Too Big to Exist

When corporate or government institutions become too big and too socially destructive to exist, we need a graceful method of putting them on a diet and reforming their lifestyle.

The American genius for creating magnificently productive mega-institutions has a potentially fatal downside: we have, as a society, no idea how to downsize them when they "go rogue," i.e., become socially destructive. On balance, today, several of America's major mega-institutions--the Imperial Presidency, Big Oil, Big Pharma, and Big Finance--either are or are fast becoming socially destructive. They are "too big to exist;" we need to figure out how to downsize them gracefully, reorienting them toward socially useful behavior.

Perhaps the first step toward this new way of thinking that needs to replace the tarnished old "bigger is better" mantra is to understand the evidence supporting the contention that these mega-institutions are so bloated that American and, indeed, global society can no longer afford them. (I call these social units "institutions" because each is truly a unified organization composed of, perhaps, separate governmental or private units, but operating according to a clear if unstated and frequently illegal set of monopolistic rules designed to maximize profit and power at public expense and, in the case of the Imperial Presidency, at the expense of the rest of the Government as well.) Consider the following examples of mega-institution misbehavior:

1. The Imperial Presidency, i.e., the rising ability of the White House and all its military-industrial support mechanism to overshadow Congress and Constitution on foreign policy, now employs something in the neighborhood of a quarter of a million mercenaries overseas, constituting an armed force capable of making independent war on most countries--completely outside of Congressional control and often beyond the reach of U.S. judicial authorities [see Jean MacKenzie, Jeremy Scahill, Glen Ford]. Since Augustus overthrew the Roman Republic with his palace guards and established the Roman Empire, we have known the profound threat to democracy posed by a mercenary army under the command of the chief executive.
2. Big Pharma, constituting the whole U.S. health care industry, has degenerated so far that, to boost profits, it now essentially writes off as a "business loss" all of the nationa's elderly with the almost universal cognitive problems associated with aging. At their most vulnerable, they are thrown into the arms of untrained relatives utterly unprepared for 24/7 nursing.
3. Big Oil, alb eit receiv ing billions annually in welfare payments from U.S. taxpayers, can destroy ever-growing chunks of the earth through careless cost-cutting measures and escape responsibility. For the rest of our lives, we will be watching BP's poison creep with Gulf Stream currents up the North American east coast and over toward England, while everyone complains about $4 a gallon gas, a price only a fraction of the real cost.
4. As for Big Finance, the cost of its irresponsibility is now glaringly obvious to everyone. At the very least, Wall St. should keep accurate books, and regulators should scrutinize them.

The traditional way of toppling rogue mega-institutions is of course well known: the "barbarians" did it to Imperial Rome, Lincoln did it to the Southern slave system, Gorbachev did it to the Soviet state. But as these mega-institutions take on global scale, the cost of violent overthrow rises sharply. We should be able to do better.

Key to the smooth downsizing of rogue mega-institutions is twofold: 1) the breakthrough understanding of the bottom line insight that a cherished social structure has outlived its usefulness as currently designed combined with 2) the identification of specific traits requiring elimination. Specific reforms (Step 2) without acceptance of the goal of institutional downsizing, and redirection into a socially beneficial mode misses the point. That was the mistake of the Wall Street bailout, which successfully saved the bad old exploitative system rather than taking the opportunity to dismantle it by, for example, rebuilding the wall between the stock market and personal savings accounts. Similarly, eliminating mercenary forces while leaving the political supremacy over Congress of the Imperial Presidency untouched will only have a temporary impact. Surgical removal of a specific cancerous tumor must be done in the context of lifestyle changes related to nutrition, avoiding pesticides, and exercise.

Rogue mega-institutions must be recognized as enemies of society and redesigned to return to their proper purpose of servinhg society. The Presidency's power should be balanced with that of Congress; stock market investments should b e used to stimulate growth, not gamble with people's mortgages and savings accounts; the health care system should exist to provide a universal right, not to make a profit; the cost of gas should b e set by government to reflect its true value, incluyding the cost of pollution clean-up and the cost of wars fought to get the oil. And no industry that takes welfare from the taxpayer should turn its leaders into billionaires immune from prosecution.

_____________________________

READINGS:
To its credit, Washington is at least thinking about this issue. See comments by FDIC's Sheila Bair.

