A Black Eye For Pink Ribbons

When I first heard Susan G Komen for the Cure (Komen) was disqualifying Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PP) from future grants, I was disappointed. I've been a supporter of both organizations, and I respect the work Komen has done to bring awareness, education, and research to breast cancer. I've sponsored people in the 3-Day and I've bought "Pink" products. I've always been a vocal supporter of their work.

I also respect and value the work of PP and do not wish to see their funding cut. They provide access to valuable sexual health services, information, and education for more than 3 million of people annually. Let me state that I am not in favor of abortions. However they are legal, and I believe they should be legal in most of the circumstances where they are now legal. You may hold a different opinion, but I invite you to read on. This post isn't about abortion.

I did a lot of research the past couple days, here's what I found:

• Despite claims to the contrary, abortions represent only 3% of the services PP provides and only ~10% of their patients. 97% are non-abortion services and 90% of PP patients do not receive an abortion. PP isn't just about abortion, it's about all those other services.


• The grant from Komen to PP affiliates was for less than $700,000 annually. It's less than 1% of the budget of either organization. It's less than the combined salary of the Presidents of the two organizations (more on that later). Given the size of these two organizations, it's not really worth arguing about. It's a tempest in a tea pot.

If it's not worth arguing about, then why am I bothering to write about it? Because I found out a lot more:

1. Because of the publicity around this, PP raised more than an extra $1M in 48 hours, completely offsetting the annual loss from Komen in 2 days. In reality, PP doesn't need any funding from Komen.


2. PP was using those dollars to provide additional breast examinations. A lot of examinations. Komen grants paid for approximately 170,000 of 4,000,000 breast exams performed by PP over the time that Komen has been giving grants to PP. 6400 of those resulted in a referral for Mammogram. That's a lot of exams, and a lot of lives that may have been saved. So, by any measure, I think it was worth the money.


3. In FY 2008 and 2009, PP spent 16% of it's revenue for management, general, admin, and fundraising expenses (non-service expenses). 1% for international family planning services. 17% for domestic non-medical services. The remaining 66% went for providing medical services those who need it. In FY2008, PP and it's ~ 100 affiliates had total revenue of $1.1B (revenue for just the national office was $106M).
   
   The President's compensation was $384,295 (based in NY with a high cost of living).
   


4. In 2007 Komen spent 60.3% of revenue on (grants for) research, education, and treatment of breast cancer. That means 39.7% went for admin, fundraising, office expenses, travel, and other overhead. In 2008, it was worse, less than 49% went to (grants for) research, education, and treatment, over 51% went for overhead. In 2008, only 40% of the revenue went to research.
   
   Komen had total revenue of $159M. The President's compensation was $558,607 (based in Dallas with a much lower cost of living).

That's right, only around half the donations to Komen went toward the very things they're raising funds for, and less than half actually goes toward finding treatments or cures.

How can the President of Komen face families and friends of breast cancer patients and ask them for their time and money, knowing that she is earning more than 10 times the national household income, knowing that she earns 5, 10, or 20 times as much as the very people shes asking to donate money, while it's those very donations that pay her salary?

To me, that is unconscionable. She may fit in with the wealthy donors and large corporate donors, but I can't see how that's at all consistent with the mission of Susan G Komen for the Cure. I've been a business owner, I know you need to hire quality people, and you may have to pay more for them, but the discrepancy between the pay of the Presidents of these two organizations highlights how inefficient and cavalier Komen has been with our donations.

Why Komen was wrong:
Two days after it started, Komen put out a video explaining their position and reasoning. They had adopted rules that prevented people or organizations that were under investigation from applying for new grants. While that sounds like a prudent way to protect funds of the charity, there is a serious flaw. An investigation does not mean any law or policy has been broken, it just means some official agency has started an investigation. In this instance, one Senator started an investigation of PP based upon pressure from anti-abortion groups.

PP has not been accused of or charged with a crime, much less been found guilty. And that is the major flaw with Komen's new policy. PP was being punished without even being accused, charged, or given a chance to defend themselves. Innocent until proven guilty, and they should at least remain eligible until they've been formally charged with a crime.

The Future:
Today, Komen reversed their decision and will be revising their new policy. But for me, it's too little, too late. See, I've already done the research, and I don't like what I found. I can no longer support Komen, they're too wasteful with donations. They also appear to be driven by political factors rather than by the needs of the patients. That's not what I expect from an organization who claims to be "for the cure".

Another problem with Komen is that we no longer need to raise awareness of breast cancer. You can't drive down the street, or walk through a store without seeing pink ribbons and other pink products. We're all very aware now. It's time to cut back on the advertising and awareness, and focus the money on research and treatment.

Komen has been the center of several other recent controversies. So called "pinkwashing" - putting a pink ribbon on unhealthy products, and threatening other charities and organizations over using the phrase "for the cure" or "for a cure".

