Toyota Runaway = "Creative Destruction"

[Update 13 Mar 2010. In my original posting I wrote: "...I believe some of the reports are 'copy cats' looking for publicity." Well, the incident pictured above may be one such Copy Cat.] As those who follow this Blog may know, my wife and I have been driving a 2004 Toyota Prius hybrid -our only car- and have been very happy with it. So, quite naturally, we have been following the controversy about runaway Toyotas very closely.

The photo above shows a runaway Prius. On 8 March, this car raced up to 90 mph on a California freeway when the accelerator pedal apparently stuck. The terrified driver tried to slow the car using the brakes but they were ineffective.

He called 911 and a CHP trooper came alongside. Using his bullhorn, he told the driver to stand on the brake pedal and also apply the emergency brakes. Finally, with both brakes on and a steep uphill section of roadway, the car slowed sufficiently for the driver to turn off the ignition and coast to a safe stop.

TOYOTA'S INEFECTIVE RESPONSE

When runaway incidents began being reported by the press and TV, Toyota claimed that the runaway incidents were due to improperly installed floor mats that jammed the pedal in the full-on position. They fixed that by asking users to secure floor mats properly and not to use double mats.

Then, they admitted that the innards of some accelerator pedals could corrode and stick in the full-on position. They fixed that by installing a metal shim.

Nevertheless, the incidents keep occurring. I believe some of the reports are "copy cats" looking for publicity. Some are from people who mistakenly pressed the accelerator instead of the brakes and are falsely trying to shift the blame to a hardware defect. However, many, if not most, are genuine failures and not in any way the fault of the drivers.

WHY DIDN'T TOYOTA APPLY A SOFTWARE FIX?

When the news first came out a month or so ago, my first reaction was that -whatever the actual cause- Toyota should immediately install a software over-ride that would disconnect or limit the accelerator signal, or shift the car into neutral, if the brakes were applied while the accelerator was on.

Here is the technical detail for the CTS pedal used by Toyota. The accelerator pedal sends an analog voltage to the onboard computer. The brakes also send a signal to the computer. Toyota has the ability to update the computer software. Therefore, a software fix could limit the accelerator signal to some minimal value whenever the brake is on, perhaps by shifting to neutral. (The engine should not be shut down because that would disable the power brakes and power steering.)

Even if, as Toyota still claims, the problem is strictly mechanical, a software over-ride, to prevent acceleration when the brakes are applied, would prevent most of the accidents we have read about.

AUTOMOTIVE SOFTWARE HAS A LONG WAY TO GO

Before we retired, my wife and I worked on aircraft electronics systems and software. We currently teach online graduate courses on those subjects for the University of Maryland University College. Aircraft systems and software are developed, tested, verified and validated in a very controlled environment. Our methodology is based on "lessons learned" over the past few decades. Automotive engineers have only been in the software game for about a decade. They could learn alot from us.

It is clear to me that either the Toyota engineers and software developers are incompetent, or -more likely in my opinion- their management has restricted their efforts either due to cost concerns or legal liability, or both.

While I have no inside knowledge, I cannot believe that no engineer at Toyota ever suggested a software over-ride when brakes are applied. I can imagine some Toyota engineers, when the runaway acceleration incidents were first reported to Toyota several years ago, suggesting a software patch to over-ride whatever mechanical failures were the actual cause. "No," I can hear some anal manager say, "If we fix the software that will be costly and will imply that we are legally liable for not having the brake over-ride in the original design." I can imagine a room full of managers and lawyers nodding their heads like so many bobble-dolls!

HASN'T ANYONE HEARD OF BASIC ERROR CHECKING?

I think the press has been pretty responsible, although they have been taken in both by Toyota appologists and some publicity-seeking "experts". Brian Ross (ABC News) has done a good job but I believe he was a bit off when he rode along with a college prof who shorted the accelerator pedal wires. That made the car accelerate out of control, as Brian Ross stood on the brakes. The prof then showed that the computer in the car did not display any error codes.