Republican Games and the Trashing of the U.S. Economy

Former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich has a critical perspective on the linkage between the Republican political games over the debt ceiling and the state of the real economy (i.e., your job, your income, your mortgage, the profit of your business, the appearance of your main street). Curiously, the gamblers all Republicans love (known as "Wall Street") lost big as soon as Obama caved in to the Tea Party extremists. Watch today's DOW Jones figures. The recession did not wake up very many people in the U.S. Will the double dip, now showing on your favorite main street, finally teach us our lesson?

Welfare for the Rich. One reason for the U.S. economic mess is that the rich are cheating everyone else. Check out how much billionaire hedge fund managers pay in taxes. Just as we give welfare to Big Oil, we also give it to Big Finance. Did you really think they got that rich just by working hard? If my income had been taxed at the rate paid by hedge fund managers, I'd be rich now too.

Employment. In April, unemployment fell in most U.S. cities. In May unemployment rose in 210 U.S. cities; in June, it rose in 345 cities. Meanwhile, July job growth almost matched population growth. (U.S. population growth requires at least 125,000 new jobs per month to stay even.) Pundits saw the near tie as "progress." One pundit reportedly called the U.S. economy, the world's largest still (I think; though China is catching up), "not dead." Well obviously. If it were "dead," the U.S. government would no longer be paying out retirement checks to retired Federal workers (using all that cash so kindly loaned to us by...the Chinese).


Euroschlerosis. With whole European countries sounding more and more like the Lehmans and AIGs of Recession I, the double-dip seems more and more likely. Keep in mind that there is only one global financial system (unless you count North Korea and Myanmar as having their own). In fact, as every U.S. worker and homeowner knows, Recession I never ended; it just keeps transforming itself in interesting ways that just leave the average person poorer and poorer. (Remember, U.S. wages have now been stagnant for more than a decade.)

Bait and Switch for Dumb Voters. John Atcheson explains how Republican leaders have tricked the very uneducated American public:

Bait and switch.  Divide and Conquer.
So, after starting with a surplus in 2000, Republicans used two wars, two rounds of tax cuts, and a giant giveaway to big Pharma, to get the country racking up debt like a drunken sailor. 
Along comes the Bush recession, and the debt accelerates, and the Republicans declare the debt to be an “emergency” and right on schedule immediately attack popular programs like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Student loans –and virtually anything that doesn’t help the uber rich or the corporations suddenly must be cut if we are to stay solvent.

OK, I will offer a partial apology to the American voter. I admit it is very hard to persuade oneself how insistent supposedly patriotic Republican politicians are on wrecking the society's circumstances in order to enrich themselves. But really, after the $3 trillion war against Iraq, the trashing of the Gulf of Mexico, the endless trillions of above-board and under-the-table Wall St. bailout (evidently totally somewhere around $12 trillion), the recession, and the lack of government reform of our financial system, it is about time you started focusing. The U.S. is probably the world's richest nation in terms of resources, but we are throwing it away at a rate that will in fact put us into another depression. And the last time we had a depression, it came with camps of the unemployed, fascist police attacks on the poor, and a brush with communist revolution. You really don't want to go there.

Combatting the Imperial Presidency

Tom Hayden has an important piece about Congressional demands for an honest U.S. withdrawal of forces from Iraq. Whatever the U.S. invasion of Iraq may mean, Americans need to remember at least one core lesson: it is a classic example of the failure of the Imperial Presidency. The war was all White House: no public debate, no loyal opposition (which caved), and certainly no honest presentation of justification; in sum, a non-demcratic war. When war, and this was the second most expensive war in U.S. history according to Stiglitz, is planned, declared, and run by imperial rather than democratic means, democracy no longer has much meaning. It is wonderfully reassuring that a decade later, nearly 100 Congressmen finally realize that Congress should have been part of the decision-making process. So, of course, should you, dear citizen.

Question: Is the Imperial Presidency one of the institutions whose orderly failure needs to be designed?

Out-of-Control Global Institutions

Big Oil, Big Finance, and Big Atom exemplify global-scale institutions that are out-of-control, focused on self-enrichment at society's expense rather than on making the contribution to society that justifies their existence. Society needs to take charge.

