If you haven’t said, “I loosened it for you,” you have heard it when one person fails to open a jar, a lock, a bolt, or a rusty lid and another person succeeds in opening the object. I could call this the “pickle jar response,” but it has a wider reach than just opening lids.
When the second person succeeds in opening the jar, the first person claims part of the success with “I loosened it for you,” usually jokingly. But no one can ever prove that the application of a weak torque is the reason that the later application of a stronger torque works. Honesty would come in a statement like “I am not strong enough to twist off the lid, but you obviously are.”
The wider implications lie in what a government can or should do for businesses. Should government step in to fully open the pickle jar as the Obama Administration did with the bankrupt-destined Solyndra solar panel plant? If you recall, the government gave the company a $535 million guaranteed loan that, upon the bankruptcy, the taxpayers lost. Hmmn. $535 million. Any lesson in pickle-jar opening there? Oh! Wait! Under the Biden Administration the U.S. Development Finance Corporation will provide up to $500 million in debt financing to First Solar’’s “vertically-integrated thin film solar manufacturing facility in India.” Yeah. You read that correctly. “IN INDIA.” Seems we can open pickle jars all over the world. Is that what the government of a democratic-republic like USA is supposed to do? Open pickle jars everywhere? Is that how the country should apply torque?
One might argue that in the complex world of modern commerce, few individuals have the strength to open a pickle jar by themselves. Such financial frailty is common. So, the role of the government in business has expanded. Agencies that could provide technical advice now provide financial assistance through loans and grants. And the money seems to derive from a bottomless ATM. As long as there is a living taxpayer, some politician or government bureaucrat will find a way to spend tax dollars in an effort “to help.”
Laissez-faire is defunct, it seems. Jefferson’s aphorism that that government which governs least, governs best, is forgotten.
Although difficult in many instances to prove, a laissez-faire government might actually increase commercial activity by its minimalist approach. But commerce is a two-way street. Yes, unrestricted business might prosper, but only at the expense of consumers. Unrestricted lassis-faire allows the unscrupulous to fleece the public. So, politicians and bureaucrats enact restrictions.
The balance between overregulation and basic protection is a difficult one to maintain, particularly because there are so many kinds of commercial interactions that blanket rules affect. And bureaucrats assigned to loosen a jar in, say, the oil industry, often end up sealing another related jar more tightly. Those same bureaucrats, with no vested interest in the free exchange within a capitalist system, typically adopt the perspective, “Well, these are the rules. There’s nothing we can do except apply them” when they deal with businesses.
In many instances, commerce succeeds both in spite of and because of government oversight. However, the struggle to open a lid of success is difficult under the clockwise torque of regulating agencies that don’t truck in variations. Jefferson’s idea that the government that governs least is the one that governs best isn’t possible in a complex modern society. There are just too many people doing too many different things for the government to “govern least.” As a result, we’re on the slippery slope to total regulation akin to that of totalitarian governments. In the future, most western cultures, barring some change in direction, will impose “pickle-jar openers,” on commerce of all kinds; bureaucrats who will be required by regulation to “loosen” as the law allows.
I make these comments in the context of some personal experiences with government agencies. As a consulting researcher for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s Department of Environmental Protection, I witnessed the conflict between bureaucracy and the coal industry from the perspective of the government. As a consulting researcher for a corporation, I saw the same conflict from the other side. As you might imagine, the regulators saw the industry as teetering on the edge of violations, whereas the corporate personnel saw the regulations as teetering on the edge of governmental overreach.
One of the reasons for the conflict between those who are willing to struggle to open their own pickle jars without government help lies in the dissociation of regulators from business for profit. Regulators are salaried employees with guaranteed incomes. Fluctuations in businesses don’t affect them. Agencies once established exist ad infinitum unless the government itself falls. None of the Roman Empire’s bureaucracies remain.
And the problem of government overreach is exacerbated when different agencies become intertwined in a “problem.” Underground mining, for example, causes subsidence at times and in some instances loss of ground water sources or stream alterations. Fishery agents become involved with mining agents, and when gases escape from underground mines, air quality agents join the regulatory fray that also includes water quality agents.
So, at times—as in the Solyndra fiasco—the government unloosens a jar with nothing of substance inside, and at other times, the government tightens the lid on a jar of tasty pickles. The lesson is a simple one: If you want to open a business in spite of government restrictions, you’ll need to strengthen your figurative forearms to apply all the counterclockwise torque necessary to overcome the clockwise torque that government applies.