A week later, Toyota engineers did the same wire-shorting experiment on several cars from different manufacturers, and they too did not display any error codes. Toyota did the demo to show they were blameless. But, all it indicates to me is that the other automobile manufacturers are also incompetent!

I know exactly what the prof did. There are three wires to the pedal: 1) Ground, 2) Vin, (voltage input, probably 12 volts DC) and 3) Vout (voltage output that varies from zero volts to 92% (+/- 3%) of Vin as the accellerator pedal is pushed all the way down). If, due to loose insulation (or the actions of the prof), Vin (wire 2) happens to short to Vout wire (wire 3), the computer will get a Vout equal to 100% of Vin and will interpret it as a signal that the accelerator is pushed all the way down.

If the pedal and software had been designed the way aircraft electronics is designed, the computer software would recognize that Vout was 100% of Vin, exceeding the limit of 95%, and would have set an error code. Beyond setting an error code, had the system been designed to aircraft electronics standards, exceeding 95% of Vin would have been recognized as shorted wiring and should have initiated speed limiting.

Apparently, the automotive system and software engineers have not implemented even the most basic error checking! This applies not only to Toyota but also the other manufacturers whose cars were part of the Toyota wire-shorting demo!

WHERE WERE THE REGULATORS? THE COURTS?

Toyota, the world's leading auto company, has turned out defective products that killed some customers and endangered others. Until a week ago, they did not even let the National Highway Transportation Administration (NHTSA) have access to their internal "black box" codes. NHTSA seems to have gone along with Toyota's arrogance. The regulators were either "asleep at the switch", or incompetent, or in the pocket of the industry they were regulating, or all three!

Based on the Toyota wire shorting demo, the other auto companies are nearly as incompetent. (To their credit, however, the other companies do make their "blackbox" error code translator units available to regulators and dealerships.)

According to press reports, a former Toyota liability defense lawyer, who said he alerted the company to systemic problems several years ago, and who has the emails to prove it, has recently come forward. According to him, Toyota had a "book of knowledge" that detailed known design defects. Company lawyers used that information as part of the decision process of whether to fight a lawsuit or settle. Where were the courts?

Of course, now that the facts are coming out, NHTSA and the courts will take action. Liability lawyers on both sides will get rich and some victims will be compensated.

"CREATIVE DESTRUCTION"

The term "Creative Destruction" applies here. In its normal meaning, it signifies the way, under capitalism, new technology, products, and services push out the old. As an inevitable part of the process, some backward industries and companies go bankrupt, stockholders lose their investments, employees lose their jobs, and entire communities may fall into poverty. That is the "destructive" part. At the same time, some pioneering industries and forward-looking companies rise and create newer and often better jobs, investors make money, and entire communities enjoy prosperity. That is the "creative" part.

I'd like to apply the term to the "Creative Destruction" of the now tarnished Toyota brand. It is a once valued brand that has been devalued by their coverup of known defective designs and failure to fix them promptly. They would rather stonewall and fight in court than do the right thing. I believe this will sour most consumers on the Toyota brand.

My wife and I had planned to replace our 2004 Prius with a newer plug-in Prius in a couple years. No more! I doubt we will ever buy a Prius again.

That is a pity because we have been very happy with our Prius and love their dealership in Ocala, FL. That dealership may be forced out of business and some Toyota employees will lose their jobs and stockholders will lose their investments. That is the "destructive" part.

I only wish the regulators at NHTSA and the lawyers and the court system that failed in this case would also go out of business. But no, perversely they will be rewarded with more power and more court cases.

The "creative" part is the business that will flow to Ford and other auto manufacturers who have behaved better. I am following the Ford Fusion and we may purchase their plug-in electric-only version that is expected to come out in a couple of years. (Besides, we have owned Ford stock for many years.)

MEANWHILE WE ARE DRIVING OUR TOYOTA PRIUS GINGERLY

Today, for the first time, I got up the courage to practice stopping the car by shifting to neutral. With my foot on the accelerator, I pushed the gear shift to the left. I had to hold it for about a second, but then I could feel the accelerator disconnect and the car coasted to a lower speed.