It sounds great to say that modern society is defined by its ability to link everything—trade, finance, international defense, energy nets, but the surge over the past generation in our ability to link all the traditional local or national components into global monopolies threatens our survival: we are learning how to link far faster than we are learning how to manage the monstrous institutions thus created.

One analogy would be dominoes…just knock over one. The Asian financial crisis that became a global crisis a decade ago and the on-going recession are good examples.

Another analogy is this: it’s wonderful when you link up with your friends and have a pool party, but what if you are all dangling your feet in the water when lightening strikes? Everyone gets fried. Sometimes, disconnected means protected.

__________________________

Big Oil, Big Finance, and Big Atom cannot regulate themselves: society must do it.

____________________________

Among the prime examples of networked institutions on a global scale are Big Oil, Big Finance, and Big Atom (the nuclear energy industry). All three provide benefits to society, but all are increasingly organized not to accomplish that but to maximize profits for CEOs and investors. All three also share another characteristic: they cannot regulate themselves; society must do it.

Linking mandates recognition of a broader responsibility. But that recognition is increasingly difficult for reasons that are only slowly become apparent. One reason is that technology is facilitating, indeed making virtually inevitable, reactions that are faster and faster…too fast to cope with, as Paulson and company discovered to their horror when the financial ground kept shifting under their feet as they tried to cope with the rising tide of financial institution failure. It was not just that the institutions were too big and their way of business too irresponsible but that they were all linked (both by common perceptions on the part of investors who figured that if one was weak then they all were and by investments in each other). Reactions to failure anywhere in these huge global institutions now occur faster than management or governments can react if not faster than an individual can even think.

A second reason why recognition of the need for taking greater responsibility with global institutions is hard lies in time frame. These institutions are gaining such longevity that problems may build up for a period not just longer than the term of an official but for a period longer than a person’s whole career. Decisions made during one’s career may have horrendous consequences that will only become obvious during the career of one’s successor, very possibly after one’s death. The seeds of the recession were planted by Reagan when he popularized deregulation. A deadly example is the terrifying tendency to allow nuclear power plants—aside from nuclear bombs, the most dangerous devises ever devised--designed to be shut down after 25 years to be kept in service for an extra decade or two even while being allowed literally to rust away. Since the people who make those decisions will quite likely no longer be around if a meltdown results, they have trouble caring and, more, have trouble even focusing on the issue. But this is no academic hair-splitting: a nuclear plant in Illinois came within millimeters of disaster from exactly that: a rusting pipe.

A third obstacle to recognizing the degree of responsibility mandated by the global size of our institutions is that as the institutions get bigger, so does the “responsible” bureaucracy. The man who decides to permit a nuclear power plant to remain in business is probably not the same man who decides to ignore some rule that requires regular inspection and replacement of rusty pipes. Indeed, there may not actually be any single individual who even is aware of the necessary details to see the connections that breed disaster. Is the CEO of a nuclear plant informed of every rusty pipe and the action taken? Was the CEO of every out-of-control Wall Street gambling firm aware of the consequences of every new financial product his mathematicians devised? Who has the legal authority to arrest the CEO of BP when he is British but poisons U.S. coastlines?

We need to understand the danger of these institutions on an emotional level and then identify at a theoretical level as many as possible of the obstacles preventing us from analyzing their threat to our security. Only then will we be able to design methods of effectively caging the beasts we are creating. Whether or not we, as a society, will then actually choose to cage the beasts is of course another issue altogether. Everyone always wants to farm the floodplain until the “thousand-year flood,” caused precisely by the levees that enable farming the floodplain, occur. Everyone wants to prevent forest fires until the build-up of dry undergrowth leads to a conflagration. Everyone wants to benefit from a bubble until it bursts. Let’s face it: we need to grow up, but sadly there is little sign of that happening. We are kids playing with bigger and bigger matches.

Further reading:

For work already done to restructure the U.S. financial system away from gambling and back toward stimulating the economy, see the short article  “How to Liberate America From Wall Street Rule” and the New Economy Working Group’s full report.

Protecting the World From Nuclear Disaster

Imagine a religious state that aspires to have nuclear arms, vigorously exports extremist religious ideology, supports its religious crusade with violence or at least looks the other way when its religious partners use violence internationally, and is vigorously contesting leadership of the Mideast by employing not just political and economic means but also military means. (Readers may wish to see how many Mideast states meet the above criteria.) My question is this:

Should the U.S. be providing privileged* nuclear assistance to such a state?