This incident has shined a light on the darker aspects of Komen. If they "clean up their act", get the overhead costs down to a reasonable level, including significantly reducing the pay of the President and other officers or board members to be in line with other such organizations, then I'll reconsider. I'm still in support of finding effective treatments and cures for all types of cancer, including breast cancer, but until I see a major change, Komen is off my list of charities that I support.

Komen did the right thing, for the wrong reasons:
Numbers 3 and 4 above point to a fundamental problem with charities funding charities. Komen takes 40%-50% for overhead, and PP will have another 16% overhead. The result, only about 40% of people's initial donation is actually going toward these breast cancer screenings. Even if the percentages are smaller, you're still going to see double overhead. For that reason, and that reason alone, Komen should deny future requests from charities, including PP. PP can perform their own (more efficient) fundraising, making even more money available for patient care.

Update 2014-01-06:
Komen has changed many executives, slightly lowered pay for the replacements, but they're paying $475K/yr to their new CEO. Still very high compared to PP and most other large charities. They also had 22% lower revenue.

Related links:

• Planned Parenthood 2010 Annual Report
• PP 2010 990 form
• I Will Not Be Pinkwashed: Komen's Race Is For Money, Not Cure
• Komen Halted Funding for $12 Million in Stem Cell Research Like We Wouldn’t Notice
• Witch Hunt or Policy Shift? Susan G. Komen Defends Cutting Planned Parenthood Funding
• Reuters: Komen charity under microscope for funding, science.
• Watch Stephen Colbert’s Defense of Planned Parenthood (from April 2011, humor, may contain language)

When You Eat Is As Important As What You Eat.

If you lived in the USA most of your life, chances are that most of your eating habits and most of what you have learned about eating and nutrition is flawed. It's at least incomplete, if not outright incorrect. We have an obesity problem in this country, and it's literally killing us. It also contributes dramatically to our health care costs, and diminishes our enjoyment of life.

I had gotten tired of all of it, so several years ago, I began researching diet and nutrition for myself. What I found may surprise and shock some of you, to others, it may help explain why you are/aren't overweight despite following or not following the nutrition guidlines from the US gov't.

The first thing to know about the gov't guidelines is that they're created by the US Dept. of Agriculture (USDA), an agency created to help farmers grow crops, and raise livestock. Just think about that for a minute. While "food safety" is one of the tasks assigned to the USDA, nutrition and public health are not part of it's charter. There is an obvious conflict of interest in supporting the food producers and promoting healthy (not over-weight or obese) food consumers.

I'm not claiming any kind of conspiracy here, much of the information about what constitutes a healthy diet has been revised in the last 30 years, so guidelines created in the '50s-'70s won't be the best. The current USDA "My Plate" guidelines are definitely better than their earlier guidelines, so they have been improving. However, research on nutrition for how to raise livestock for food (i.e. reach maturity and size as quickly as practical) does not directly apply to keeping humans healthy for 70-100 years. And because consumers eating less food isn't in the charter of the USDA or the best interests of food producers, you should always be a bit skeptical about nutrition and eating guidelines from the USDA.

What about diets?
There are thousands of "diet" plans marketed: rapid weight loss diets, crash diets, low-carb, ultra low-carb, fat-free, low-fat, high-fat, high-protein, low-calorie, low-glycemic index, vegetarian, vegan, fasting, "cleanses", "detox" plans, organic foods, raw foods, whole foods, etc, and dozens or hundreds of each of those. Which one is right? At some level, all of them work for some people, so you could say they're all "right". Few if any of them work for everyone, so you could say they're almost all "wrong". Some of them are also very hard to follow, some don't provide enough of certain nutrients, and some can even be dangerous. I'm not going to tell you which diet to choose, or to choose a diet at all.

All I will offer about specific diets is that moderate carbohydrate, moderate protein, moderate fat diets with plenty of vegetables are what I've found work most effectively for the majority of people. You will see that type of diet easily fits into these guidelines. It's also an easy diet to follow as there are no foods that are prohibited, just some that you have to limit the quantity.

Diets can work to lose weight or address a specific issue, but diets as such don't keep you healthy. Only changing your eating habits can do that. This is not a diet.

For those who are curious, my personal diet is basically from "Eat Right 4 Your Type" by Dr Peter D'Adamo. I was initially very skeptical about the idea that blood type and diet were related, but after reading the theory and science behind it, I thought it sounded plausible. Then, I looked at the specific recommendations for my blood type, I found that it matched very closely to what I had already discovered worked well for keeping me healthy (even though it conflicts with most advice about diet and nutrition). I'm still a uncertain about the connection, but my weight and blood tests show me to be very healthy, so I still say it's plausible. I don't receive anything for promoting that diet/book, it's just what I found works well for me. Using that info, and my recommendations below, I lost about 22lbs (10kg) from the weight I was in the photo on this blog, and I've kept that weight off for years. Your results may differ.

What about organic foods, whole foods, and raw foods?
Remember, I said I wasn't going to get into the specifics of diets. The same applies to these movements. Perhaps I'll address them in another discussion. But for now, I'll just say that these guidelines work whether you're buying these types of foods or not. Buy what you're comfortable eating.

