was elected by both of the groups or would you have a benevolent dictator type who was the grand poobah of arbitration and all of his decisions are final?

    Ray – you have a simplistic and unworkable idea.

    Name one place in the entire world where it works like you advocate?

    If it were such a good approach, would that not be a lot of places already using it?

  21. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "the lowest cost for the guy dumping the poop …"

    But that isn't the lowest total cost. Neither is lowest cost for people receiving the poop, the lowest total cost.

    The lowest total cost is the optimum mix of external costs, government costs, and production costs.

    Production "costs" includes the benefits to the product users.

    External "costs" includes the benefits to those who are not users: the ones who receive the poop, as you put it. They benefit by having a going business in their community (pardon the pun). They benefit from employmnent provided by the business etc.

    No one benefits from whatever pollution results from the business: that is always going to be a cost, and it is never going away. You cannot have zero pollution.

    Government can require a common septic system, they could require the business connect to city sewer. They could require trucks to haul it away. They could require primary, secondary, or tertiary treatment on site, but that would require energy use (and pollution) and result in sludge to be hauled away and disposed of.

    Each of those options adds to the production cost and therefore the Total cost. But, Someone, Somewhere is going to deal with that poop, or its residue, and the transportation thereof. They are going to have the cost of an externality: which isn't going away, not at any price.

    RH

  22. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    All we can do is figure out the cost of that externality and have government make sure they are reimbursed by the company (and by extension its users).

    There is a cost for having government do that, which adds to the Total Cost. Maybe the lowest total cost (today) is to have the waste trucked to another city wich has excess capacity in its treatment plant, and they will accept the waste for a small fee.

    So, government mandates that the waste be hauled away in order to get the lowest total cost and the best overall value to ALL of its citzens.

    Then, next week, diesel prices go through the roof, and that is no longer the best option. Both government and the operator have an incentive to change the regs to the next cheapest option.

    ——————————–

    "Isn't their lowest cost to not allow it to start with since they not only have to pay to clean it up but they have to put up with the adverse impacts to them also in terms of smell and disease threats?"

    No.

    You keep coming back to to that when it is obvious that this is NOT the case and cannot be.

    It does not matter what THEIR lowest cost is. They can only achieve that by increasing someone else's costs higher than need be, and so the TOTAL COST to EVERYONE including themselves turns out to be higher.

    This is your example so look at what it means if their lowest cost is not to allow it to start. go right to the source and take a good close look at what you are saying. In order for it not to start they would have to be allowed to say "You are not allowed to poop." They would literally be killing people via constipation to get their "lowest cost".

    They do not have that right.

    They don't have to clean it up. We have government to make sure the operator does that to a reasonable degree. How do we decide what a reasonable degree is?

    Well, suppose they DID have to clean it up themselves. It is unlikely they would go to the trouble of imposing the costs of tertiary treatment on themselves: they would probably opt for some lesser cost treatment that leaves them with something they can live with.

    That is how you decide what a reasonable degree is, and that is EXACTLY what the equation demands.

    Yuo cannot EVER get to the lowest costs for everyone by looing at only one part on the equation, as if it was somehow "THEIR" lowest cost that matters.

    We cannot very well argue about "our" economy and "our" environment and then turn around and complain about "my" costs. As soon as you go that route, then you need to be able to explain just what it is that you "own" for the costs you incur. Then you need to shut up about what you do not own.

    We cannot claim to own "everything" such as the environment unless "we" are willing to share it with everyone else who owns it, and that includes those people who have a need to poop.

    What the equation does is balance all those conflicting needs and claims without putting ANYONES, first.

    This idea is not simplistic and unworkable, and in fact we use it everywhere, every day. We do not necessarily do it very well: we may be shipping when we should be treating on site, or vice versa. We may be treating too much in some places and too little in others, but in a general way we try to make the equation work.

    It is your idea that is unworkable and simplistic. Just show me any city or town anywhere that managed to get the lowest total cost by not allowing poop "to start in the first place".

    The people will require the operator to do something about cleanup, which they will pay for through usage fees. What they won't do is shut down every toilet in town or make the fees so high they cannot afford to use them.

    I know it is hard to get your mind around, but there is always a most economic value for pollution and it is NEVER when pollution is zero.

    RH

  23. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Suppose that what we are producing is government itself.

    Total Cost = Cost of Production + external Cost + Cost of Government Regulation. Which is the actual cost of operating government plus the external costs it causes. (Ever notice that bit about the government paper work act on your tax forms? The government actually tries to measure its own externalities.) + Plus the cost of government regulating itself, which would be the cost of holding elections, and the cost of enforcing internal controls like the ones which say no person or group should bear an undue burden due to environmental regulations or lack thereof.

    Some people think the best government is that which is smallest and governs least, but this equation shows that this idea cannot be true, any more than the idea that the most economical pollution is zero pollution.

    RH

  24. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "Few things blind human beings to the actual consequences of what they are doing like a heady feeling of self-righteousness during a crusade to smite the wicked and rescue the downtrodden. "

    Thomas Sowell

  25. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "“It’s important that those who consume the products being made all around the world to the benefit of America — and it’s our own consumption activity that’s causing the emission of greenhouse gases, then quite frankly Americans need to pay for that,” Commerce Secretary Gary Locke told the American Chamber of Commerce in Shanghai."

    From Environmental Capital.

    RH

Leave a Reply

Read More