Trying to Make Sense of it All

  My friend once called me the most capitalistic guy he had ever known, but I think he missed the point. I had always been the type to try to make money off of anything, taking the most random ideas and working them in every possible direction in order to find a niche market and make a little money. More times than not there was already a market for what I wanted to do but I still made money and it was fun and I learned a lot. I don't think it was about the money though, but about getting around the way things were supposed to work, the way all my friends did their lives. When I had to begin trading my time to my boss I began to realize what I now refer to as my "middle class trap," which is what the blog I'll be reviewing tonight is about.
  I found the blog at The Smirking Chimp called The One-Percent's Doctrine For The Rest Of Us: Slavery, Feudalism, La-Da-Da, Dee-Dee-Dee... by Mark Ames. Ames had a newspaper in Russia that was shut down after a raid by Russian authorities, I don't know if that gives him any credibility when writing about capitalism and social class dynamics but it is certainly more credibility than I have, which is good enough for me tonight.
  His argument is that it is in the best interest of the 1% wealthiest to keep people where they are by treating people as stock. He suggests that this is the same thing wealthy southerners did with slave trading and eventually led to the South seceded in the Civil War. The slave owners viewed their slaves as assets that would only increase in value as their population increased and were great stock to have in their "asset portfolio." He gives evidence to show that major corporations also view their employees in the same terms. A corporation wants to maximize its profits by maximizing its return on its employees. It is hard for me to see these corporations as villains for this though. This isn't an idea that is just carried by the largest corporations but is the foundation of capitalism and all business. Why should anyone hire me? They should hire me because I can create more profit for them than I will cost and more profit than the other guy interviewing. No business is going to hire someone if they think that it will cost them more to pay the employee than they will benefit the business. The author says that the "profit per employee metric" is a new way big business is looking at employees rather than trying to maximize their return on their investments, but I think that an employee is an investment.
  The author cites a report from a consulting company saying, “if a company’s capital intensity doesn’t increase, profit per employee is a pretty good proxy for the return on intangibles. The hallmark of financial performance in today’s digital age is an expanded ability to earn ‘rents’ from intangibles." The author uses this as a point to show where business is focusing on exploiting employees but I think that he may be taking it out of context some. The quote is saying that if a company doesn't invest more money into the business that profit per employee is a good measure to explain profits in an increasingly digital age. Profits from the "intangible" is the value added by employee creativity and hard work. It is a business' purpose to increase profits and you need to know where your profits are coming from, even if that means measuring your employees.
  In the end, I think that the author's point that it's the goal of the business to extract value from their employees is valid and that it definitely treats people like cattle. I do not think this is exclusive to the wealthiest 1% though, but of society as a whole. It is necessary and reasonable that we do this, there are things that need to be done and people have to do it. Maybe one day this won't be the case, but until then, those that do it best or got a head start will have much more wealth than those who don't.

Our Oil Dependence

  The editorial I am writing about tonight is titled "Drill Baby Drill, Redux" from The New York Times. When I first began reading this editorial, I was put off by the author's obvious disdain for republicans. I got about half-way through and I was still thinking of trying to find another piece to write on because this guy didn't seem to want to make any point besides that Obama is the greatest and republicans have it all wrong. He maintains this perspective throughout the article, but he does eventually say somethings worth reading. His general stance is that republicans are blaming Obama for the high gas prices for political reasons and that it's actually largely out of his control.
  He begins by saying that republicans think that drilling is the key to solving our oil problems and they believe Obama has held them back. He defends Obama saying "oil production is actually up from 5.4 million barrels a day in 2004 to 5.59 million now." I am skeptical how relevant this data is, assuming it is correct. I mean, he is saying that over the last 8 years, 4 of which had nothing to do with Obama, the crude oil production has gone up by a whopping 3.5%. I'm sure that any republican would reply that gas prices have gone up much more than our production because drilling efforts have been stifled. This is a weak beginning to his argument, I think, but it does get better.
  His second point is one I often think about when I hear of some ridiculously large company complaining about taxes. He says that republicans are blaming Obama for high gas prices because of a proposed repeal of $4 billion tax break for the oil industry, when the "five biggest players posted $137 billion in profits last year." I think it is really silly how quick people jump on the no tax bandwagon. The effect of the proposed repeal of a tax break on such a large industry, I think, would be negligible.
  So what is the cause of the rising gas prices? He claims that the demand for gas is continually going up and that the supply is often erratic. He cites China as a growing gas guzzler, and the recent tension with Iran has caused world-wide problems. He claims that America, which uses more than 20% of the world's oil supply, only owns 2% of the oil reserves. No amount of drilling is going to make up for our lack of a nonrenewable resource, in the long term.
  The solutions he proposes, which I actually completely agree with, are to continue to produce as much oil as possible while cutting our consumption and looking to alternative fuels. Our dependence on oil is a huge problem for the US, we are slaves to gas prices. How much stronger would our economy be if we didn't throw so much money away overseas? Yes, there are a lot of Americans that make money off of oil but, as a nation, we are making other countries rich. As someone who loves science and innovation, I know that there are ways we can revolutionize the way we fuel our country. The hard part is getting anyone to buy into it and look ahead. We need to be a little less capitalistic and a little more reasonable.