Healthy eating habits:
I'm here to talk about healthy eating habits, guidelines for eating that work with your body. Some, maybe all, of what I present here is information you've heard before. However, very few people have stressed just how important these things are. Let me be clear, these habits are every bit as important as what, and how much, you eat.

These guidelines are designed to speed up your metabolism, minimize the impact on blood sugar, work with your body's daily rythms, and keep your body from initiating "starvation reactions" that cause it to store fat. The "most important" guidelines are listed first, but that doesn't mean the later ones don't matter, they're just more flexible.

You can apply these to almost any diet or no diet at all. These guidelines work with unrestricted diets, calorie restricted diets, carbohydrate restricted diets, diabetic diets, high protein diets, vegetarian or vegan diets, etc. There are few specific foods recommended or restricted, and no food is prohibited, it's about timing, moderation, and balance. These guidelines will tend to naturally limit your caloric intake, although some people may need to impose limits on their calorie consumption, at least when first adopting these habits.

Yes, I realize that these guidelines may disagree with many of the things you've been taught about a "balanced diet". Consider how well that diet has worked for you. For the US overall, it hasn't worked out well. Many people have followed these guidelines and found them to be very effective.

I am not a nutritionist or health professional. If you have any concerns about the safety or appropriateness of these guidelines for yourself, discuss them with your own nutritionist or health professional. If you choose to start a diet, restrict calories, adopt a vegetarian or vegan diet, etc, consult a nutritionist and/or health professional first. This is particularly true of vegetarian, vegan, or any diet that severely limits carbs, protein, meat, or fats, or severely limits calories. On those types of diets, it's more challenging to ensure you're getting enough of the essential nutrients, and a professional can help make sure you do.

The Guidelines:

1. Eat at least 3 times per day: 4-6 times is better. Use small servings. Never skip breakfast, if you're not hungry, eat a snack or small meal anyway (unless you still feel full from the previous meal/snack). If you regularly feel full from the previous meal/snack, you're probably eating too large a meal.
   
   Do not skip meals, eat a light snack at meal time if you're not hungry. Do not eat until you feel full, eat less than you think you want, then wait 5-10 minutes before deciding if you need more. Better to stop early, and eat an extra meal/snack later if necessary. If you feel full at any point, stop eating. Never "stuff yourself". Once you've been following these habits for a while, skipping an occasional meal (1-3 meals a week on different days) shouldn't cause a problem, but don't make a habit of eating fewer than 3 meals spread throughout the day. Remember, small meals/snacks 3-6 times every day.
   
   Update: The latest research suggests that eating more frequently makes no difference. Statistically, that's probably correct overall. However, for a large number of people, it does appear to make a difference. It's worth trying if you're having trouble with maintaining or losing weight.


2. Eat your carbohydrates early: Eat 40%-50% of your daily carbohydrates before lunch (or your mid-day meal), and no more than 25% of them within 4 hours of bedtime. Have more protein and fats at meals later in the day as these are digested and absorbed more slowly and have less impact on blood sugar. Reducing carbs in the evening also seems to help reduce "acid reflux".


3. Drink plenty of filtered water daily: For adults, at least 50oz (1.5L) daily, target 67oz (2L) to 100oz(3L), and up to 135oz (4L), in addition to other beverages you may drink. Do NOT drink all the water at one time, spread it out over the day. If you live or work outdoors, in a hot environment, in a dry climate, or perform strenuous labor or exercise, you may need more water and/or fluids that keep you hydrated and keep your electrolyte levels at a safe level. Note that it is possible to drink too much water and deplete your system of critical water soluble nutrients such as sodium and potassium, this can be life threatening. Consult a health professional to determine an appropriate amount before consuming more than 4L of water in a day.
   
   See the updates below for some potential risks of drinking too much fluid.


4. Limit sugars: Avoid high-fructose corn sweetener (HFCS), corn syrup, "invert sugar", agave nectar, honey, concentrated grape juice, concentrated apple juice. Fructose and fructose/glucose blends are processed by the body differently than is sucrose ("regular" or "real sugar"). Also avoid all artificial sweeteners. Grape juice high in fructose, apple juice is somewhat better, but still higher than desired.
   
   Why limit agave nectar and honey, aren't they supposed to be healthier? Chemically, their sugar content is similar to that of HFCS, primarily separated fructose and glucose. Agave nectar is nearly as artificial as HFCS. While they may be slightly better than HFCS, they're not healthy sweeteners. See HFCS significantly worse than sucrose study or summary article. And another source.
   
   For sweeteners, stick with real sugar (sucrose, raw sugar, turbinado, evaporated cane juice, white sugar, brown sugar), stevia, or limited amounts of honey.
   
   Watch out for "low fat" foods unless they're "natually low in fat". Most "low fat" foods substitute sugars and starches for the fats in order to make them taste better while being able to claim "low fat". Sugars and starches have a greater impact on blood sugar than fats so that substition may be worse for your body.


