20031219   

The Pyramid Principle

Michael considered fate at 13:18   |   Permalink   |   Post a Comment

I know I pretty much stay off my political game here and it's mostly cause I'm trying to protect you little kiddies. I'm a shark when it comes to that sort of stuff - no one is safe from the jaws of my malice. I don't want to alienate any of my constituents so I try to stay nice and balanced and off-topic. Have you noticed? But recently, as the country celebrated NAFTA's birthday, it was worth pausing and thinking about the decisions we make as a country. See, that's one of our biggest faults - in our blindingly intense forward-lookingness, we do not take notes from the past, and we are bound to repeat history. But right now, here, we have the ability to stop and reflect upon ten years of open and free trade among the North Americas. Never before has Mexico and Canada been so easily connected through the FDR highway system of the United States of America. Never before has Canada sold us so much syrup and never before have so many companies outsourced to Mexico.. and for what?



It is a step in a process, the process of market globalization.. but a step I fear people take for the wrong reasons and without understanding their motion - what I call the motion of the ocean. The pull of the waters. The inevitable expansion out across the seas of earth and space and exploration of the unknown for the sake of greater economy.

Companies lobby for more open markets when it behooves them. They lobby against it when it doesn't. Why people should think free trade is any more righteous a cause than the next, I don't know. It is only happening because the majority (which means numbers*power majority) wants it to happen - because they collectively perceive a direct benefit. To think that this majority is thinking ahead and for the greater good; it's ridiculous. Companies want to maximize profits and minimize costs. The people want to Maximize profits as well - salary - but here is the kicker.. people don't want to minimize cost. It's more complicated than that. Inwardly, of course, the natural trend is towards decreased cost. Stone tools, metal working, group hunting.. all born out from caveman efficiency experts trying to maximize profit by lower cost, in this case the cost of time. Yet outwardly, people want to appear as if they are maximizing cost. It's the psychological equivalent to building pyramids. When the pharaohs had the pyramids built they did not gain anything but prestige and a great pad to sleep in for thousands of years. They don't really make economical sense. Neither do the statues of Easter Island or the gold chains a playa wears around his neck. It's superfluous. It's labeling. It's buying your way to the top, which isn't any different than a gorilla muscling his way to the top. It's war games. It's power plays. It's animalistic. The pyramids are just really big pieces of jewelry.



To what end? Prestige. Pride. Power. Survival.. of the fittest. In the end it is all driven by the desire to be most fit. It's evolutionary. Maximize survival by maximizing resources by maximizing power over the resources available. And if there are not enough resources than seek out, explore, discover more resources. Exploit them. You see, use the word exploit in that sentence and it doesn't sound nearly as harsh.. but put it another way and it isn't so nice: "Companies continue to exploit their workers as much as they think they can get away with it in order to maximize profits." What I'm saying is companies are like animals. Big, dumb, animals. Large corporations insist that import goods should have tariffs - a nice colloquialism for taxes. A charge for being someone else. The same corporations want to shift their labour divisions overseas, over borders, to cheaper regions. First it was to Mexico but ask the Mexicans now where their jobs are.. already across the ocean to even cheaper regions, that's where. Mexicans now face the same problem we faced ten years ago in NAFTA. What people forget is that the goods being tariffed are manufactured through labour which is untariffed. And here we have an inequality.

There is nothing wrong with a global market, in and of itself. It's a macro example of a micro system. Economies of scale say we should only benefit more and more as we move towards globalization until everyone on the earth is sitting in front of their TV’s watching the simple life.. Only there won't be anyone working to film it. Globalization isn't the end of the world.. it's just going to take some time and there is going to be some major growing pains as the world economy matures into a full grown adult. But when there are direct and specific inequalities like the labour-goods tariff situation, those growing pains are only going to be worse and perhaps ultimately fatal. Evidence this by looking back at the last big economic revolution and the prevalence of "company towns" where workers were forced to spend their meager wages on overpriced goods sold by the company itself.. this inequality caused major strife while allowing the revolution of industry to grow quickly and efficiently. Was there suffering by some? Sure. Are we better off, are our lives better, are we a more fit species for our now solid and sturdy industry? Probably. ( I won't get into that argument) But the bigger question is what happened to that inequality? Labour unions - that's what. For better or worse the power play of big industry resulted in a major battle between good(?) and evil(?).. or put another way, a battle between numbers and power. Some may argue who actually won the battle but in most systems - in nature for sure - large networks of small independent and loosely connected units tend to work better, faster, and more powerfully than large monoliths. Think David and Goliath, only one thousand quick scurrying Davids versus one large and cumbersomely slow Goliath. I would argue that labour won. You wouldn't think it, given my general negativity and my complaints about the rampant consumerism.. but I didn't say labour won the war, I said they won the battle. If anyone thinks that working conditions here in the United States hasn't improved 90 fold for 90% of workers over the conditions of 90 years ago, they are crazy. But it didn't happen overnight. It's a process.

