Privatization vs. the Public Good

Marc Lamont Hill succinctly describes the liberal Democratic platform in a single page in Nobody (2016) (paperback, pp. 177): 

The problem with this approach is that it ignores government's tendency to borrow, particularly from private banks. If tax revenues and other fees do not match the cost of services, especially when new services are needed, private banks provide the loans/bonds. In short, the "liberal" anti-privatization model renders government at state and local levels dependent on private banks. (It should not be surprising, then, that many have called America's Democratic Party the party of Wall Street, and its Republican Party the party of Big Oil.) 

I suppose one could argue "deficits don't matter" and render Congress's power of the purse into a literal money tree, showering all cities and states with interest-free loans. And yet, if governance could be so simple, why not make it even simpler and have Congress give all individuals money directly? Indeed, many have suggested the latter as the basis of UBI (Universal Basic Income), but the experiment has always been directed towards the unemployed or the neglected, perhaps assuming human beings prefer meaningful work over none at all. 

We have now arrived at the true difficulty at the intersection of commerce and government: creating meaningful jobs while avoiding excessive and uneven inflation. 

From local Los Altos, California newspaper (June 2019)
Every single state executive office is run by Democrats, from Governor to Insurance Commissioner.

Even ignoring, as Mr. Hill does, commerce's complex trade/security agreements with other nations and the trillions of dollars of debt these agreements assume, nowhere in his analysis of commerce does he make room for the ambitious, the persecuted, or the minority not agreeing with his definition of the "common good." And while it is true ambition often paves its way through artifice, there we can find government's true calling: protecting common people from the ambitious while creating an economic system bringing everyone together so as to prevent persecution as well as self-segregation. 

The problems of modern commerce are vast and complex, centering chiefly around unimaginative local governments favoring the tried-and-true, leading to uneven development, de facto segregation, then the very inequality Mr. Hill abhors. Private entities are not silver bullets against corruption, but history teaches us any entity suffering from a lack of competition--such as public jails or police departments--will eventually become corrupt or deficient. With respect to privatized jails, we have learned it is possible for the private to become as corrupt as the public without sufficient oversight of necessary adjoining agencies--in this case, ICE and police departments. Finally, if corralling commercial activity were so straightforward as prioritizing the public good over the profit motive, one wonders why the mafia or black markets exist at all. 

The first step to strengthening social cohesion is trust in government, which requires not only transparency, but an understanding that modern commerce is so complex, only cooperation at both the neighborhood and national levels will create viable solutions. States like Singapore are small enough to make the gap between neighborhoods and their national Parliament a short walk, while countries like Norway have such small populations, a gap between their capitals and outlying regions can never become too great. America, like Russia and China, possesses none of these advantages and must work harder to prevent a police state from taking over completely in the name of the public good. As an American resident, I am confident most Americans favor the public good, but less so when it comes to the hard work and humility in getting there. 

© Matthew Mehdi Rafat (2019) 

Bonus I: when academics without a direct understanding of law and economics talk about the "profit motive," almost every criticism as applied to corporations could be applied to the mafia, which operates across borders using the singular method of violence--a tactic corporations cannot use. (Unlike your local loan shark, Wells Fargo or JP Morgan cannot send someone to break your legs if you default or declare bankruptcy.) 

GQ article by Alex Hannaford (June 2019)

Instead, multinational corporations must contend with three or four layers of overlapping jurisdictions, a level of red tape making it easier for governments, whether liberal or conservative, to demand ever-escalating payments, legal fees, or bribes to do business and to bring consumers more choices. When such choices are made without any regard to long-term planning, chaos results, causing critics to blame the profit motive rather than the target government's poor vision. Thus, the better arguments against corporate power revolve around short-termism (i.e., short term profit motives) and lobbyists' efforts to insulate corporations from accountability or transparency (i.e., giving corporations the same qualified immunity as some government agents). 

Bonus II: while we're on the topic of overlapping jurisdictions, let's review why such a dynamic exists. First, redundancy. If a local police department is overwhelmed (think riots), it needs to be able to request additional personnel. A local entity prepared for all worst case scenarios will bankrupt local government or deprive cities and counties of much-needed social and other services, eventually guaranteeing a repressive police state. (Mr. Hill himself explains this exact issue in discussing Ferguson, Missouri.) 