From reading news stories, I now know that the ON/OFF button must be held for three seconds to take effect. In case shift to neutral does not work, that is how I will stop my Prius if it happens to run away.

[Update 13 Mar 2010. The person involved in the runaway incident reported above seems to have some baggage. He apparently owes lots of money. Parts of his story do not ring true. The Prius he was driving supposedly has the brake over-ride software I described above. This raises two quesions: 1) If brake over-ride has been available on Prius cars for so long, why isn't it on all Toyotas? 2) If the car involved in this incident had brake over-ride, did it fail or did the driver purposely work around it? Assuming the car actially had brake over-ride and it was working, the driver would have had to alternately press the accelerator to speed up, then release it and press the brakes to get them to heat up and smoke as reported, and so on. According to the 911 tape, the 911 agent told him to put the car into neutral but he refused, saying he feared it would cause the car to flip.

According to Toyota from FAQ issued 3 Feb 2010: "the Prius, and all hybrids for that matter, already have a version of the override system. The override system will be standard by the end of 2010." Thus, the runaway problem does not exist for our Prius nor any other hybrid. The brake override will be standard on all newly-manufactured Toyota automobiles after 2010. According to this, the brake override will be added to previous model years of some non-hybrid Toyotas back to 2005 .]

Ira Glickstein

Some Interesting Comparisons (part 2)

[from John] I am going to initiate this as a new Topic although it is an extension of the Some Interesting Comparisons Topic. The following is the last comment from Ira Glickstein from that Topic [in italics]. I am also going to show my comments in blue for clarity.
Thanks, John, for your comments. You probably noticed that I chose King Solomon "dividing the baby" as the image at the head of your posting. The Bible presents him as a benevolent dictator skilled at determining who was the true mother of the baby. For a Capitalist Republic to stand, we need a process that moderates, like Solomon, between the immediate needs (and wants) of the people and the long-term solvency and stability of the government. Somewhere in my studies I was told the reason the Constitution is so hard to change is to prevent impetuous change to address an immediate problem which in the long term may be deleterious to the nation. What comes to mind is the amendment banning alcohol. I would amend one word in your statement …stability of the government to … stability of the nation.
In a pure democracy, once the majority of the voters figure out they can vote for candidates who pay them benefits out of the national treasury, the country is guaranteed to go bankrupt sooner or later. That is the "tipping point" - when fewer people are, on net, paying-in and more are, on net, on the dole. If you tax those who work and give benefits to those who don't, you should not be surprised when more and more people don't work (or don't work very hard)! Unfortunately this also applies to a republic – our Republic!
I think history, as far back as Greece and Rome, and up to more modern times in the UK and USA, shows that the most stable governments are multi-party, where two (sometimes three) major parties coexist and take turns at the head, with the legislature and judiciary and state governments sometimes in the hands of the opposition. I agree with the exception of the judiciary. To the degree humanly possible the judiciary should be exempt of politic especially the Supreme Court whose sole objective should be interpreting the Constitution. Even though we may not agree on all of the choices for the Supreme Court members or all of their decisions I believe they have done a good job over the years.
Looking at the historical record, it is amazing that power is handed over peacefully when a different party wins 52% to 48% or even closer. The only reason that happens in the US is that both major parties have more philosophical and geographic overlap with each other than basic differences. Therefore, both strive to find the middle to pick up the independents and cross-over voters who make the final decision.
I don’t agree. GW Bush’s second election proves my point. Our nation was up in arms and divided through his full last term and has carried over into Obama’s first term. The reason that power has been handed over peacefully is we are a nation of law. We respect and trust the law. Even though there was great resentment when the Supreme Court ruled in that election it was accepted because we trusted them. I might add our nation is stable and economically well to do. While we have pockets of poverty the majority of the people are relatively comfortable economically so there is no underground outpouring of resentment toward the government. Comfortable people do not want to upset the apple cart.
In countries with a larger number of smaller, more narrow parties that are sometimes quite regional, change of government can be threatening and may lead to national strikes and riots. Afghanistan is a good example - tribal law dominates. There is no effective central government or central legal system. Additionally Afghanistan is a poor uneducated nation. Tribal grouping find the optimum stability for the people.
In your original posting, you seemed to be unhappy that candidates are "chosen by two political parties rather than by the people", and, in your most recent comment you ask "How else can an elected representative or senator be almost guaranteed of retaining his seat indefinitely as long as he remains a true party hack?" Well, IMHO, that system promotes balance and compromise within the structure of each party and between them. I personally think things were better when party hacks in the proverbial "smoke-filled room" hand-picked candidates prior to our primary election system. As I said in my previous comment I do not have a better system although I might recommend a change to the present system. I wonder if a tri party system would work better. Our system, as it operates today does not promote balance it promotes partisanship . It is this or that. A principal goal of a party is to seize and retain control. Compromise and balance exists only to the extent that a party must kowtow to the middle to retain power. A tri party system, on the other hand, would tend toward cooperation and compromise because a party’s hold on government would be tenuous, insecure and dependent upon cooperation. The re-election cycle as stated in the constitution would remain.
My other concern about our present system is the ease for an elected official to retain his seat forever thus creating a career path for professional politicians to hold the seats of government. I would prefer term limits. We could argue upon the length of the terms. We would want to give them enough time to understand the needs of our national government without providing a career for elected officials.