5. Limit consumption of sweet fruits and fruit juices: They can be significant sources of sugars. Apple, pear, mango, and papaya are "sweet" fruits that either don't have much sugars, or have a reasonable ratio of fructose to sucrose, so they're good options for sweet fruits. Grapes, oranges, bananas and most other sweet fruits should be limited.
   
   
6. Limit potatoes and other starchy vegetables. Eat all the non-starchy or low-starch vegetables you want.


7. Get sufficient protein: Eat seeds, nuts, fish, and/or meats sufficient to get your protein. Most beans and soy products are also good protein sources, however, they may also be a source of starches. Soy can act as an "estrogen mimic", so you should limit soy products.
   
   Get sufficient omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids. Several types of fish and "fish oil" are good sources, as are chicken (fats), chia seeds and certain other seeds and vegetables, but most fruits, nuts, and vegetables are not good sources of these essential brain nutrients. This is of particular concern with vegetarian and vegan diets.


8. Eat grains in moderation: These tend to be high in starches. Whole grains are generally a better choice, having more fiber and nutrients, however, some whole grains are higher in oxalic acid, so some whole grains may be inappropriate for people who have had calcium-oxalate kidney stones. Rice, oats, and barley are generally preferrable to wheat and corn. Yes, I realize the wheat and corn are the two major grain crops in the US, and that it's almost "heresy" to suggest limiting them, not to mention they're so prevalent that they're nearly impossible to avoid completely. They're also two foods to which many people have an allergy or intolerance.


9. Limit eggs and dairy products: You don't need any of these, it's possible to get all the calcium and other nutrients you need from non-dairy foods. You can eat these foods in limited quantities. Cheese is a good source of calcium, and most cheeses (except soft cheeses such as cottage cheese, cream cheese, "farmer's cheese", etc.) are relatively low in lactose because the enzymes that make the cheese consume most of the lactose. Many people who are moderately lactose intolerant can tolerate 1-2 oz of cheese daily.


10. Listen to your body: When you have a "craving", it's usualy a sign that your body needs a particular nutrient. If you eat something with that nutrient, it will satifsy the craving, usually quickly. When you have a craving, first stop and think about various foods noting which ones "sound" best, then try a small amount of one of those foods. If it contains the nutrient(s) your body seeks, it will likely taste "better than it normally does" and will be very satisfying. If that's not it, you should know in the first couple bites. Stop, and repeat the process until you find the food that satisfies. Over time, you'll find that certain cravings recur, and you'll be able to identify them more quickly and go straight for the foods (or vitamin/mineral supplements) that will satisfy them.


11. Don't go to bed full: Don't drink much in the couple hours before bed, that includes water. Too much liquid in your stomach can trigger or aggravate acid reflux. Never go to bed on a full stomach. Wait a couple hours after eating, and at least until that full feeling is gone before going to bed. While this is particularly important for those who have had issues with acid reflux or GERD, it's good advice for everyone. It may also affect blood glucose levels, so it may be particularly useful for diabetics or those who are significantly overweight.

Related Links:
Study links HFCS to autism. Of greatest interest are HFCS effects on the absorption of key minerals, and the metabolic effects that may have.

Updates: 2012-01-24 @ 5pm MST - Seems there are other risks to drinking too much water.
2012-01-29 @ 1:15am MST - added links to HFCS vs sucrose study.
2012-04-04 @ 9:50am MDT - added link to another article on the effects of HFCS. 2012-04-10 @ 11:55pm EDT - added "Don't go to bed full" item.

The Paradox of Freedom

What is freedom?

Definition: freedom - noun

1. the state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint.
2. exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc.
3. the power to determine action without restraint.
4. political or national independence.
5. personal liberty, as opposed to bondage or slavery.

If one operates without external control, interference, regulation, or restraint, at some point it will impose upon the freedom of another. Imposing on the freedom of another limits the freedom of the other. That contradicts the definition of freedom. However, with a small number of people (or entities) who have little or no interaction with each other, the above definition may still work.

As the number of people and/or level of interaction increases, one quickly reaches a point where the freedom of one imposes on the freedom of another. In order minimize and resolve those conflicts, there must be rules, regulations, restraints, and external controls that limit the actions of the free people. Once again, that contradicts the definition of freedom.

This is the paradox of freedom: You can’t be totally free in the presence of other free people, yet, if there are no other people, your freedom is meaningless. Freedom in a society must have limits.

What are the limits of freedom?

If freedom must have rules, regulations, restraints, and external controls, then where must your freedom end? Let’s look at some examples. It’s against the law to take the possessions, or property of another without permission and/or compensation. It’s also against the law to kill another (except in defense). So, freedom doesn’t mean you’re free to do anything you wish.