Second, local entities represent local citizens, who may have different needs and wants than national representatives. By forcing national and multinational participants to adhere to local regulations, cities and counties can shape their own destinies--up to a point. (Justice Louis Brandeis' shorthand term for this interplay is "laboratories of democracy.") 

Third, if a local entity is corrupt (think Mississippi Burning (1988)), a local resident has no recourse but to appeal to an outside authority having jurisdiction. 

In short, overlapping jurisdictions were not designed to promote complexity for the sake of complexity, serving an unnecessary expansion of law school and academic influence, nor to allow looser federal purse strings to wedge themselves between police departments and local residents.

Bonus III: democracy is hard to successfully implement over long periods of time, and even harder the larger the geographical area. A blue collar worker in Kansas, absent some respected intermediary, may have nothing in common (except language) with a software engineer in California. The idea of a common language is to establish respected intermediaries, such as journalists (think Charles Kuralt, Studs Terkel), to bridge the gap and help form a national identity, but of course language can manufacture social dissolution just as well as social cohesion. 

It may be the case that a 5 to 7 days workweek is inimical to a well-functioning democracy by not allowing enough voters sufficient time for study and contemplation. And yet, one can be certain a majority of contemporary American adults, most of whom had ineffective public school teachers, would spend their additional free time on less-than-edifying activities. Is it any wonder, then, that America has become the land of the distracted, home of the vested interests? Why would a minority or immigrant with options choose such a place? And how have less developed areas, which preserve local agency through national neglect or capitol corruption, attained the very character wished upon us by our most educated and most sincere? 

A Grave Period

Straits Times, July 23, 2018

Having studied Western jurisprudence for almost two decades, I assumed an accordion and trombone analogy could explain the West's checks and balances. Recent events have proven me wrong. I am not referring to America's 2016 election. The rise of demagogues or "strongmen" is not new or limited to the West. Before Donald Trump and Viktor Orbán were Augusto Pinochet and the much more able Lee Kuan Yew: "I never killed them [my opponents]. I never destroyed them. Politically, they destroyed themselves." (New York Times, August 29, 2007) 

Back to the accordion--I'm thinking of the one with a small harmonica attached--and the trombone. The accordion represents--or represented--three branches of government: executive (the doers); legislative (the people's voice, as written); and judicial (the brake or time-out, when necessary). As one branch would attempt to extend its influence, the other two would react to keep the tune harmonious rather than shrill. The trombone represented honest journalism, a complementary bass to sustain and awaken the accordion player if s/he ever became tired. 

In reality, however, the "Court is a reactive institution. It's never in the forefront of social change." (Justice Ginsburg) So much for the judicial brake. Meanwhile, the journalistic trombone, by itself, can influence atrocious music if the audience is too busy, too tired, or too distracted to listen closely to any melody. (No one ever expected a musician to go rogue and supplant the conductor.) Moreover, if executive players insulate themselves from accountability through alliances with lawyers and the legislative branch (e.g., separate disciplinary standards and procedures for government workers), suddenly our accordion player has one very strong arm pushing against a weak one. In sum, Western democratic ideals are so optimistic, they presuppose a fragile, easily-manipulated system is capable of staying in tune even as vested interests stake out more and more territory over time. PM Lee Hsien Loong, in 2018, hinted at this assumption rather than requirement of self-correction: "Yours is a system which has elaborate checks and balances. It is meant to be able to correct itself and prevent policy from being taken to unwise extremes." Compared to the more robust and arguably less mellifluous Eastern model, the Western approach seems to get riskier over time. And what of the Singaporean model, a so-called "third way"? 

From Perry's Singapore (2017)

Singapore in particular recognized the value of consolidating "checks and balances" into a non-ideology ideology: "We knew what to avoid--racial conflict, linguistic strife, religious conflict." In Singapore's view, Indonesia's motto of "unity in diversity" required a stronger, more uniform, and more visible hand to maximize each group's potential--and, most importantly, to avoid racial riots. By restricting the aforementioned accordion's available playlist, Singapore eliminated the need for the trombone and, at the same time, removed the potential imbalance between the accordion player's mouth and two arms. Under the Eastern system, open conflict or unsteadiness would become unheard of. The accordion player would heed proper direction, and all would be well. Here in 2018, one may argue with Singapore's available playlist, but one cannot reasonably question its success, its continued racial and religious diversity, and the accomplishment of its stated goals.

