May 30, 2004
Cord Blood and Alternative Energy
Recently I tripped over two articles in the NY Times science section that caught my attention, one related to the use of umbilical cord blood to save lives, the other discussed the prospects for an enduring alternative energy market. The compelling truth underlying both of these desirable developments is that some resources in our national government should be devoted to supporting them. Before the undying cry of “markets want to be free” rings out once more please read on before you comment.
I am not talking about the huge kinds of subsidies devoted to keeping the flow of oil traveling around the world. I am not talking about the massive doses of research money spent by our government developing and testing drugs so that they can be sold by major drug companies. I am talking about the development of standards and the support for regulations that will allow both of these disparate technical areas to develop and even flourish. The difference between the philosophy of government used to create the huge, generally shared prosperity of the 1950’s and 1960’s and the corporate elitist prosperity of the 1990’s and the new century is visible in the development paths of these new technologies.
In the early days of our giant drug companies, when antibiotics were still new technologies, and the interest in germs was focused on building new ways to kill them and not us, the government had a major but limited role. It developed methods for standardizing doses among other things that it contributed to the development of those new technological marvels. Our unprecedented long lives and healthy population based on those and other government supported technologies contributed greatly to the prosperity of the ‘50s and ‘60s. In those days government regulation was not viewed as an intruder in healthy markets. In fact it was accepted as vital for creating the standards and systems of measurement that assured consumers that the new systems of treatment were efficacious. The research dollars provided were also as welcome as they are today but their benefits were focused on what they did for our consumers. They had not yet become welfare payments for the benefit of corporations that developed the new technologies into commercial products.
Because of the fact that umbilical cords and the placenta that they are attached to contain large quantities of blood including stem cells useful for many purposes they are sometimes used to save lives. The blood supply from those often wasted resources, is useful, and could become far more useful at little cost to our nation. Because of the difficulty related to our new-found distrust of government regulation and support for new technologies progress is slow in this promising area of medical technology. Our major political parties are too busy racing to see who can spend the most money on advertising to pay attention to this wasted national resource.
In regard to alternative energy production and use, our government abandoned any real support for systems that could replace our insane dependence on imported fuels after the Carter Administration. We had already forgotten how painful the days of the early 1970’s were. We blamed Carter for the devastating inflation caused by oil price increases and the Vietnam War, neither of which he had any control over. Today the simple introduction of a, “lifetime cost per unit of energy produced analysis model”, defined by the government, could really eventually help alternatives flourish. It is clear that we are somewhere on the top of the bell shaped curve that tracks recoverable oil resources in the world. We are also on the top of the natural gas bell curve for gas produced domestically. Those two facts dictate our future vulnerability to market conditions that to say the least are not encouraging. They are particularly not encouraging to people who like the idea of creating the maximum amount of prosperity for every human on the planet as a means of promoting international peace.
Government is a human tool for creating cooperative action, so are corporations. The power of the corporate world is transcendent and government power is on the wane except in our personal lives. There the apostles of limited governmental control of corporate entities find the police powers of massive government over human individuals too seductive to be resisted. Thus we have an Attorney General who seeks far greater police powers over the individual. This continues while his counterpart in enforcing regulations that keep our air and water clean and safe never saw a pollution stream that couldn’t be used to season breakfast cereal.
We are the real failures in our governmental system. We, the people, are failing to preserve our incredible heritage of freedom, liberty and natural resources for the future. We are failing not because government is too big to fight, it is still our tool if we reach out and take control of it. Perhaps because our lives are either too hard, or too easy depending on what side of the great financial divide in this nation we live on today, we prefer to ignore it. We have any number of excuses, but it is our failure or success at keeping life here worth living that will cause our grandchildren to bless us or curse our names as their lives develop. Remember that when you are finally facing the future that we are creating today by our inattention and inaction. God bless you all and keep you safe in a world where neither terrorism nor government is our important enemy. Our own inertia will do us more harm in the end.