When the second person succeeds in opening the jar, the first person claims part of the success with “I loosened it for you,” usually jokingly. But no one can ever prove that the application of a weak torque is the reason that the later application of a stronger torque works. Honesty would come in a statement like “I am not strong enough to twist off the lid, but you obviously are.”
The wider implications lie in what a government can or should do for businesses. Should government step in to fully open the pickle jar as the Obama Administration did with the bankrupt-destined Solyndra solar panel plant? If you recall, the government gave the company a $535 million guaranteed loan that, upon the bankruptcy, the taxpayers lost. Hmmn. $535 million. Any lesson in pickle-jar opening there? Oh! Wait! Under the Biden Administration the U.S. Development Finance Corporation will provide up to $500 million in debt financing to First Solar’’s “vertically-integrated thin film solar manufacturing facility in India.” Yeah. You read that correctly. “IN INDIA.” Seems we can open pickle jars all over the world. Is that what the government of a democratic-republic like USA is supposed to do? Open pickle jars everywhere? Is that how the country should apply torque?
One might argue that in the complex world of modern commerce, few individuals have the strength to open a pickle jar by themselves. Such financial frailty is common. So, the role of the government in business has expanded. Agencies that could provide technical advice now provide financial assistance through loans and grants. And the money seems to derive from a bottomless ATM. As long as there is a living taxpayer, some politician or government bureaucrat will find a way to spend tax dollars in an effort “to help.”
Laissez-faire is defunct, it seems. Jefferson’s aphorism that that government which governs least, governs best, is forgotten.
Although difficult in many instances to prove, a laissez-faire government might actually increase commercial activity by its minimalist approach. But commerce is a two-way street. Yes, unrestricted business might prosper, but only at the expense of consumers. Unrestricted lassis-faire allows the unscrupulous to fleece the public. So, politicians and bureaucrats enact restrictions.
The balance between overregulation and basic protection is a difficult one to maintain, particularly because there are so many kinds of commercial interactions that blanket rules affect. And bureaucrats assigned to loosen a jar in, say, the oil industry, often end up sealing another related jar more tightly. Those same bureaucrats, with no vested interest in the free exchange within a capitalist system, typically adopt the perspective, “Well, these are the rules. There’s nothing we can do except apply them” when they deal with businesses.
In many instances, commerce succeeds both in spite of and because of government oversight. However, the struggle to open a lid of success is difficult under the clockwise torque of regulating agencies that don’t truck in variations. Jefferson’s idea that the government that governs least is the one that governs best isn’t possible in a complex modern society. There are just too many people doing too many different things for the government to “govern least.” As a result, we’re on the slippery slope to total regulation akin to that of totalitarian governments. In the future, most western cultures, barring some change in direction, will impose “pickle-jar openers,” on commerce of all kinds; bureaucrats who will be required by regulation to “loosen” as the law allows.
I make these comments in the context of some personal experiences with government agencies. As a consulting researcher for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s Department of Environmental Protection, I witnessed the conflict between bureaucracy and the coal industry from the perspective of the government. As a consulting researcher for a corporation, I saw the same conflict from the other side. As you might imagine, the regulators saw the industry as teetering on the edge of violations, whereas the corporate personnel saw the regulations as teetering on the edge of governmental overreach.
One of the reasons for the conflict between those who are willing to struggle to open their own pickle jars without government help lies in the dissociation of regulators from business for profit. Regulators are salaried employees with guaranteed incomes. Fluctuations in businesses don’t affect them. Agencies once established exist ad infinitum unless the government itself falls. None of the Roman Empire’s bureaucracies remain.
And the problem of government overreach is exacerbated when different agencies become intertwined in a “problem.” Underground mining, for example, causes subsidence at times and in some instances loss of ground water sources or stream alterations. Fishery agents become involved with mining agents, and when gases escape from underground mines, air quality agents join the regulatory fray that also includes water quality agents.
So, at times—as in the Solyndra fiasco—the government unloosens a jar with nothing of substance inside, and at other times, the government tightens the lid on a jar of tasty pickles. The lesson is a simple one: If you want to open a business in spite of government restrictions, you’ll need to strengthen your figurative forearms to apply all the counterclockwise torque necessary to overcome the clockwise torque that government applies.
RSS Feed