Singapore proves the Eastern system, like the Western one, can work well if conditions are right. Additionally, the Eastern system's strong executive approach means it need replace only one leader rather than three or four potentially conflicting ones, providing the advantage of simplicity--no small matter when attempting national cohesiveness and the establishment of long-term goals. Yet, the simplicity of the Eastern system is also its undoing. A forceful conductor who limits the range of his musicians can succeed as long as s/he is alive, but left to their own devices, the musicians, so used to only one range of play and one style of direction, usually decline. Seen this way, both the Western and Eastern systems rely on leadership development and replacement. 

Unfortunately, the world has no oversupply of able conductors--quite the opposite. Having lived in Singapore in 2001, I felt a "comfortable disconnect" in 2018 that did not exist until after founder Lee Kuan Yew's death in 2015. Of course it is better to be rich than poor, but no handicap is possibly more severe than being born into a too-rich family, especially in the public eye. Idleness is not the issue but the probability that one's opinions are disconnected from the reality shared by most people. In one sense, Singaporeans today are all Lee Kuan Yew's children born into one of the richest families in the world, and as Singaporean-American author Kevin Kwan notes, "The problem is that they all have too much money, and it's come so easily to them that they think they're bloody geniuses and so they are always right." 

Devadas Krishnadas, in his interesting but unfortunately meandering book, hits the nail on the head when he examines reasons for Singapore's success: "[A]mongst the 5 W's--why, what, whom, when, and where--the 'Why?' was the singular most important query to satisfy. If that question had a good answer then the rest would be a matter of tactics." (Sensing Singapore, paperback, 2014, pp. 20) As long as Lee Kuan Yew was alive, the "Why" had an answer, but now, after his death, the Eastern model is flailing silently--but comfortably--in his long shadow. 

Indeed, the goals of most Singaporean residents are no longer national unity, diverse hawker centres open till midnight, or the creation of an ASEAN role model. Most non-senior Singaporeans want things, not ideas. They desire houses, cheaper health care, and more flexibility in CPF contributions and withdrawals. The most common mobile image on the MRT? A Lazada screen. The natural result of a society divorced from the shared ideals of a strong leader is perhaps a rise in different ideologies, but certainly, more things. Most conveniently, things do not ask, "Why?" 

The more one examines this new paradigm, the more one senses humanity entering a vast showroom filled with many wonderful things but lacking the ability to articulate a reason for any of them. In contrast, a vacuum and dishwasher saved every woman and bachelor in the 1900s time and energy. The sneakers worn today by your average non-athlete are far easier on your feet than the ones worn by Bob Cousy in his heyday. A car not only allowed easier transportation, it literally opened up vast stretches of land otherwise inaccessible. 

Lest you become too aggrieved, note that human nature hasn't changed much. Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote the following words in 1904, a time notable for its many new things, including the vacuum cleaner, air conditioning, electrocardiograms, and radar: 

Things are of the snake. 
The horseman serves the horse, 
The neatherd serves the neat, 
The merchant serves the purse, 
The eater serves his meat; 
’T is the day of the chattel, 
Web to weave, and corn to grind; 
Things are in the saddle, 
And ride mankind.

Surely the more things change, the more they stay the same, but do they still stay the same when the digital world overtakes the tangible one, and when things no longer provide as much utility as before? I don't know, but I'm sure of one thing: in such a world, we need effective rather than ineffective checks and balances, and we are in danger of having everything except the things that matter the most. Good luck, lah? 

Why Do the Private and Non-Profit Sectors Exist Anyway? (Comparing Singaporean and American Governance)

Americans and Europeans lack widespread knowledge of civics. I don't mean abstract concepts of government but their practical application. For instance, why shouldn't the government handle all affairs? Is it checks and balances? Healthy competition? 

First-World Governmental Systems Aren't Fundamentally Different from Each Other

Consider that governments already have internal and external checks and balances. Internally, independent oversight exists through a judiciary and/or HR processes removing bad actors. Externally, privatization has become more common but one need only study America's private prisons to see secondary options don't necessarily increase accountability or efficiency. 

American-style corporate privatization hasn't provided superior oversight because boards of directors do not generally question executive decisions, and most shareholders are dispersed or inactive. Neville Isdell, Coca-Cola's former CEO, once described his distaste at a board member's meticulous research into different pay scales, implying the board member's diligence was unhelpful. Mr. Isdell worked his way up from lowly general manager to CEO, becoming one of the world's most level-headed and successful executives. If Mr. Isdell--and some might add Mr. Jack Welch and Mr. Jeff Immelt to the list--was unable to stomach dissenting or different voices on his board of directors, one can see vehicles designed to do x don't necessarily mean x will actually occur. 