Posted by Henri Reynard at May 30, 2004 05:01 PMHenri, you claim that government power is on the wane in our economic lives, yet every day the power of government over our economic lives increases. Social security is getting more and more intractable, we are throwing more and more money via government force down the black hole of Medicare. The prosperity in the 90s was even greater than that of the 50s and 60s, and over the next 20 years prosperity will increase even more, if the last 70 years are any indication- if we keep government out as much as possible.
Yet what you are putting out there is a vision of the world with is just Ashcroft from the left. Ashcroft and the right believe they can trust the government enough to say X person is a terrorist, and we dont need to give any proof. The left trusts the government enough to allow them to have massive control over medical research or, even more dangerous, matters of how and when we can criticize politicians (see campaign finance reform). What I believe the left doesnt understand is that control over people’s economic lives IS control over their PERSONAL lives. If you tax someone 10% more, you are taking away about an hour of their lives per day, because they will have to work that extra hour to make the same amount of money (like say, research into new energy sources). You are basically drafting them in support of whatever social policy you have deemed worthy of their time. If you require them to give up their SUV, then they will get stuck in the snow in Minnesota; or, less drastically, they will be less happy because their choices are limited by government action.
On your specific point, there is no market failure when it comes to new energy sources that requires the government’s correction, which is the only justification for taking away people’s freedom to extra their goods and services on the basis of mutual gain. If gas prices were to get high enough, hybrids sales would increase greatly- its about letting people CHOOSE for themselves how to lead their lives. If someone wants to waste 3 bucks a gallon on a gas guzzler when a hybrid is available, thats their right and they must pay for that right. We need to free up private business to experiment more with neutral energy, for sure, and we need to allow drilling in Alaska and uncap all that oil that was pointlessly capped within our own boarders.
Back on the broader point, we have a cycle in our country in which the government overregulates and then the businesses cant make a profit and then they get corporate welfare (at which point the left exclaims that this is a system set up for the corporations). What needs to be done is to get rid of the regulations that start the problems to begin with. The drug companies that you referred to are a perfect example of this- if it wasn’t for the fact that they are so overregulated, they would make the same profits without any propping up from the government.
To expand on this problem- look at our tax system. We have a horribly progressive tax system that punishes the middle. upper middle classes and some rich in the name of “compassion.” Yet, the really unscrupulous rich can pay their lobbyists to buy loopholes in the tax system and get out of paying most taxes. When libertarians propose a flat tax, which would eliminated all corporate loopholes and tax breaks for those with lobbyists, it’s the left that is up in arms about it- think about the system you are protecting. I know this may seem a bit off topic to what you are saying, but I think it’s the same thing. If we require companies to switch to other energy sources, they will not be profitable (or will be less profitable), which will lead to corporate welfare. And who will get this corporate welfare? The same people who get the tax breaks- the ones who have political connections, and the good companies who would have worked to create new solutions to energy problems will be pushed out. Its the same old story- how many times do we need to see it before we will learn?
MISHA,
We can’t afford to get the oil mules-a-runnin’ within our own borders it’s actually too expensive. And if we were to begin a reliance on domestic oil it would be too over priced and put a hault to most domestic commerce.
Secondly, we need to stop governmental favoritism of large corporations and more responsively monitor special interest and bundling. Bush/RNC is quite the favoritist. They’ve single-handedly nearly destroyed this country’s fishing industries with corporate favoritism, making certain that they can only sell to a handfull of Bush donor corporations. But ofcourse if you aren’t for them you must be an “Isolationist”(der’)like there’s no leway! Take a look at what the republican socialist agenda has done to farming in the midwest US. They aren’t allowed to have healthy competition anymore.
Thirdly, taxation of large corporations is not a bad thing given the red carpet incentives many states actually dole out to corporations.
