Shipping Jobs Overseas

Issue Level: High, National

Issue: A factory closes in America. A factory opens in another country. Producing the same products. Owned by the same company. Why? Because the corporate executives are legally required to do what's in the best interest of the shareholders. That's bad.

Bad? Hasn't that been a key part of the financial engine of the American economy for generations? Yes it has, but best-interest-of-the-shareholder decisions didn't use to cause our jobs to move overseas because international shipping and communication used to be far more costly and far less reliable. As those factors have become inexpensive and reliable, the shareholder first/last/always perspective has led to a tremendous exodus of American jobs. When it means replacing a profitable factory if the executives think they can make larger profits by relocating, that's bad.

Is there anything we can do about it? You bet there is. And no, it's not trade wars to artifically raise the costs of international transporation and communication. It's much easier than that. The problem is that the shareholders aren't the only stakeholders, and the perspective of corporate excutives is distorted. The solution, I believe, is to balance that perspective.

Policy Proposal: Change the fiduciary responsibilities of corporate excutives to give equal weight to shareholders and employees.

Rationale: This change won't stop all American jobs from ending up in other countries, but it will protect many of them. When the needs of employees are given equal consideration to those of shareholders, an existing factory will be relocated only when that factory isn't sustainable at all where it is. Then it has has to be shut down, period. The company could, under those conditions, build a factory in another country, if that's feasible. But no factory would be ever again be relocated just to increase profits when that factory could be sustained where it is at marginal profits.

Talking to Your Enemies

Issue Level: Medium

Issue: Talking to leaders of nations we don't like. This issue first came to my attention in a campaign speech by Barack Obama. Interesting. I've pondered possible advantages and disadvantages, and while I haven't come up with a diffinitive way to determine the best policy, I suspect that the talk-to-anyone approach is best.

For example, why did we invade Iraq the second time? Primarily because we thought they had weapons of mass destruction and they refused to let international inspectors check them out thoroughly. Now we know that they did not have such weapons. So why didn't Saddam Hussein allow the inspectors free access to determine that and report it to the world, knowing that Allied forces might overthrow him if he didn't? Because Iran, with whom they had recently fought a drawn-out war with high casualty rates all around, was still hostile, and still threatening. The possibility of weapons of mass destruction was a serious deterrent to the constantly sabre-rattling Iranians. So Saddam was between a rock and a hard place, let everyone be aware they were weak and risk renewed war with Iran, or try to stall the inspection process and hope other nations (the United States and our Allies) wouldn't go over the brink. Suppose we had been talking with Saddam during those days. Suppose we could have worked out an agreement that allowed the IAEA inspections in secret, so that the Iranians wouldn't find out? Who knows what kind of concessions we could have cajoled out of Saddam? Perhaps we could have gotten him to more toward representative democracy without all the bloodshed and threat of civil war. Who knows? No one. Because we didn't talk.

Policy Proposal: Require our State Department to continually approach all foreign leaders with whom we do not have official relations, in pursuit of initial dialogs and encouraging beligerent nations to move toward peaceful representative democracy.

Rationale: While such discussions may produce no fruit, it is possible that they could yield tremendous benefits, and the cost is neglible.

Disagree? Want to change my mind? Everyone is welcome to submit arguments that are factual and logical. I'm open minded.

How Should America Behave Internationally?

America been responsible for some great things in history, from the form of our civil governments that provide our citizens unusual levels of freedom, to feeding untold millions of people around the world. It has also been responsible for some terrible things in history, from unilaterally breaking established treaties with native American Indians to sustaining oppressive dicators in foreign countries.

Most Americans are proud and grateful to be Americans, while a few focus so intently on our misdeeds that they fail to appreciate our noble attributes. No matter what we do, some people around the world will like us, and some will not. However, we as a nation can endeavor to do the things that we can all be proud of -- things that will cause civilized people to like us, and we should do none of the things that we will be ashamed of.

What are those things? We should think about what that list should be. We should create a list, constantly reexamine and improve that list, and constantly strive to fulfill it. Here I propose an initial list, and I invite suggestions from anyone, anywhere, to post suggestions for improvements:

• Generosity. As long as America has a prosperous economy, we should continue to help feed the poor around the world, and help them develop their abilities to feed themselves.


• Military Force. Our military should protect us from invasion by other nations and from attacks by anyone. We should work with other nations to protect the innocent. We should not equate economic prosperity with national security -- as long as nations are willing to sell us oil at some price, we should not use force in other countries for the goal of acquiring oil less expensively.


• Global Stability. Peace is good, war is bad. We should promote peace wheverever we can, and avoid war except as necessary to defend ourselves and protect the innocents in other counties as we are able. Economic stability is also highly valuable to civilization, and we should continue to work with all nations to promote stable economic systems and fair trading practices.


• Leadership. America can and should provide global leadership in freedom, education, health, technology, international goals, prosperity, and conservation. This means helping all nations that would appreciate our assistance in any of these areas; It does not mean forcing them to adopt to our ways of doing things.


• Nuclear Power. We should not only approve of other nations developing nuclear power, we should help any nation to do so, as long as they refrain from developing nuclear weapons and comply with oversight requirements by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to ensure that they limit themselves to peaceful use of the technology.

Full Congressional Representation for D.C. Residents

Issue Level: Medium

Issue: Many folks outside the Washington D.C. area aren't aware that residents of the District do not get to vote for a seat in the House of Representatives or the Senate. Many people (especially D.C. residents) agree that they should have those rights, but efforts to provide them have so far been unfruitful. The biggest problem lies in the fact that a very large majority of D.C. residents are Democrats, and the Republicans don't want to expand the number of seats in the House with a single new seat that would surely have a Democrat holding it. So, they periodically discuss adding two new seats, one for the District, and one somewhere else that is heavily Republican. So far none of those efforts have succeeded.

Policy Proposal: For purposes of Federal elections, treat the citizens of the District of Columbia residents as residents of the State of Maryland. Anytime the combined population of Maryland and the District exceeds the number required to trigger new House seats (or reapportionment), the combined group would be treated just like Maryland would otherwise be treated by itself. This will give District citizens one U.S. Representative and two Senators, like all other U.S. citizens.

Rationale: D.C. residents are U.S. citizens and should have the same voting rights as all other U.S. citizens, the District was originally carved out of Maryland, and the areas of Maryland around D.C. match the District with a majority of Democrats.