Warren Buffett once wrote, "You only find out who is swimming naked when the tide goes out," and Americans appear to have accepted a default system that conceals rule-breakers or excessive risk-takers until after a crime has taken place--despite numerous regulations intending to discover miscreants in real-time. The clues point to one conclusion: systemic checks in the abstract don't matter as much as its participants' willingness to stress-test their ideas in an environment that promotes questions--and change. 

To take an example at the other end of the checks-and-balances spectrum, Singapore is essentially a one-party state run by the People's Action Party (PAP) and controls Temasek Holdings, a massive state-owned investment company. Despite this consolidation of power, no reasonable person thinks Singapore requires more political diversity to improve public responsiveness because the PAP has signaled it will not tolerate corruption. It helps that Singapore's lack of corruption is self-reinforcing--its presumed integrity functions as a powerful competitive advantage in a region with much larger, faster-growing economies. Even so, if almost-absolute power corrupts, why has Singapore succeeded? 

Someone wishing to play Devil's advocate might raise the case of Roy Ngerng, a Singaporean blogger sued for defamation. According to Singapore's Straits Times, "Mr Ngerng's post suggested that PM Lee had misappropriated Singaporeans' Central Provident Fund (CPF) savings [by likening] the Prime Minister to City Harvest Church leaders, who were at the time facing prosecution for alleged misuse of $50 million in church funds." Following a court-issued judgment of 150,000 Singaporean dollars, Mr. Ngerng apparently moved to Taiwan and "described the termination of his employment [in Singapore] as 'politically motivated.'" 

I've briefly perused Mr. Ngerng's blog, and I found his writing terrible. His posts make sweeping generalizations: "I will go quickly through the maths but you don’t have to get too engrossed with the technicalities. Just try to see the whole picture." Unfortunately, Mr. Ngerng's entire line of reasoning often misses the whole picture. He complains that citizens or CPF contributors seeking to withdraw "forced savings"--my term, not his--from the country's common fund to purchase a home must repay the assumed rate of accrued interest on the withdrawal. (For finance geeks, the closest American analogy would be having to pay taxes and/or a penalty on early traditional IRA withdrawals. Think of the American system as a privatized version of Singapore's CPF but without a guaranteed ROI.) 

Ngerng then seems to weaken his own argument by revealing the subsidized(?) mortgage interest rate available to withdrawees: only 2.6%(!). To escape the implications of this wonderfully low interest rate, he adds to it the 2.5% assumed minimum interest on CPF funds, calculating the "real" mortgage rate [as] 5.1%--allegedly "a very high interest rate." I'm not an expert on Singapore, but if you're not able to follow, just know the blog fails to consider complex regulations in light of a centrally-planned economy where the government provides subsidized flats. If I wanted to be critical, I would have argued the Singaporean government should be doing more to build and offer affordable flats for non-married permanent residents and non-married citizens, but that's a separate issue I didn't see anywhere in his analysis. 

Should the government have sued Mr. Ngerng for his poor writing? I think not--he seems more in need of an explanation of his own country's economic system than a lawsuit. If I were involved, I'd ask whether 150,000 Singaporean dollars is worth the risk that Singapore won't produce excellent writers (Kevin Kwan moved to the United States when he was 11) because they'll be too concerned with potential litigation. For a country priding itself on practicality, other approaches would have been more balanced in terms of boosting creativity while punishing lies. 

As for Singapore's allegedly harsh legal system, I'll share a story that should, once again, indicate differences between the American and Singaporean legal systems aren't as vast as you might think: I was personally fined 11,000 USD by a federal judge without being given the opportunity to appear in his courtroom. As a one-person law firm, 11,000 USD is a substantial fine that chilled my speech--in this case, innovative legal arguments and zealous advocacy on behalf of my clients relating to securities laws--and eventually played a part in my exiting the full-time practice of law after investing over 100,000 USD in earning my degree. (It didn't help that a local judge, Socrates Manoukian, initially sanctioned me 1,000 USD for making what he deemed overly zealous and disrespectful arguments in a separate matter.) 

In any case, we now ought to agree types of systems matter when trying to maximize anti-corruption measures, creativity, public responsiveness and accountability, but their implementation is equally if not more important. Stated another way, it is better to live under an honest, wise king and queen than a Parliament, judiciary, and President comprised of fools and drunkards. 