The authors of the US Declaration of Indepence recognized this and they stated:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed…”

So, the legitimate purpose of government is to secure and protect your rights and freedom, and to enact and enforce laws that accomplish that purpose. And the power to do so comes from the collective, not individual, consent of the people. Your rights and your freedom are, and must be, limited when they begin to infringe upon the rights and freedom of another, or to infringe or violate the just laws enacted to protect those rights.

We must reexamine the very definition of freedom. Referring to the definition above, items 2 & 3 need modification such as:

2. exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc., except those necessary to protect the rights and freedoms of everyone.
3. the power to determine action without restraint, except those restraints necessary to protect the rights and freedoms of everyone.

Freedom must have the rule of law. Below are a few quotes that reinforce these points:

“But freedom of men under government is to have a standing rule to live by, common to every one of that society, and made by the legislative power erected in it. A liberty to follow my own will in all things where that rule prescribes not, not to be subject to the inconstant, uncertain, unknown, arbitrary will of another man ...” ~John Locke

“The fact, in short, is that freedom, to be meaningful in an organized society must consist of an amalgam of hierarchy of freedoms and restraints.” ~Samuel Hendel




“Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it.” ~George Bernard Shaw, 1905

Freedom requires constant defense

Support those laws which protect your freedom and your rights. Demand them, honor them, and enforce them. Yet be wary of every proposal for a law that diminishes the rights or freedoms of any person, as your freedom diminishes with it. You must constantly defend freedom, or it will be constantly eroded. To reinforce this point, I'll leave you with a few final quotes, as caution about the nature of government, law, and freedom:

“Men fight for freedom, then they begin to accumulate laws to take it away from themselves.” ~Author Unknown

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” ~Benjamin Franklin, 1759

“No man can put a chain about the ankle of his fellow man without at last finding the other end fastened about his own neck.” ~Frederick Douglass, 1883

“I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.” ~James Madison, 1788

“Many politicians are in the habit of laying it down as a self-evident proposition that no people ought to be free till they are fit to use their freedom. The maxim is worthy of the fool in the old story who resolved not to go into the water till he had learned to swim.” ~Thomas Macaulay

“Liberty has never come from the government. Liberty has always come from the subjects of it. The history of liberty is a history of resistance.” ~Woodrow Wilson

“I prefer liberty with danger to peace with slavery.” ~Author Unknown

“He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from opposition; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach himself.” ~Thomas Paine

“Freedom has its life in the hearts, the actions, the spirit of men and so it must be daily earned and refreshed - else like a flower cut from its life-giving roots, it will wither and die.“ ~Dwight D. Eisenhower

Wondering what Occupy Wall Street is about?

Here is some background for anyone who may be wondering what OWS is all about:

Who lobbied Congress to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act, thus allowing banks and financial institutions to merge? Wall Street

Who created the "derivatives" that made the real estate crash a huge problem for Wall Street? Wall Street

Who invested in all those 95%-100% sub-prime mortgages? Wall Street.

Who created and participated in all the reinsurance deals that caused the failure of AIG? Wall Street.

Who got a $700B bailout loan from the taxpayers? Wall Street

What is the first thing Wall Street did with their bailout loans? Paid hundreds of millions of dollars in bonuses to the very people responsible for the above. If you borrowed money from WS to bail out your failing business and proceeded to pay out huge bonuses to your executives and managers, they would probably call the loan. Yet they defended it when they did exactly that.

How many WS execs have been charged (in a civil or criminal suit) for any of the above? Few, if any.

They've lied, cheated, changed the rules, and manipulated the system, while the majority of the country (and much of the world) has paid the price. Yet they have not been held accountable for any of it.

We the People are pissed off about being pissed on!

These are not the only issues driving the Occupy movement, but they're some of the major ones behind OWS specifically. Here are some of my posts on related issues of "corporatism":
Corporations Are Not People
The Paradox of Free Markets.

A NY Times op-ed piece about some of the deals.

And a Washington Post blog about the growing income disparity of the top 1% in the US and other countries.

An Interview with Jeff Greene, a billionaire who has begun to see the nature of the problem.

The Paradox of Free Markets.

There has been a lot of discussion the last few years about deregulation and allowing "the free market" to operate. In many/most cases, that is the most effective solution. Allow buyers to "vote with their dollars" by supporting the sellers who offer the most suitable (including price, quality, performance, etc) product for the buyer's needs. That is fundamental to capitalism as an economic model.

However, "free markets" do not work when any of the following are true:

• One company controls 45%+ of the marketplace, or a few companies control over 75% of the market.
• There are high barriers to entry for new competitors (including regulatory or capital cost barriers).
• There is a limited supply or distribution chain. This includes "natural monopolies" such as utilities, cellular providers (since RF bandwidth is a limited resource), etc.
• Corporations/companies get special interest exceptions or special benefits (e.g. tax abatements) from the government.
• Regulations to prevent collusion by sellers are absent or ineffective.
• The "buyer" has a medical emergency or urgent medical/health need and therefore has no real opportunity to compare providers of medical services. Healthcare delivery is rarely a free market because the of the limited opportunity to research and compare providers, services, and prices.