Some interesting comparisons

Forms of government

[from John] One would assume that Fascism (Hitler) and Communism (Stalin) are worlds apart until one examines their definitions from the Encarta Dictionary.

Fascism Any movement, ideology, or attitude that favors dictatorial government, centralized control of private enterprise, repression of all opposition, and extreme nationalism

Communism 2. Any system of government in which a single, usually totalitarian, party holds power, and the state controls the economy.

They sound pretty much the same to me.

Socialism 3.A stage between capitalism and communism. In Marxist theory, the stage after the proletarian revolution when a society is changing from capitalism to communism, marked by pay distributed according to work done rather than need.

Note: pay distributed according to work done rather than need. Also note the implied road to communism.

Republic A political system or form of government in which people elect representatives to exercise power for them.

Does a republic remain a republic if elected representatives do not listen to the people?
Does a republic remain a republic if elected representatives are chosen by two political parties rather than by the people?
Does a republic remain a republic if only half of the people vote?
Does a republic remain a republic if money and lobbying can seriously affect elections and legislation?

Democratic Party one of the two major political parties in the United States, formed after a split in the former Democratic-Republican Party under Andrew Jackson in 1828.

See we were friends once let’s try it again, friendship I mean.

The Market Place

Capitalism An economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods, characterized by a free competitive market and motivation by profit.

Socialism A political theory or system in which the means of production and distribution are controlled by the people and operated according to equity and fairness rather than market principles.

Socio-Capitalism (my word and definition) An economic and political system that seeks to find a reasonable blending and balancing of a limited free market with the societal need for equity and fairness toward its people.

It seems to me that this is where we are heading and is probably where we should go.

Health Costs

[from JohnS]

Rather shocking information regarding the markup from the cost of active ingredients to the retail price on some prescription drugs has been circulating via e-mail lately. I checked it out on Snopes and found the numbers to be true. Snopes editorializes that the information while valid is of dubious value because of the many other factors that go into the cost of manufacturing and marketing a product. Still my curiosity has been raised.

Here are three examples:

Claritin:10 mg.
Consumer Price (100 tablets): $215.17
Cost of general active ingredients: $0.71
Percent markup: 30,306%

Lipitor:20 mg
Consumer Price (100 tablets): $272.37
Cost of general active ingredients: $5.80
Percent markup: 4,696%

Prozac:20 mg
Consumer price (100 tablets): $247.47
Cost of general active ingredients: $0.11
Percent markup: 224,973%

I take Lipitor, a common cholesterol drug once daily, so let’s examine the numbers.
The daily cost is $2.72, a yearly cost of $990.80 vs. a yearly active ingredient cost of $21.17, giving a gross profit of $971.63 per year.