Just for good measure, I'll create my own Singaporean "free speech" test by criticizing the Singaporean government and then alerting official government entities, including the police department, to this post: I'm visiting Singapore in 11 days, and I believe Singapore is making a mistake not accommodating Jehovah's Witnesses on the basis of the group's pacifist beliefs, which forbids them from participating in Singapore's mandatory military service. Refusing to make reasonable exemptions for religious minorities reflects poorly on large entities, whether countries or companies, and also demeans one's ability to claim diversity and tolerance. Singapore's strength is not just its reputation for integrity, but its diversity, and jailing anyone part of a longstanding, established religion for his or her sincere religious beliefs makes it harder to attract the best residents from around the world.

Posted May 20, 2018. I will also demand a durian milkshake when I arrive.

 And that's how it's done, lah? 

Private Sectors Exist to Catch Blind Spots & Incorporate Missing Links into Overall System, Minimizing Fragmentation

Rather than checks and balances, I would argue a private sector exists 1) to improve civic responsibility by delegating authority; and 2) to increase the chances of attracting and developing talent that might otherwise go unnoticed. 

We've all heard it takes a village to raise a child, but the modern-day equivalent is an unfamiliar, foreboding city with numerous institutions disconnected from one other, vying to attract capital and talent. Over time, such an environment prioritizes maintenance of one's own organization and funding rather than the uplifting of one's country. Furthermore, as organizations become larger, they tend to rely on following orders for the sake of following orders, minimizing worker and citizen discretion in the process. 

Modern society has seemingly sacrificed individuality for the sake of the greater good, whether through ill-implemented quality control processes or indiscriminate technological surveillance. Individuals have rebelled by exempting themselves from rules designed to provide order, and along the way, enough factions have developed to render the intent behind most formal rules useless. In almost every case, segregation--a way of avoiding useless rules and building community through "benign exclusion"--has created greater attenuation and thus less accountability. Whether the reduced accountability results from deliberate misinformation by hostile actors because of the greater levels of disconnectedness or more honest reasons, the result is the same: a lack of trust, which leads to less compassion, less tolerance, and less kindness. A society that delegates authority without maintaining informational integrity will find that civic responsibility--and therefore community cohesion--is negatively impacted. 

The private and nonprofit sectors were designed to combat exactly these problems of segregation and misallocation of resources. What the government could not reach, leaders like the Rockefeller family, private schools (LeBron James, Clarence Thomas, etc.), 

But see Becoming Kareem (2017)

or nonprofits (in journalism and public resources, see Pew Centers, Annenberg, etc.) would. Indeed, why allow tax exemptions at all unless the beneficiaries seek out vagrants and unidentified talent and harness their energy to positive or at least non-negative uses? 

Although the private sector lacks a direct tax exemption, its ability to write off expenses or operate at a loss gives it more latitude to pursue different projects as well as hire persons unsuited to a 9 to 6 schedule. The private sector isn't attractive merely because it allows people freedom to experiment in ways less likely by career civil servants; it's also valuable because it can generally fail with less severe consequences (e.g., Sungevity bankruptcy, VW's emissions scandal, but see exploding Pintos, Deepwater Horizon oil spill) than governmental entities (Enron's request to use particular accounting standard, the Philando Castile shooting, Gulf of Tonkin, etc.). 

In the end, competition for talent--wherever it is--will arise between the private and public sectors, but neither sector can succeed without showing clear, tangible gains to the public. Such gains are not maximized unless every group's energy and input are included in meaningful rather than token ways. Generally, long-term costs of exclusion, even if unintentional, far exceed the costs of inclusion on the front end. 

I'm reminded of one of my heroes, Julian Bond, giving a speech in which he skillfully linked the future of entitlement programs to the development of diverse youth today. Since we are focusing on details, I must say I worry about the world's failure to develop leaders like Mr. Julian Bond and Mr. Lee Kuan Yew, who were so adept at advancing the argument that we are all in this together, and if we are not, we may not drown, but we will surely sink. (I heard Mr. Bond speak only once and was mesmerized. I have yet to hear another person who matches his delivery and wisdom, despite the passage of a decade.)

To sum up, the nonprofit sector exists to capture blind spots and bring them into the fold, reducing fragmentation, and the private sector exists to encourage innovation and promote less rigidity. If the public sector seeks to elevate itself above the private sector through more favorable legal treatment, it will lose its integrity by failing to see the reason for its own existence: as a store of unassailable institutional knowledge and as a bulwark against short-term shifts in public opinion.