Note that markets must be considered on a local, regional, and national level. Other levels such as state/province may also be useful measures.

Any of those situations shift the balance of power in favor of the seller, such that free markets don't work. In any of those situations, competition is limited and the buyer has very little power or choice, therefore, it is no longer a free market. When any of the above conditions (and perhaps there are a few I've missed) occur, progressively stronger anti-trust/anti-monopoly regulations should begin to apply as needed to balance the market. If the above situations are not properly regulated and limited, greed and power will always eventually lead to corruption and abuse, it's human nature.

"With respect to their safety, derivatives, for the most part, are traded among very sophisticated financial institutions and individuals who have considerable incentive to understand them and to use them properly."
- Ben Bernanke, November 15, 2005, less than 2 months before he became Chairman of the Federal Reserve. Approximately 2.5 years before the banking crisis that was as extensive as it was in large part because of trading said derivatives.

The restraint must be preemptive. Because corruption and abuse cause damage that is difficult (frequently impossible) to repair, and because history shows that they are inevitable, regulatory limits should kick in automatically as soon as one of those conditions exists, even if there is no actual evidence of corruption, collusion, anti-competitive activity, or abuse. I know some people will disagree with that statement, calling it a prior restraint of trade, etc. However, history has demonstrated many times that no matter how benevolent the intent, eventually it will become corrupt because power and money draw people who will abuse and corrupt the organization. By the time the corruption or abuse is clearly demonstrated, the damage is likely to be irreversible, extremely costly, and difficult to restrain.

"I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interest of organisations, specifically banks, is such that they were best capable of protecting shareholders and equity in the firms ...."
- Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the Federal Reserve when the Glass-Steagall Act was repealed in 1999 and he supported it's repeal, testifying to Congress on the banking crisis in Oct 2008.

Unregulated free markets don't work when any organization has sufficient power to manipulate the market. Corporations can not be relied upon to act in the best interest of their shareholders, much less the best interest of the market or the people. The history of anti-trust violations makes that abundantly clear. The repeated banking failures make that abundantly clear. The US auto industry in the 50's-60's (unsafe vehicles) makes that abundantly clear. There have been thousands of anti-trust suits filed by the US Government against companies alleged to have engaged in anti-competitive practices, manipulating a market, etc. Anti-competitive behavior is not a rare occurrence.

Even renowned economist and free market advocate Milton Friedman, acknowledged that monopolies arise in free markets, and that at least one of them has persisted (for over 130 years):

“A monopoly can seldom be established within a country without overt and covert government assistance…The De Beers diamond monopoly is the only one we know of that appears to have succeeded. We know of no other that has been able to exist for long without the direct assistance of governments.” -- from "Free to Choose".

Note that he acknowledges others have existed, but didn't last "for long". He doesn't say what the others were, or how long they lasted. Did they last 10 years? 20? 50?. How long does a monopoly have to exist before it causes harm to consumers or the market? While he dismisses them as not lasting for long, he never addresses whether the monopoly was harmful while it existed.

Now we have the paradox:
A free market is the most effective, most responsive, and least costly method of creating competition and allowing the market to respond to consumer wants and needs. Yet a free market can't be truly free, it must be guided toward balance via regulations that take effect when any of the above conditions exist.

The solution is not more laws and regulations. That's the solution proposed by many people whenever there is another problem, however, that usually makes matters worse. A better solution is to start by replacing almost all existing regulations with fewer, simpler regulations that have less overlap, less duplication, and very few exceptions. The regulations should be as few and as simple as necessary to prevent most abuse, corruption, collusion, fraud, and deliberate or negligent harm to buyers and to keep the market from becoming significantly unbalanced. As new situations arise that aren't addressed adequately by the laws and regulations, reevaluate and update or replace existing regulations. When I say update, I literally mean update the existing regulation, don't just add another new law or an addendum to the law, add, update, or remove sections to that the changes are incorporated naturally into the text of the law.

Keep it as simple and straightforward as possible. Complexity will make the laws and regulations ineffective and costly. The market should be allowed to operate as a free market so long as conditions allow for a balanced free market, with just basic regulations regarding fraud, liability, negligence, etc. Regulations to prevent abuse when the above conditions exist should be as few and as simple as necessary to allow a balanced market. The regulations should also be progressive, with minor restrictions when the threshold is crossed, and stronger restrictions if the market continues to be unbalanced (e.g. one or a few suppliers continue to gain control of a larger percentage of the market). The goal is to "nudge" the market into balance, not to manage the market. Markets are far too complex and dynamic to be managed, regulations must merely restrain abuse and promote a balanced free market, they must not attempt to manage the market or steer it in a specific direction.

Special interest exceptions or exclusions should almost never be included in a law or regulation, even temporarily. There will be some legitimate exceptions. Some exceptions might be permanent, and those should be part of the law. Temporary exceptions should be via an addendum that automatically expires and cannot be extended. "Temporary" laws must be kept temporary. Writing a new law that has the effect of extending a temporary law must require a "super-majority" vote for it to be enacted.