Until people realize that change is a process things will continue to flounder. People need to see the greater whole, the past and the future. If people spent less time thinking now now now and more time considering the mistakes and victories of the past, as well as the future implications of current actions, we would make better political decisions and shorten the uncomfortable process of change. It would be like going from LA to NY in half an hour. What I'm saying is if we continue to worry about our upcoming 50 cent raise and do not consider our children's $10 raise, we're dooming ourselves and our children to years and years of doubt, uncertainty, and struggle.

If companies want to play the "global market" game, then they either should accept that labor should have tariffs or goods should not. One or the other. Make it fair for everyone involved. Eventually, Bob T. Worker in the United States may end up making less. He may have to work harder to keep his job. He may have to, *gasp*, play the game of employment for the most skilled and efficient - which is a weak abstraction of survival of the fittest - which is what we've all, us humans, been doing for thousands of years in one form or another. So Bob T. Worker may end up making less but maybe, just maybe, he will be able to afford to continue living his present lifestyle because maybe he'll be able to buy more DVDs at Hong Kong prices and more toys for his kids imported directly from china without all those brand names.

But he won't. His kids want him to buy the name brand and so does he. He needs his gold chain. He needs his pyramid. I mean, christ, his neighbour just put in a helluva tomb - 30 feet wide by 100 feet long and covered in hundreds paintings. He needs a goddamn pyramid, already. Right now!

But that's just it. In the perfect future of a global economy he can buy the best brand of pyramid for the cheapest price because the company that makes them can find the most efficient place to manufacture them.

But because they are the cheapest, he is proving nothing in buying from them. He is not advertising his power as a moneymaker. He is not maximizing his marketing potential as a fit survivor. He will go out and buy perhaps a more handcrafted, more expensive pyramid, thereby offering up a message to his neighbour. "Covet this!" he symbolically shouts across the fence. Because he believes it is better his neighbour will too and will now desire the more expensive pyramid. The expensive pyramid company will realize larger unit sales and ramp up production to meet it, thereby causing a fall in manufacturing quality but also a fall in manufacturing costs (remember economies of scale). They will begin to offer cheaper pyramids. They will begin to lure lower income buyers into their dynasty with the release of entry-level pyramids. They will grow to a point where they no longer offer what is considered a luxury item - it will be a normal item. They will fall to the next luxury pyramid company. It's a cycle.

I have just described BMW. Mark my words.

Economies are market based.

Markets are cyclical.

Cycles repeat.

There is no realizable static future of goodness and content for all.

There are only periods of contentedness followed by moments of joy followed by inevitable failure, woe, suffering, and eventually acceptance of the situation, motivation to climb out of the situation and into... a period of contentedness.

There is no realizable static future at all.

Cycles repeat.

Markets are cyclical.

Economies are market based.

And we control the markets. We are the market. We are the supply, the demand, and everything in-between.

So maybe this Saddam thing is superfluous. But it's a big label for Bush. It's like putting a bumper sticker on Air Force One: "I Kick Ass, Man". It's Bush buying his way to the top, which isn't any different than a gorilla muscling his way to the top. Sure, you might get some wounds on the way but if you're standing on the top at the end, it's all good.



It's war games. It's power plays. It's animalistic. Saddam is now Bush's bobble-head doll. Maybe they'll drill a hole through his head, put him on a string, and Bush can wear him around his neck.. like a piece of jewelry.

A really ugly piece of jewelry.