*By “privileged” I mean nuclear assistance (aid, technology, knowledge, or defense guarantees) not available to all other states in the region.

When developing your answer, consider whether or not such “privileged” nuclear assistance damps down regional nuclear rivalry or provokes it. Consider whether such nuclear assistance might be replaced by some sort of regional guarantees against any possession or use of weapons of mass destruction.

the possibility of initiating formal negotiations, potentially without demanding that Riyadh accept key nonproliferation pledges embraced by one of its neighbors, the United Arab Emirates, in its own 2009 trade arrangement with Washington [Global Security Newswire, 7/28/11.]

Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said Friday she was "astonished" the administration would even consider the move. She called Saudi Arabia an unstable country in an unstable region. [CBS News, 7/29/11.]

The Lesson of AIG

The man-made recession, which continues, did not, apparently, cause the collapse of civilization as we know it, but if we do not take this opportunity to learn how better to manage big institutions, the next time may be worse. Or, perhaps civilization as we know it, based on a capitalist rampage, should undergo planned obsolescence.

The lesson of AIG’s collapse and purchase by the Government, using taxpayer funds definitely not intended for that risky purpose, at a minimum is this: some of our society’s institutions have in fact become too big to fail, without unacceptable collateral damage, and should thus be managed under intense public scrutiny to minimize such potential collateral damage. Whether or not the AIGs fail is a private concern; how they fail is the business of the Government and the People.

It seems fairly obvious that AIG decision-makers were running their company in a manner irresponsible to their shareholders, their customers, and society [Sorkin, 376-411]. This statement is based not just on their business decisions but, more, on their lack of understanding of their own business: despite the billions they maneuvered, they evidently did not know their own numbers, like a private individual who borrows from all his friends and spends every penny he gets without ever figuring out how much income he has, how much he is spending, or how much he owes. Such an individual will end up in jail; the penalty for executives in organizations too big to fail should be much more severe. A number of specific questions about the degree to which AIG decision-makers were held responsible for this failure of duty follow:

1. To what degree were AIG’s CEO and, perhaps more importantly, its previous CEO (for the one at the time of its collapse—Willumstad--had not been in the position long enough to have cleaned house) a) made to explain AIG’s failure and b) made to pay personally via fines that, after the fact, amounted to a removal of incentive for others to behave with such irresponsibility?
2. Were the decision-makers just below the CEO criticized by AIG’s own controller (David Herzog) [Sorkin, 410] fired, fined, and debriefed for the public record?
3. Where is the official evaluation of how the business practices of AIG went so wrong and what we as a Government and a Society should do to ensure transparency for such institutions in the future?

For their clients who held AIG paper (e.g., insurance policies), for their investors who hoped for a profit, and for the millions of innocent victims who would suffer from AIG failure, AIG had a minimal responsibility at least to understand its own balance sheet. The Government had a more profound duty since its primary (and grossly failed) responsibility in the years from the gutting of Glass-Steagall under Clinton until the Bush Recession was to society, not to the rich. The Government, specifically the regulatory agencies and Congress (which sent the financial institutions the message that “anything goes” and sent regulators the message that befriending the fat cats they were supposed to be regulating was OK), betrayed the interests of the U.S. public in favor of rich and generous institutions.

American society needs to think deeply about how to minimize such corruption. The first step surely is for Americans to wake up and educate themselves so they can differentiate between corrupt politicians who support the elite rather than the public interest, for it is unclear how to punish the politicians responsible for creating the anti-regulatory environment in which the recession was cultivated except by voting them into the ash heap of history. A second step would be to pass an amendment to the Constitution clearly defining “person” as referring only to “people,” not groups, institutions, or companies. A third step would be to prohibit three things that present clear conflicts of interest:

1.      electoral contributions by financial institutions;

2.      the revolving door through which the billionaire financial elite flows from Wall Street to Washington (where it passes legislation favorable to Wall Street) and then back to Wall Street, where they earn further billions with yet further safety from being held responsible;

3.      lobbying by financial institutions (which should be allowed only public statements of what they favor, not private lobbying of politicians).

