Alimentary, my dear Watson, alimentary

The Columbia River runs through our region in much the same way as the alimentary canal runs through the human body. Liquids go in one end and come out the other. We do the best we can to ensure that the liquids going in are free of herbicides, pesticides and other toxins because we want our bodies, and the river, to remain healthy.

Now, let's suppose that one day a man came to you and asked, "How would you like to make money transporting toxic substances from point A to point B?"

You might ask for details.

He would say, "It's easy. All you need to do is swallow these balloons filled with cocaine and then carry them from here to there. After you get safely to the other side, we'll separate the bags of cocaine from your excretions, and then we'll remove the cocaine from the bags."

You might ask, "And why would I do this?"

"For the money, of course."

"How much money?"

"Enough. But most of the money will go to people far away who don't care a hoot about you or your health."

"So, if one of the bags were to break, if there is a leak, what would happen to me?"

"You'd probably die," the man would say. "But rest assured, that won't happen. We double-bag the cocaine. Those bags can't break. We are very, very safety conscious."

You weigh the hazards against the rewards, say "No, thank you," and go about your business.

Now let's suppose that on another day another man came to you and asked, "How would you like to make money transporting toxic substances from point A to point B?"

Once again, you asked for details.

The man explained, "It's easy. All you need to do is give approval for trains filled with coal and oil to run through the Columbia River Gorge."

You might ask, "How would this benefit me?"

And he'd reply, "It will provide jobs to train engineers and to workers at the terminal. If you have one of those jobs, you'll benefit directly. Otherwise, the region will benefit indirectly. Most of the money will go to people far away who don't give a hoot about you, the river or Oregon. "

"If one of the containers were to break, if there was a spill, what would happen to the river? What would happen to the animals in the river?

The man, if he were honest, would not mince his words. "The river would get very, very sick. And if the spill happened during a salmon run, the entire species might be wiped out. But let me assure you, there is absolutely no chance of a break, and absolutely no chance of a spill. Everything is double-hulled. We are very, very safety conscious."

The man might add, "We also want you, the Oregon tax-payer, to give us money to rebuild the terminal in St. Helens where we unload coal."

Last week, the Oregon Transportation Commission had to vote on this issue. Ambre Energy, a coal and oil shale company headquartered in Brisbane, Australia, and Salt Lake City had asked for a subsidy of $2,000,000. On Thursday, March 19, the OTC turned down Ambre Energy's request. Thank you OTC and, in particular, thank you Tammy Baney, Chair.

Competition

Ah, the noble fight. The well-deserved victory. Give praise to competitors and the competitive spirit! How could America and the free-market have thrived if rivalry had been reined in by regulations and rules?

As an example of achievement, let's look at the most American of sports, football, and in particular the NFL, the most successful sports franchise in the world. No one doubts that the teams of the league are highly competitive. The games are exciting. The desire among the players to win is intense. And the franchise makes tons and tons of money. About as capitalist as can be, right?

Actually, what makes the NFL so successful is that the profits of the NFL are distributed according to the rules of socialism, that is, evenly: the losing teams make as much money as the winning teams.

"Foul!" you might cry. "Outrage!" "Un-American!" And you'd be right. The way the NFL works is un-American. How could anyone think that rewarding the losers would do anything but make them lazier and more dependent?

In fact, it does just the opposite, and here's how. Since every team receives the same amount of money, every team has a more or less equal chance of getting good payers, and therefore a more or less equal chance of having a good team and making it to the play-offs. Of the 32 NFL teams, all but 4 have played in the Super Bowl during its 49-year existence. Because the teams are more or less equal, competition is stiff and games are more exciting than if one or two teams took most of the profits, bought the best players and won all the games.

Strong rules work. In football, boundaries are clearly defined. The number of players allowed in the game at any one time is fixed. Play lasts for a pre-determined duration. Actions by players are restricted, and the rules governing those restrictions are enforced by referees who have the authority not only to penalize the entire team for an individual's violations, but also to kick the player out of the game.

Imagine football without rules. Chaos. A coach could put more players onto the field to overpower an opponent. Players could run outside the lines knocking down photographers and spectators. Contact between players, which already leads to fisticuffs, would escalate to unchecked mayhem. In effect, there'd be no game.

Now, think of an economy with few rules, or weak rules, an economy in which referees are powerless to enforce the rules that do exist. What might such an economy look like? As you might expect, there'd be gross inequalities in power and wealth. The big-shots would run roughshod over the smaller players. The largest competitors (the multi-nationals) would ask Congress to eliminate rules that restricted their ability to take advantage of uncompetitive and powerless taxpayers. The most competitive individuals (CEOs) would demand extraordinarily large salaries, thereby depriving their employees of a livable wage. High-income individuals would fight increases in taxes that are so essential in supporting the indigent and unemployed, that are so essential in keeping the whole system competitive, and therefore healthy.

Some say that taxes on high incomes punish success. And yet, when high incomes are not aggressively taxed, the super-wealthy monopolize the game and the land of opportunity ceases to exist.