I am for flat taxation, but here’s the thing you don’t see Misha, large corporations have loopholes and write-offs available to them that we couldn’t even imagine ourselves ever having. They can write off just about everything with money back. Not to mention the bail outs and grants and government backed loans and sale of bonds. They have government lobbies pushing for deregulation, anti-trust, bad for the nation trade deals, rights that you’d be surprised they even have available to them(P.O.box status etc.)offshore accounts and businesses that go without auditting. Oh wait I forgot republicans hate audits, right? Yeah so the 1.1 trilion dollars unaccounted for at the DoD is just fine and the 56 billion unaccounted for at HUD that’s fine too, audits are bad. Viva le Enron!!! Viva le Worldcom!!(oh wait you hate the french too, damn.) Yes republican, support the corporate feudalist powers that be and blame the lack of money on the responsible democrats in government. You don’t know the half of what corporations have available to them but you believe the nation isn’t prospering because of those who want accountability, yeah it’s us responsibility seekers. The corporate robber barrons are the good guys, right?
So how many wooden nickels are you going to take before you stop buying into that line that corporations are the good guys and don’t ever screw anybody? Small businesses aren’t getting Bush’s tax cuts. They are getting gouged by the state and by federal government. And Bush and the GOP doesn’t want to do a damn thing about it. They’re taking the bundled special interest monies of the mega giants that DO NOT want competition.
It’s small business that is the ‘hope’, not the favoritist agendas of the right wing that shuts small business out with massive cuts for large scale corporations. Viva la monopoly! Huh Misha?
Posted by: skunkbud at May 30, 2004 09:59 PMSkun, then come over with us libertarians. Get rid of all loopholes in the tax system (including for corporations), no favoratism because the government would mess around with the economy. What you are seeing here is what you always see when you give gov. the power to regulate- rent seeking. get government out of that business, set up a flat tax with NO wiggle room where politicians can slip in favors. Nah, it makes too much sense, wouldnt happen.
Posted by: Misha Tseytlin at May 30, 2004 11:59 PMWow. Why is that every city and state, even those governed by Democrats, offers tax incentives to companies willing to come to their towns? Guess what happens if the goverment doesn’t give these “inequitable” tax breaks to businesses?
It might appeal to some sort of distorted leftist idea of “fairness,” but businesses will just say thank you very much and head for cheap labor markets overseas.
This kind of “fairness” creates a widespread disaster for average Americans and cuts into the tax base that’s needed for all the left’s pet social programs. You can’t have it both ways.
Do you think that heading off such disasters is as easy as “punishing Benedict Arnold” companies, as John Kerry promises to do? Forcing them to remain in places where their operating and labor costs make it impossible to compete with foreign imports? Will tax incentives to stay in America do the trick, as Kerry suggests (oh wait, sorry, that’s another tax break for businesses—cancel that).
To put it another way, how many, even among our high-minded leftists, will pay $10 for something made in America that costs $5 if it’s made in China?
Shall we solve this problem with illegal protectionist tarrifs on foreign goods? Shall we “unilaterally” (I love having the chance to use this term against the left) start trade wars that punish and impoverish workers in third-world countries while destroying our export markets, destroying our industries and destroying our tax-base? Oh yes! Because that would be fair!
I really think it’s high time that the American left puts down their Marx and takes a primer course on economics.
Posted by: Martin at May 31, 2004 12:40 AMHaha! Martin, I think you got mixed up somewhere.
The unilateral trade wars, punishing and impoverishing workers in third-world countries while destroying our export markets, destroying our industries and destroying our tax-base, paying $10 for something made in America that costs $5 if it’s made in China, those are all Bush’s policies. That’s what’s going on right now!
You crack me up, sometimes. Thanks!
So what do you want to do about it? Make it worse? Your tax proposals are like trying to put out a fire with gasoline.
Posted by: Martin at May 31, 2004 11:54 AMWhich tax proposals in particular, Martin? The proposal that only American companies that pay taxes in America can do business with the federal government? That doesn’t sound like a bad idea.
But think about this Martin: You seem to be saying it’s OK to subsidize American companies through tax loopholes or outright grants to help them stay competitive. What does it say about American companies if they can’t compete globally without massive taxpayer infusions?
I agree that the taxpayer shouldn’t hold up these companies. They should be held accountable and not cost the average folk for their greed or lack of skills. Look at Hong Kongs sink or swim ultra capitalism system.
Posted by: Comment on Cord Blood Banks at September 23, 2004 05:03 PM