Further Reading:

·        Impact of Government controls on AIG salaries

·        Brief review of the post-bailout continuation of Government favoritism for AIG, despite years of scandalous and criminal (for which a huge fine had been assessed even before the recession) behavior, at the expense of the public

·        Outspoken review of AIG

·        As of July 2011, AIG problems continue…

Create a Supreme Foreign Policy Court

The establishment of a Supreme Foreign Policy Court independent of elected officials and empowered to comment publicly on the conduct of U.S. foreign policy might enhance the quality of U.S. national security.

When a former chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence wonders why the Government is "covering up" the nature of Saudi Arabia's connection to 9/ll, citizens must wonder "What is going on?" Exactly who is "the Government" such that it would exclude the Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on the key intelligence issue of this century?

The cited report about ex-Senator Bob Graham raises numerous broad questions of current concern, including:

• Is Saudi Arabia truly an "ally" of the U.S., or are we kidding ourselves? Distinguishing friends from foes is about as basic a requirement for responsible governance as one can imagine, and it is a task poorly executed by leaders who go for the short-term advantage.
• To what degree is the national security structure in the U.S. an institution in crisis, incapable of identifying key threats to U.S. national security? 

How would we know? Would confusion over who was really responsible for a terrorist attack on the U.S. constitute a wake-up call? Would you be even more concerned if such confusion still existed a decade later and extended to the level of an ex-chairman of the Select Senate Committee on Intelligence? Where is the line between the need to reform the national security "institution" and the need for an "orderly failure" of that institution? How would one go about safely managing the orderly failure...and, one hopes, replacement of such a critical government institution?

Going a bit deeper, if society determined that "orderly failure and replacement of the national security structure were called for, what exactly would need to be changed: the president alone, the access to information for the Congressional committees, or what? Given the performance of the U.S. national security decision-making process at the very top, perhaps these considerations are worth pursuing to lay out a process for shoring up the principle that the leaders of government are responsible to the people and do not have the right to design a foreign policy behind the backs of the American people that sacrifices national security for goals that may be dangerously short-term or focused on the interests of some elite special interest.

How to do this is obviously far beyond the scope of this post. The point is to launch a debate that would raise national consciousness about the issue. For starters, it may be worth considering that the issue of ensuring governmental responsibility to society was considered by the Founding Fathers in the domestic context, way back before the national security state was even a gleam in the eyes of our leaders. The Founding Fathers' answer was a Supreme Court independent of the electoral cycle. How about a Supreme Foreign Policy Court composed of national thinkers, with the majority required to be individuals who have never been elected to national office and are not otherwise employed in public service but with access to all foreign policy information and entitled to comment publicly on the quality of our leaders' decisions?

Designing the Orderly Failure of Large Institutions

Continuing the discussion of how to plan the compulsory failure of institutions that, believing themselves "too big to fail," are in fact too big for human society to afford.

If the wave of unemployment accompanying Washington’s post-recession care and feeding of guilty financial giants at the expense of American society did not make clear that Paulson’s concept of the “orderly failure of large financial institutions” was poorly implemented, then the wave of foreclosures did. While many Americans were clearly playing the (housing) market in full recognition that they were trying to benefit from a giant chain letter that would hurt only the last owner of their grossly inflated mortgage, thousands of other Americans unable to pay their mortgages because Wall Street irresponsibility had cost them their jobs had their homes taken by selfish banks who, once back in possession of the houses, could not find anything to do with them except let them rot. The Bush-Cheney-Paulson billionaire bailout, so uncritically supported by Obama, may have exemplified “orderly failure” for the billionaires, who kept the profits of their crimes, but was anything but “orderly” for the millions who suffered.

All that is of course rapidly becoming old, well-understood, and quickly-being-pushed-under-the-rug history. The whole U.S. financial and political elite-- from Wall Street, Washington, and many other places—was essentially complicit and has little interest in looking too closely at issues of responsibility. But for American society, not to mention the rest of the world, the issue, beyond punishing the guilty in the name of justice, is to determine exactly what a socially responsible process of orderly failure for a large institution would look like.