Laws and regulations should be simple enough for the majority of people with at least an 8th grade education to understand what the law says. Lawyers and judges can debate the details, limits, and exceptions when necessary as that's a legitimate purpose of the courts, but the legislation and regulations should be understandable to most adults. For instance, we don't need separate laws for computer fraud, insurance fraud, credit card fraud, securities fraud, etc, we just need one law that makes fraud illegal, and establishes penalties based upon the extent, value, and impact of the fraud. Fraud is fraud, how you commit it should be irrelevant. A similar approach applies to other crimes.

Update:
I stumbled across a document that covers this in some detail. It's longer than my post, but worth reading. Here's one relevant excerpt:

All economic systems are governed by certain rules of game, and the governing rule for a modern market economy is the rule of law. The rule of law has two economic functions. First, the rule of law regulates and limits discretionary interventions of the state in economic activities. Secondly, the rule of law regulates the economic behavior of individuals and enterprises to create an orderly, stable environment with fair competition, clearly defined and well protected property rights, and effectively enforced contracts. In essence, these two economic functions of the rule of law are about regulating the relationship between the state and the market through legal institutions so that economic development is both possible and sustainable.

According to a NYTimes article, Sanford Weill, former CEO of Citigroup, the man considered to be one of the most influential in the repeal of Glass-Steagall, and one of the people who profited most from it when Citigroup was created, now says:

“What we should probably do is go and split up investment banking from banking. Have banks do something that’s not going to risk the taxpayer dollars, that’s not going to be too big to fail.”

Many of his counterparts at other banks have agreed:

"In 2009, John S. Reed, who with Mr. Weill forged the megamerger that created Citigroup, apologized for creating a lumbering giant that needed multibillion-dollar bailouts from the government. Philip Purcell, the former chief executive of Morgan Stanley and David H. Komansky, the onetime leader of Merrill Lynch, two other main figures in the fight to repeal Glass-Steagall, have echoed similar concerns about deregulation." - NYTimes

Related links:

• Washington Post -Wonkblog on Healthcare Costs
• Huffington Post - Judge Richard Posner, Deregulation Movement Made A Fundamental Mistake.
• An article that points out a number of market failures, and why "market forces" will never be adequate for some markets.
• Another look at market failures
• Alternet Free-Market Boosters Just Don't Get It
• Salon My Libertarian Vacation Nightmare, a recovering libertarian visits Honduras and sees how all the policies he believed in fail in reality.
• Another view Why Free Markets Make Fools of Us

Updates:
2011-10-27. Updated with quotes from Bernanke and Greenspan, added examples where free markets have failed, and expanded the section on keeping the regulations simple.
2011-10-28. Changed the title from "What is a Free Market?".

Corporations are not people

Let me start with, I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. This is my opinion about why corporations should not be considered a person.

What is a corporation? A corporation is an artificial legal entity created for the purpose of operating an ongoing business (for profit, or non-profit) or governmental unit (city, town, etc). They serve several practical business functions, and that is their only reason for existence. Corporations exist to allow a business to:

• survive the death of any individual
• be bought and sold via the issuance, sale, and purchase of stock
• offer limited (to amount of the investment) liability for the stockholders
• offer limited liability to employees, officers, and directors, except when they have violated the law or are found to have been negligent

As an artificial entity, they need to be endowed with certain rights by their creator. Who is their creator? Government, as an agent of The People governed. With the exception of the rights necessary to fulfill the purposes above, they should have no rights that a person doesn't have. Indeed, they should have fewer rights than a person.

Corporations should have very limited access to petition the government or lobby for/against laws and regulations. They are not people, the government doesn't represent them. The government is the creator of the corporation, not it's servant. Corporations must have no right to vote, and should not be allowed to contribute to political campaigns, PACs, or otherwise fund a political campaign in ANY fashion. Their right, if any, to lobby politicians should also be severely limited. As one commenter on this post put it:

If corp's can influence legislation then at least one will be unscrupulous enough to influence laws to give themselves an unfair advantage in their market therefore dominating it and becoming a duly ordained part of a growing oligarchy.

The individual owners, officers, directors, and even employees can personally contribute to and support politicians, but the corporation should not be able to do so, nor be allowed to direct them to do so, compensate them for doing so, nor penalize them for not doing so. Corporations as entities of business should have little or no involvement in the political process. The government is charged with serving and protecting "the People", and a corporation is not a person.

Corporations must have access to and protection under the legal system. Corporations must have the right to sue and be sued, and be subject to civil and criminal penalties. However, in criminal proceedings, only the officers, directors, or employees can be charged. There is no "body" (corpus) to the corporation to charge or imprison. This alone is ample evidence that a corporation is not a person.

