My name is Ruthi, and I hail from the great state of Minnesota, USA. For the last three years I have been studying International Banking and Finance as well as Political Science at Franklin College in Lugano, Switzerland. The following is just a chip from a whole cookie of ideas on liberty.
It fascinates me to no end to see how quickly people come to the defense of the U.S. government in solving their problems; yet are also inclined to believe, when shown that their thoughts on government may be void of any logical structure, that no change can happen for the better in our political system.
I was recently on a plane, heading from Greensboro to Detroit, when I met a man who had immigrated to the United States from Iran, and was now finishing his last two years of training to become a pediatric neurologist. Normally I do not talk to people on planes, but this particular gentleman seemed so eager to talk I figured he must have something interesting to say.
After many a pleasantry regarding what we each do and why, I decided to make the conversation something of an educational experience. I asked him his thoughts on the new health care bill, and more specifically its effect on doctors. His view on the matter was that, on his end, there was very little that would change, and that the large pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies were still going to be the ones in power over the market. He was also of the impression that doctors really have no say or influence on the subject; so I asked him about his thoughts on the AMA- whether he thought it was helpful for doctors or not- he seem to dislike the organization, although refusing to say it outright. The real problem for doctors was a legal one. "Tort reform" he said was the major problem solver.
I asked him if he thought any of the problems with healthcare on the whole could be solved and fixed. He said no. Impossible. It's too much of a mess, nothing can be done.
Short break for reading, then the beverage cart arrived.
"How do you feel about the whole BP disaster?" he asked. Over the last month this question seems to be the new source of heated small-talk debate. Every person who has asked me this question seems to believe that it is blasphemous to say anything other than a general agreeing statement about the evil nature of BP (and oil companies in general for that matter) and the government's need to do something about the problem. This conversation was no exception. My reply was something to the effect of 'BP is taking responsibility for the situation to the extent that they have the incentive to do so, and their incentive is stronger than any other entity who has been suggested as a substitute.' Needless to say, the support of BP and its actions does not go over well with the majority of people who bring the subject into a conversation, and this instance was no exception.
My new acquaintance followed the school of thought favorable to mass public media- that the government should not only intervene in the situation, but that it is Obama's duty to both solve this problem today, and create the regulations to keep it from happening again tomorrow.
On this first point he held the belief that the situation should be taken over by the coastguard and the navy immediately- they could do a much better job at solving the problem, and should therefore be appointed to the task- or, if nothing else, the cost guard and the navy should serve as onlookers and regulators of BP's progress on cleanup. My difficulty in understanding this assertion has to do with the knowledge-base of the coastguard and navy, and so I inquired about the expertise of the aforementioned entities in off-shore drilling and mass oil cleanup. Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, I received no answer.*
I tend to believe that BP has the largest vested interest in solving the problem of oil cleanup and prevention since it is in fact BP that will eventually have to pay the costs of repercussions- extending beyond general decline in sales and overall competitiveness to the realms of compensation for the losses of individuals and any lawsuits that may ensue.** As the entity with the greatest vested interest in solving the overall problem it can reasonably be assumed that BP has the greatest incentives for creating a solution as well. Would it not also be realistic to presume that BP also has the best access to (if they are not already present) specialists in this particular area of knowledge? Given their incentives for solving the problem it follows that they are the most likely candidate for hiring the best specialists at the most competitive price. In contrast, the American tax payer, who most likely has only a small fraction of vested interest in solving the problem, will not be willing to put forth the resources required for paying the highest price to the best specialists. Why is this important? Well, the specialists will most likely go to the highest bidder, and if they can utilize their knowledge and abilities elsewhere at a higher wage they will do so. This is one of the reasons (amongst many) that the cost guard and the navy will not have the necessary means to solve the gulf problem. This assertion was taken with a fair amount of acceptance, although some skepticism remained within my seating partner.
This brought the conversation to the second point asserted by my 'single-serving friend,' the point that Obama really needs to insert the proper regulations to make another one of these catastrophes impossible. This may come as a shock to you, the reader, but I thought this proposal was also ridiculous. My first question concerned what sort of regulation should be put in place. The reply to which was a suggestion that no particular regulations should be imposed, but rather a committee of sorts should be created to monitor any offshore drilling, and create regulations as necessary. These people must be held accountable for their actions.
As a reply, I inquired as to the success of similar organizations that are currently serving the purpose he advocates. For instance, I asked him, how well does the FDA perform its role of ensuring overall public health? The first retort was that it was the best feasible system we (the United States) could employ, but after a few minutes of chatting on this subject he conceded that the costs associated with the FDA (which he suggested)- such as restricting products that would ultimately have a net benefit to the public, taking an extraordinarily long time to give the go-ahead on a drug which ultimately results in hindering the prevention of a death, and the taxes to pay for the whole system- actually outweigh the benefits. He also granted that there are indeed private organizations which do a much better job of ensuring what the FDA was originally intended for. Given the comparison, he agreed that maybe having some sort of committee or governmental organization was not the best solution.
"But you are an idealist." 'Things like this sound pretty in theory, but they could never be achieved in the real world.' "You're young," he said "full of optimism that you can change the world and its problems, give it time and experience, you'll see."
What baffles me is the immediate transition from 'the government can and must solve my problems,' to 'the system is entrenched; nothing can be done.' Am I really an idealist because I think that entities such as the US government can change for the better? Have there not been such changes in the past to suggest this possibility? And even if I am an idealist, couldn't enough idealists working towards a similar goal achieve better results than are currently being achieved?
Flight lands; "If you're ever in Detroit, give me a ring."
*It should be noted of course that my acquaintance was not an expert on the subject, I mentioned previously that he was pediatric neurologist, and I in no way mean to portray him as such. Rather, I view him as a demonstrative voice of the masses to show what rhetoric is being used by the various medias, and how it is being re-asserted by the average citizen.
**This assertion only holds true under the assumption that BP's stakeholders believe that the company can survive the disaster, lest they would actually have a disincentive to spend more resources on solving the problem. However this assumption is a reasonable one due to the fact that if investors believed that BP's future cash flows were zero (meaning BP had gone bankrupt) they would in fact value the bonds and stocks as such.
No comments:
Post a Comment