“Moral hazard” provides guidance. Institutions should be restructured and downsized (e.g., by preventing banks from playing the market with homeowners’ mortgages or savings accounts) to minimize socially harmful behavior and maximize socially beneficial behavior. Decision-makers at those institutions should be held personally responsible. Filling jails with brokers has little obvious value to society, but when a financier gets rich by inventing incomprehensible but obviously dangerous (because highly leveraged) financial “products,” the burden of proof should be on him to justify why all of his earnings should not be confiscated to compensate for “collateral damage.”

In truth, society needs to understand its frailty and, more, appreciate how often failure is due not to natural constraints or normal human limitations but to egregious cheating on the part of the powerful, who regularly kill the social goose that lays the elite’s golden eggs. Paulson deserves credit for enunciating the highly counter-cultural concept of “orderly failure.” American society, as the global leader (no moral judgment here; I mean the phrase simply as honest recognition that the U.S. is the biggest elephant in the room), needs to take primary responsibility for developing not just the biggest war machine, the greediest financial district, and the most wasteful consumption society but also the global standard for institutional rejuvenation.

The U.S. has done it before. With the Marshall Plan, it transformed Nazi Germany and the Japan of military imperialist dictatorship into pillars of democracy. By its very establishment, the U.S. also transformed a West of kings into a West of republics. It then transformed itself from slave society to free society. Those were truly institutions “too big to fail.”

But those transformations were seen as unique. No user’s manual existed, nor were the respective situations perceived as members of a class, so no user’s manual was written despite the priceless lessons. Political science has failed us here. No busy government official will ever have time to study the crises and develop a generic process for smoothly cleaning the rot from failed institutions; that would be the responsibility of a new sub-field of political science, a field that would recognize theoretically the need for institutional renovation by force from the outside and that would recognize theoretically that the word “institution” comprises private and public institutions, companies and countries.

The process occurs every day. With the brilliant insight of Gorbachev that military force to maintain the existence of the rotten U.S.S.R. would be inappropriate, that empire was transformed, but of course via a decade of depression and crime—hardly an example of “orderly” failure. We await the first book to do a comparative analysis of the financial mess of Soviet communism and Wall Street capitalism…of the corruption of nomenklatura vs. the corruption of derivatives. A follow-on study could compare the corruption of Soviet industrial pollution vs. the corruption of Western Big Oil’s rape of the environment from Nigeria and Bolivia to the Gulf of Mexico. From such studies, done properly, would be derived a set of generic lessons of inestimable value for designing a well-functioning society.

While this task of assessing key crises of institutions failing from a social perspective even as they functioned brilliantly for the elite who benefited personally is likely to take a century to complete (and will require a profound understanding of how complex-adaptive systems operate in the social arena), we can usefully begin with a few obvious (once stated, albeit mostly ignored in current practice) principles:

• The principle that the larger an institution, the greater its responsibility to behave in accordance with the common good should be established in law;
• Rules for behavior should be known in advance;
• Rules should spell out personal responsibility for institutional elites and governmental regulators;
• The assumption should be that in egregious cases (e.g., breaking rules about leveraging, ignoring engineers’ warnings about installing good quality environmental protection equipment), decision-makers and their management chain will forfeit all personal earnings gained as a result of irresponsible decisions. Any claim that one deserves exemption (e.g., a golden parachute for a Wall Street CEO or denial of personal responsibility by an oil executive after a pollution spill) should have to be made publicly in court;
• Just as buildings have plans for getting people out in a fire, institutions should have plans for emergency downsizing.

And every American should realize that the need to grade the social acceptability of big institutions applies not just to brokerages and oil companies but to the United States as a whole…today. Americans are far more skilled at building huge institutions than in building socially beneficial institutions. More seriously, until disaster strikes, the assumption, deep in the culture, is typically made that big is better...rather than more dangerous. In fact, national downsizing of a rather bizarre type is the constant refrain of a certain class of conservatives (not those who “conserve” but those who believe in freeing the rich to do the exact opposite by forcing “conservation” down the throats of the disadvantaged). These “conservatives”, more properly these “elitists,” want not conservation by society but conservation by government. This is at least a step in the direction of downsizing, but one informed less by the theory of how to make institutions perform better than by raw greed. Nevertheless, this concept of downsizing is worth keeping, so long as the focus is shifted from downsizing regulation of, to be frank, piracy, toward the downsizing of socially pernicious behavior. Mankind has been stumbling in this direction for millennia, though the decades since Reagan entered the White House have seen the U.S. move in the opposite direction.