The officers, directors, and other employees must be accountable for criminal charges and civil or criminal penalties when their actions as an officer, director, or employee of the corporation would expose an individual to the same charges or penalties. A corporation must not protect a person against being responsible for their actions, and a corporation may be required to share the financial liability for the actions of it's officers, directors, and employees. "I was just doing my job" or "just following orders" does not shield a person from any criminal liability for their actions. It may shield an employee from personal financial liability if they were acting as an agent of the corporation, in which case the corporation is at least jointly, and may be exclusively liable for financial damages and penalties.

Summary:
While a corporation in civil legal proceedings is treated very similar to a person, a corporation is clearly not a person in a criminal proceeding. In the political arena, a corporation is very different from a person. Corporations don't have the rights of a person, they have only the rights granted to them by their creators. Corporations are created by the government, which are agents of the governed people. Therefore, the rights of a corporation come directly from the government, and indirectly from the people whom those governments serve. For the reasons stated above, those rights must be different than the rights of a person.

Any interpretation of a corporation as a person is seriously flawed and eventually leads to the government being a servant of corporations, and that always leads to disaster.

Edit: 2011-10-21. Clarified the section on civil and criminal liability under the legal system.

Update: 2011-11-08. I just read an article that pointed out some of the concerns raised in the "Citizens United v FEC" case.

"... Its constitutional theory would permit Congress to ban a book as well as a 30-second TV spot if the book satisfied the operative definition of an ‘electioneering communication' and the book's corporate publisher paid for the book with general treasury funds (as it almost certainly would) ... The breadth of that concession is staggering," reads the brief, especially since it's common for such books to come out during campaign season.
The brief continued: "The fact that such books could be banned under the government's theory unless funded by a PAC vividly illustrates why those criteria (to protect speech) are insufficient to safeguard the important First Amendment interests at stake."

Limiting a corporations ability to publish and sell books of a political nature is certainly not the intent nor is it in the best interests of anyone to limit that ability. The rules need to be constructed in a way that allows them to publish and sell such books (or movies, magazines, etc), but doesn't allow them to use that as a means of contributing to campaigns or lobbying the government. For example, giving the books away (or selling them below cost) in support or a campaign, party, or candidate might be prohibited as an illegal contribution by a corporation. Offering a candidate a book/movie deal or job during a campaign or while in office might be prohibited as lobbying or an illegal contribution, or even bribery if the circumstances justified such a charge. This area of allowing commercial political speech is deserving of more attention, but it doesn't alter my position that corporate access to government must be extremely limited and any view of a corporation as a person is seriously flawed.

Update: 2012-06-29
My second article on this topic.

Related Links:
The Story of Citizens United vs F.E.C. video.

Let’s Roll

I awoke one Tuesday morning
And got up out of bed
I listened to some music
To help me clear my head

I brewed a pot of coffee
And into the shower I climbed
I sang along with the music
Now fresh in body and mind

I fixed myself some breakfast
And drank my coffee down
Then turned off the music
And headed towards the town

As was always my custom
When driving was my way
I listened to more music
On this bright and beautiful day

I arrived at my office
And sat down at my desk
I began work right away
And set about my task

“What do you think of today’s events?”
A coworker inquired
I paused my work and asked
“What events transpired?"

They looked at me in disbelief
They couldn’t help but stare
The news was everywhere
How could I not be aware?

Something big had happened
I could see it in their faces
Don’t know what they were thinking
Perhaps they wanted to trade places

Clearly stunned, he asked
“You really haven’t heard?”
“I haven’t listened to the news,
How would I have heard?”

As their shock subsided
They told me what had been
Two planes had hit the towers
My response, “Osama bin Laden”

Again they stared at me in wonder
Asked, “What was that you said?”
So I repeated, “Osama bin Laden”
And again my words fell dead

So I started to explain
The stories that I knew
From reading in the papers
About bin Laden and his crew

And when a third plane crashed
Now with the Pentagon in black
No longer was there any doubt
It was a suicide attack

As that day’s events unfolded
And they watched the burning flame
They sat and listened in disbelief
At how I knew his name

As the shock turned into fear
The real horror began
As Tower Two collapsed
And everybody ran

Minutes later, the fourth plane fell
In a field in Pennsylvania
We didn’t know about the heroes
Who gave their lives to save us

All we knew was it was down
And the skies held only clouds
Except for a few fighter jets
Which were startlingly loud

Almost half an hour later
The other tower fell
The sight was so surreal
I think it looked like hell

And as I watched, I shed some tears
For those who lost their lives
But even more for those still here
The children, husbands, and wives

I can’t explain how I knew
Or why they used such violence
But for three whole days, give or take
The skies held only silence

I tell you one thing that I know
Now this ten years hence
We’ll never understand it
Because it makes no sense

They think that they can change
Our ways by bringing terror here
You know something, they’re right
Except they cannot make us fear

So on this day, and each day after
Dwell not upon the toll
And do not fear, but think instead
Of these final words, “Let’s Roll”

-- Geoff Strickler
-- September 11, 2011