Without Integrity, Everything Falls Apart by Encouraging Unnecessary Complexity & Division

As the modern economy has become more intangible (bits and bytes) than tangible (a new NASA Space Center in Houston, Texas), governments are hard-pressed to maintain credibility, especially as private and nonprofit sectors compete more aggressively for talent. The way to reverse this trend is not to argue, as President Obama and Senator Elizabeth Warren foolishly did when they said "You didn't build that [on your own]," but to acknowledge any successful economic system is complex and requires all gears to work together to move forward. It helps to have a 10 year budget with contingencies for revenue shortfalls, but many ways exist to blunt the argument that government doesn't care about a particular segment of society or is wasting taxpayer funds. 

Above all, governments must remember they exist not to be "umpires," as the current Chief Justice of the Supreme Court once said, but to create a store of long-term institutional knowledge that excludes the influence of marketing. To act as an objective store of institutional knowledge requires integrity, the sine qua non of any successful enterprise, but particularly in government, which must often act as a mediator or brake against excesses. In addition, without integrity, a government will soon find itself outflanked by the private sector even in areas like space exploration, where R&D may not see investment returns for decades. A government that can tax by force begins with a competitive disadvantage against the private sector; a government that taxes without the presumption of integrity will automatically injury-default to competitors. 

To be sure, a government with integrity has more leeway with the public, reducing the need for fragmentation. Consider the following novel idea: citizen morale can be improved by designating specific ombudspersons under each department accessible by phone and email and required to respond within one week to any citizen question or complaint. Ombudspersons would need to collaborate with each other and inform agency or department leaders of policy decisions, all of which would be publicly accessible. Citizens opposed to any ad hoc policies may then petition each other and local government to reverse decisions not in the public interest, but such reversal should not be based on public opinion. Customers are not always right, and neither are citizens. Ombudspersons would be valued based on abilities to provide and communicate objective, independent, and consistent guidelines and would serve 10 year staggered terms. This is one example of an idea that can only be done in a country where integrity is presumed in governmental ranks. The alternative seems to be a mishmash of rules and regulations no one understands, with the need to hire an expensive (and potentially dishonest) attorney. If legal alternatives become too expensive or onerous, loopholes will be sought, and segregation assured. 

What Will the Future Look Like?

I started this article comparing two countries with two different systems: one allegedly more authoritarian, and one allegedly more free. We should now see labels weren't very helpful in determining which system truly accomplished its goals. 

The deal between governments and citizens used to be straightforward: 1) don't question the King because his power comes from God; 2) in exchange for your loyalty, we'll give you the essentials, including shelter, protection, and food. Over time, more people clamored for greater transparency and participation, and as information and products once restricted to governments became publicly available, governments diverged. Some continued the older model of exchanging economic security or non-interference for obedience (or at least a lack of open criticism) while others encouraged transparency and open discussion. The push and pull between the private and public sectors has always occurred, whether the Dutch or British East India Companies and the House of Habsburg, or Amazon versus state taxing authorities. If it feels different today, it must be our own ignorance of history rather than novel developments. 

Looking ahead, it will be interesting to see how different governance models respond to severe recessions. A government that premises social stability on economic growth and less citizen participation seems to require perpetual GDP and jobs growth or immigration/population restrictions that reduce its talent pools. Today, the more participatory government model is embattled, not because of any inherent flaw but because of a lack of integrity: revelations have proven transparency was often an illusion and so-called democratic models were equally if not more authoritarian than more restrictive models. 

Even without the implicit promise of economic assistance, the participatory model still retains its attraction, indicating some atavistic force. Just imagine two households: in one, the children are always obedient to the parents, work hard, and receive guaranteed jobs in the parents' factory after finishing school. In the other, children are openly critical of their parents and voice their concerns loudly and often. Upon graduating college, they have no employment guarantee. Which scenario would you choose? 

The latter scenario is no longer clearly favorable because of modern-day dependence on debt and the failure to promote honest journalism, whether in the style of Studs Terkel or Edward R. Murrow. If you imagine the same comparison, but without student loans or four trillion dollars of corporate loans maturing in the next five years, the second scenario feels more attractive. Perhaps deep down, we need to know we can howl at the moon, even if our voices won't change its gravitational pull. Or perhaps we know a society that discourages questions will eventually become complacent and decline; segregate itself into a new caste system; or become subservient to a more open society. 