Part of the difficulty of making progress toward more socially responsible behavior by large public and private institutions lies in the lack of theoretical understanding of the concept of social responsibility for all large institutions. Society has no clear generic standard for the behavior of large institutions as a class. Seeing the generic issue rather than just the individual crises would facilitate asking questions in a way that would promote deeper understanding. How might one compare the harm to Iraqi society caused by the U.S. army during the occupation with the harm to U.S. society caused by the capricious approach of many banks to foreclosing on American homeowners? While this may seem at first glance to be an odd question, to ask it focuses attention on how to balance an emergency need to use force in a crisis vs. the long-range costs of force as the tool for conflict resolution. As technology improves, we gain the ability to approach closer and closer to the edge of chaos, a great achievement as long as we do not fall over the edge, but one that is becoming too dangerous without a deeper theoretical understanding of when institutions, including superpowers, become too big not to fail.

Too Big to Fail

Leaders throughout society indulge in the criminal hubris of considering their institutions too big to fail in great measure because society indulges them by failing to hold them responsible for their socially pernicious behavior. It's not just Wall Street billionaires.

The current, endless recession—perhaps not a “recession” at all but in fact a retrenchment to Third World Status for the world’s last superpower—may eventually come to be recognized as a blessing in disguise…if society draws the appropriate lessons. Already enough is understood about the human complicity in provoking this needless disaster to make studying the causes of the recession (if that is all it turns out to be) essential reading for anyone interested in the future course of American and, indeed, global capitalist society. The greed soaked in the belief that failure was impossible is a moral tale that applies to foreign policy, health care management, and the way we treat our poisoned environment as much as it does to economics.

Can the recession earn its keep by teaching us to do a more socially responsible job of managing all major social institutions and policy structures?

No lesson is more important than the idiocy of “too big to fail.” While Bush’s Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson (the Goldman Sachs fox guarding the nation’s financial henhouse) may appear, as the result of his bailout of billionaire buddies, the prime example of everything that is wrong with how the revolving door Wall Street-Washington elite runs the country for its private benefit, even he had evidently realized, before the bailouts back at least as far as June 2008 that “too big to fail” was a dangerous mirage. Indeed, he reportedly stated in a speech in Russia that:

we must improve the tools at our disposal for facilitating the orderly failure of a large, complex financial institution [Andrew Ross Sorkin, Too Big to Fail (New York: Penguin Books, 2009), 178.]

One could debate whether or not he took his own words seriously when the crunch came, shortly thereafter or whether American society is yet remotely close to digesting the import of those words, but the recession is a textbook case for the importance of doing so.

The recession is not, of course, by any means the only such case, as any good Reaganite or member of al Qua’ida would no doubt be quick to point out: both groups take credit for bringing down the Soviet superpower, an empire of both sufficiently colossal size and imperfections to match AIG or Bear Sterns or Merrill Lynch any day. Too big to fail in the glazed over eyes of Brezhnev, Chernenko, and Andropov, the sudden, pathetic collapse of the communist empire looks all too much like those of the above-mentioned capitalist empires. Historians can argue over the degree to which Reagan’s wild spending on Star Wars, bin Laden’s Afghan crusade, or internal rot deserves the credit for destroying the USSR. The bottom line is the hubris that leads to the belief that one is “too big to fail,” which brings us back to the future of a certain society that is characterized by $100 million golden parachutes for CEO’s judged to have failed; global-scale environmental catastrophes resulting in great measure from intentional avoidance of known preventive measures; health care designed as a lucrative business for the primary purpose of personal profit; and four-trillion-dollar wars to build political empires (to distinguish them from the previously cited hydrocarbon and health care empires).

If big is good—and to both the US and the old USSR it was so defined, then bigger is better. To that must be added just one little wrinkle that may differentiate the modern world from old empire-building projects (Imperial Russia, Rome, Spain’s colonization of South America, etc.). Today, on top of hubris, one has moral hazard. “Too big to fail” amounts to the bosses evading responsibility. Presidents who declare war on false pretenses, oil executives who despoil huge chunks of the earth after cost-cutting on blow-out preventers, financial magnates who gamble with other people’s money leveraged to the max, or heath care executives who refuse to give coverage to poor people precisely because they are sick may occasionally lose their jobs but do so without paying. Indeed, they walk away sneering and rich.

