My position is also reflected well by the “progressive agenda” described at http://www.americanprogress.org/aboutus: “As progressives, we believe America is a land of boundless opportunity, where people can better themselves, their children, their families, and their communities through education, hard work, and the freedom to climb the ladder of economic mobility. We believe an open and effective government can champion the common good over narrow self-interest, harness the strength of our diversity, and secure the rights and safety of its people. And we believe our nation must always be a beacon of hope and strength to the rest of the world. Progressives are often described as idealistic enough to believe change is possible and practical enough to make it happen.”

So with that as background, my response to your Katrina question is that the most effective solution would have involved mobilizing small groups who could find problems, formulate solutions, and respond quickly – like teams of fire fighters. These groups need to be “trusted” (e.g. with a record of effective problem solving) and provided with effective access to the resources needed to solve their problems. Private insurance and institutional charities don’t fit this mold, but we don’t have higher performance systems yet to take the place of those structures. I think one of the best things the incoming administration could do would be to convene teams to brainstorm more effective solutions for these sorts of issues. We really need to start envisioning new systems and structures for large-scale problem solving, and this is going to take the collective knowledge and courage of many.

Thanks for commenting Matt, excellent thoughts!

a) Violence – you have to threaten people to give up their property, for the benefit of the poor and downtroden, or else they go to jail.

b) Effectiveness – Comparing relatively free-market, and no-safety-net Hong Kong with Western Europe shows radically unhealthy aspects to socialism, including Western Europe’s unemployment rate; and lack of creating new jobs. Hong Kong has a vibrant, adaptive economy with little unemployment. People need jobs for their self-efficacy, and their sustenance, and the stifiling, suffocatin governments only hinder the creation of new ventures and wealth.

c) Private Charities Wither & Die – I’m not so naiive as to think the for-profit world will naturally help the desperately poor, sick, and otherwise needy. But I also point to the current amounts of suffering with government programs and would much prefer that I’m able to switch my choice of charity when they’re not performing. I’d rather give most of my current tax money to TrickleUp (http://www.trickleup.org), but that’s not legal. If they every failed to help the desperately poor, I can always switch to the United Way, or start my own charity. With the government, voting rarely works (it’s basically a form of socially acceptable gang violence), but private charities are accountable to donors.

This reminds me of Ben Franklin’s quote – “Democracy is two Wolves and a Sheep deciding what’s for dinner…Liberty is a well armed Sheep”.

From the Perspective of Quality Management, yes, I think Socialism inhibits the ability of the natural social order from creating wealth for people that we need to survive and reproduce. It makes a “one size fits all” mentality when we know customers have different wants and needs. Remember that the Malcolm Baldrige award winners who went out of business shortly after they got the Government award? I remember when I worked for Motorola, the President of the Division that won the Baldrige a second time was shortly fired because his financials were poor. Do you think Hurricane Katrina could have been better managed through private insurance companies and United Way Charities, using Quality Management methods instead of politics?

Matt