Whatever the style or reasoning, if governments claim to be open and free, they must actually be open and free. Some governments today claim to be anti-royalty while their ranks reek of nepotism or legacy political appointees; to favor merit while allowing loopholes and preferences for ever-increasing factions; and to uphold equality while creating separate processes for rank-and-file employees as well as executives. In the end, 'tis simple: "To thine own self be true"--or be prepared to fail under any system. 

Update on June 1, 2018: I had no issues whatsoever entering Singapore. 

Credit and Credibility in America

America Has the Most Complex System of Government Worldwide

I'm keenly interested in how other countries promote stability and confidence in government services. For example, compare London, England (about 8 million residents) to the Bay Area in California (about 7 million residents). The Bay Area has several different FBI offices, Sheriff's offices, and city police departments. Except for the FBI, all the offices have different elected or appointed leaders. Meanwhile, London is served by one Metropolitan Police Department, which employs about 50,000 people. It's true London is subject to jurisdiction by the National Crime Agency, but overlapping jurisdiction is rarer, and we're still discussing two law enforcement agencies rather than ten-plus in the Bay Area (S.F., Cupertino, Campbell, Sunnyvale, Palo Alto, Oakland, Alameda County, San Mateo County, Santa Clara County, Marin County, etc.).  Having one police agency reduces administrative overhead as well as the need for different procedures, but it also seems to provide greater trust through greater simplicity.

America, in contrast, has at least three different levels of governance and taxation: federal, state, and local (city and county).  In a typical day, an American parent might pay gas taxes to the state and the city; educational fees to a local school board--which may have independent taxing authority--and a state; and then sales taxes at different rates to yet two other cities. Such fragmentation makes it difficult to determine whom to hold accountable if anything goes wrong; worse, it's harder to improve services even if nothing is wrong because of the need to understand different and overlapping procedures and jurisdiction. (And we haven't even mentioned property taxes or special assessments.)

As one might expect, such complexity increases the potential for corruption exponentially, especially when the goal is to increase annual funding under a system forcing governmental entities to compete against each other for the many of the same dollars. In one instance, a county and city in the same territory sued each other over a dispute about which entity was entitled to millions of dollars of tax revenue already received.

In other countries, the federal/national government might act as a tax collector and then distribute funding to states or territories, thereby creating greater fiscal accountability through separation. When the entity using the money isn't the same entity collecting it, chances of corruption are reduced. Think of it this way: if you apply for a passport at one office but have to pay the fee in another office and bring back a receipt allowing you to pick up your passport, the chances for bribery are almost nil.

On paper, the idea behind America's governmental diversity is to increase checks and balances and to provide opportunities for each city and state to create their own cultures, which might appeal to different persons and therefore increase inclusivity. Don't like too much government?  Go to New Hampshire. Want lots of government? Go to Northern California. Is your local police force not handling your complaints properly or arresting one racial group more than others for no reason? The federal government can step in on your behalf and sue to fix the problem.

In practice, however, attempts at governmental diversity and accountability have failed, causing almost total mistrust of government. Rather than provide true checks and balances, America's political system of local, state, and federal power has led to more "gaming" on each level, creating complexities difficult to unwind. The original system was created by people familiar with only 13 colonies/states with a population of about 2 million residents in 1775 and about 4 to 5 million in 1800 (not including natives). We can't even remark, "I don't think we're in Kansas anymore," because Kansas didn't exist at the time.

Debt Restricts True Freedom of Choice

Despite such a convoluted system, if people were able to move easily, they could take advantage of different cultures and activities nationwide. On paper, if one city or state was corrupt or close-minded, a family could move and start over in another less corrupt place. In practice, it just doesn't work that way. A college graduate lacking parental support would have about 20,000 USD in student loans. If this person was particularly ambitious, s/he might advance to graduate school, which would necessitate more student loans (though many science/engineering degrees provide grants and stipends). In either case, most of the college grad's networking opportunities would be local or at least in the same state, limiting employment mobility. Thus, despite having the technical ability to move 2,800 miles away, freedom of choice is limited by systemic forces, especially college and networking connections, which tend to be local.