“Too big to fail” now means “too big to be held accountable,” and that is the Achilles’ heel of Western civilization.

Paulson was right on target with his 2008 comment, except that really he should have omitted the word “financial.” All of society needs tools to facilitate the orderly failure of institutions deemed fatally ill. Consider BP…or Libya. As for the world’s last superpower, perhaps the process of developing rules for its failure (something of course totally impossible) would educate American society, provoking us all to figure out ways to deleverage our overstretch and strengthen our social collateral before the bills come due.

War on Gaza

If the Gazans can be penalized by collective punishment, then it follows that anyone who joins a peace flotilla can also be punished for their impertinence. Let’s face it: these peace activists are embarrassing to the powers that be, and embarrassing the boss is the worst crime of all.

One and a half million destitute but, thanks to last year’s brave Gaza flotilla participants, not quite starving residents of the Gaza Ghetto are imprisoned still by Israel’s army, which guards the globe against the peril posed by these prisoners. For, despite its nuclear arms, nuclear-capable submarines, squadrons of F-16s, bunker-buster bombs, white phosphorus, and endless tanks, Israel fears the Gazans. And it should. Gazans represent a challenge for which Israel, in the end, has no answer: the fundamental demand of all humans for dignity. Admit that Gazans are humans with a right to dignity and much else follows, a chain of logic and moral reasoning that would lead directly to the collapse of the Israeli garrison state [possibly, though not necessarily, to the collapse of a reformed Israeli state], which is built on a policy of superior military force and the principle that Israelis have more rights than others. Washington, of course, understands this and thus has declared war on all who defend the right of Gazans to dignity.

One can only imagine, at this point, what manner of pressure and threat Washington has brought to bear against Greece and Turkey to force the respective administrations to defy their own populations and sign on to this war against Gaza. One boat blockaded on a legal pretext, another that withdrew at the last minute without obvious cause, a third with an axle that just happened to break itself. But the truth will eventually out, and we shall all learn what bribes were paid, what punishments were evaded by the kowtowing of Ankara and Athens. When the chickens of anti-American feeling come home to roost, Americans will of course profess to be clueless.

Montaigne, a few centuries back, had some blunt remarks that are informative in this context.

The confusion of order and measure of crimes is dangerous: Murtherers, Traitors and Tyrants, have too much gaine by it.

So, with Montaigne, one may ask:

• Exactly what does Washington have to gain by preserving the extreme right-wing Israeli policy of endless repression of the people of Gaza?
• Is it impossible to identify even the slightest room for compromise? 
• Would the world we know collapse with the slightest move toward the freedom of visitors to go to Gaza, to drop off a bit of food and medicine, to offer Gazans smiles and letters? 

Well, yes, in fact, the world we know probably would collapse. If Gazans deserve smiles and letters, then Rafah Gate should truly be opened. If Rafah Gate should truly be opened, then Gazans should be allowed to travel like all other humans. If Gazans were to be allowed out, then Gazans should be allowed to govern themselves. If Gazans were to be allowed to govern themselves, then they surely should be allowed to defend themselves. If Gazans were to be allowed to defend themselves, then the great Israeli army would have to be stuffed back inside of Israel and denied the right to march through its neighbors’ back yards whenever it so desired. If the Israeli army were to remain inside Israel, then disputes would have to be solved through compromise, i.e., changes in Israel’s expansionist policy, rather than through force. Gazans hold the key to the whole empire. As we all know, Israel never has a choice.

But keeping them locked up still raises some questions that will inevitably be answered, whether Washington and Tel Aviv hide their heads in the sands of occupied Palestine or not:

• How many votes is Washington by its repression of Gaza handing to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt’s upcoming election?
• How many potential supporters of democracy in the Mideast will instead join al Qua’ida?
• How much further will Greeks, already inflamed by their recession and European-American demands that they sacrifice, be irritated by this latest slap in the face?
• How much more will Erdogan’s moderate Islamic party be radicalized by Washington’s refusal to countenance any Turkish independence even on the most egregious regional issue of injustice?
• How much more American blood and treasure will be wasted defending repressive Mideast regimes standing tall on the ramparts of sand castles?