In addition to the general need for alumni connections to garner employment, the need to go in debt to receive not only a college degree but a home and perhaps a new car restricts freedom of movement. If one buys a new car--a requirement in most American cities, which lack efficient public transportation--the value of the car immediately depreciates, making it inadvisable to sell quickly.  (An auto lease is possible but a terrible deal because of the lack of ownership and mileage restrictions.) Basically, more debt restricts flexibility, especially when much of the debt creates local rather than cross-border advantages.

What about buying a home, the most "local" purchase one can make? Under the federal tax code, it would be foolish to buy a home and sell it in less than five years due to numerous costs associated with the sale and the tax benefits of waiting at least 2 years--and that's before a possible penalty for early mortgage payments.

Furthermore, most college grads don't buy homes after graduation. They tend not to have practical skills, because most professors lack recent relevant work experience, meaning even after years of paying tuition, graduates still rely on business investment and training to be productive and profitable. In the meantime, since saving for a down payment can take years, renting is the most feasible option.

In short, a successful American reaching the age of 24 might have 22,000 USD in student loans, a car loan of 12,000 USD, and no ownership of anything other than a piece of paper--while being dependent on local connections to maximize employment and debt-repayment options.

People in Debt are Beholden to their Elders and Therefore the Establishment

A person with 34,000 USD in debt isn't likely to rock any boat. In fact, because of the convoluted system we discussed earlier, such a person is better off brown-nosing as many people as possible to increase his or her chances of receiving employment, even exaggerating his or her expertise to compete with other applicants. As you might predict, in such a dynamic, integrity is often the first value to dissipate, as everyone is focused on paying off debt rather than working together to advance long-term goals. A good reputation is a fine virtue, but not one you can eat.

Establishment-Oriented Societies Do Not Favor Dissent

In San Jose, California--one of the largest cities in America--both recent mayoral candidates graduated from the same private Catholic high school. This was not an accident. Why would anyone pay 7,000 to 12,000 USD for their children to attend a private school when MIT puts its content online?

What if the American Establishment is so ensconced in power, you have to buy your way in?  Maybe it doesn't matter how intelligent or honest your daughter is--if she wants to be mayor one day, what really counts is whether her parents put her in the right private high school. As of April 2017, Santa Clara County's Board of Supervisors is majority Catholic. Dave Cortese attended Bellarmine (Catholic) high school. Cindy Chavez graduated from Moreau Catholic High School in Hayward. Mike Wasserman attended Bellarmine (Catholic) high school from 1972 to 1976. Who's the top local cop? Eddie Garcia, who attended St. Francis High School. As of 2017, Bellarmine high school charges over $20,000 annually in tuition.

It's true all alumni tend to look out for each other, but if you need to start in high school to build those connections, your children will get the jobs left over after the elites assign the ones they want to themselves--regardless of integrity. In such a system, loyalty to your own fiefdom matters more than loyalty to country or the public trust. Some entities, including the military, may convince themselves that looking out for each other is the same as being patriotic, but even General Colin Powell was made to look foolish by intelligence agencies with false information when he testified in favor of invading Iraq. In an age soaked with debt and paid-for connections formed as early as high school, integrity doesn't matter as much as maintaining institutional image.

When Donald Trump said during the presidential debates that mitigating taxes was "smart," he was right--the tax code allows him to take a deduction, so why shouldn't he? What obligation does he have to anyone else, especially when he can donate the money he saved to the entities of his choice--just like Warren Buffett, who will evade the estate tax by donating almost all of his billions to a fellow billionaire?

What happens to dissent in such a system, when the elites look out for themselves, their friends, and their particular institution's image more than any long-term view about what is best for the public?

How can the younger generation--which used to raise hell about unjust wars such as Vietnam--muster any sustained dissent when they are in debt as early as 19 years old or dependent on parental funding?

If government spending drives so many well-paying jobs--now with better benefits than the private sector in many states--and maintaining institutional image is more important than integrity, why would any rational college student or graduate speak out against any entity connected with the government, such as police, teachers, or firefighters? (One side is backed by billions of dollars each year, and the other owes thousands of dollars to the same aforementioned people.)

What happens to a society when the only people capable of bucking the Establishment are themselves part of it?

What happens to a society when the incentive for being honest is non-existent while the incentive for supporting the status quo is the greater likelihood to pay off debt one was forced to take to achieve the possibility of a middle class lifestyle?

I'm interested in knowing whether the problems I've mentioned above are the same everywhere, or especially so in the U.S.  Stay tuned... 

© Matthew Mehdi Rafat (2017)