I have no way to calculate the other costs, R&D, manufacturing, distribution and retail costs, however others have estimated the manufacturing costs approximate the cost of active ingredients. I would place the distribution costs at a similar number. The retail cost would be more because it must be stocked, counted and bottled at a yearly cost estimate of $50 for a total of $113.50. Thus, a net profit of $877.30 on my purchases of Lipitor each year not counting R&D costs. Before calculating R&D costs let’s look at some further numbers.

Lipitor is a common cholesterol drug, so I will estimate that one million people take the drug worldwide; it is probably higher. That would provide a net profit of $877 million dollars a year. I have been taking the drug for years so let’s say the drug has been on the market for 10 years providing a net profit of 8 billion, 773 million dollars. Now, let’s say R&D cost is 1 billion dollars giving a net profit of 7 billion 773 million, not bad to share between the manufacturer and retailer, but, let’s say I underestimated the costs by a billion or two. A net profit of 5+ billion over ten years, 577 million per year, isn’t bad for a single drug.

Look at the markup of Prozac! A chart listing other drugs can be obtained from Snopes.com. Lipitor is one drug amongst hundreds and the fourth least in markup in the Snopes sample.

This may be the capitalistic way; however, with the concern about the costs of health care and knowing that many drugs can be purchased more cheaply overseas, one cannot help but wonder.

Socialist Utopia Found and Lost

A relative by marriage spent a number of years in a Kibbutz (communal living) in Israel. She recently described how this seemingly idealistic lifestyle, which she enjoyed when she lived there about forty years ago, has since succumbed to the worldly pressures of capitalism.

NOTE (added 10 Sep): At my invitation, the relative mentioned above has posted a Comment below, using the "Anonymous" option. As she mentions, there was lots of information coming at me rapidly and I was not taking written notes, so I got some information factually wrong. I thank my relative for Commenting and I have corrected my Topic text to indicate the corrections. [Changes are indicated by brackets. Material in quotes is from her Comment below.] My erroneous text has been grayed out. I appologize for the incorrect information I included in my original posting.

As she recounted her time in a small (100 person) non-religious (no rabbis allowed) kibbutz south of Beer Sheva in the Negev desert, I found myself drawn by the idealism of the concept and the reality that it could (and did) exist here on Earth during my lifetime. I was sorry to hear how and why she and her husband left the kibbutz for a new life in the US and how, on two subsequent visits, she found the original concept diluted to the point she hardly recognized it.

Could it be that this dedicated C-mind (me) has some L-mind memes kicking around?

Her utopian story awakened my idealistic, utopian imagination!

HER UTOPIAN STORY

She was born and raised in the US in a non-practicing Jewish family and met her husband-to-be while he was visiting from Israel. He had spent his teenage years living on a kibbutz. They married and ended up living in a small kibbutz, one of a group of three that were some distance from each other and quite far from any other settlements.

Living arrangements were simple. Each couple had use of their tiny apartment with a bedroom and a shower and toilet. Everything else was communal.

Children lived in a separarate building and were, in essence, raised by the whole community. With only 100 people, everyone knew everyone else and took responsibility for every child. I was reminded of the saying "it takes a village to raise a child" - in this case it was literally true. (That "African proverb" was made famous by first lady Hillary Clinton's 1996 book It Takes a Village: And Other Lessons Children Teach Us.)

The main work at the kibbutz was farming. They raised much of their own food and sold the excess to fund purchases of supplies. There was sufficient social pressure to assure that everyone worked relatively hard. Work was distributed to everyone according to their abilities. For example, she told me, one man, who was blind, was kept busy sorting lumber by size by feeling it. Another, who was mentally handicapped, was given tasks he could accomplish despite his limitations. Everyone did their share of "grunt" work on the farm and took turns preparing, serving, and cleaning up after communal meals.

No one was paid for their work, except for a small "stipend" that could be used to buy personal items. Social pressure and the public nature of communal living assured that everyone consumed only what they needed.

No one was "in charge". She told me there was one designated person who dealt with the external authorities, but he had no special authority within the kibbutz. There were regular meetings attended by all adults and decisions were reached by general consensus.

Thus, the kibbutz was a living example of the Karl Marx slogan "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" (1875). (I have refrained from calling this kibbutz "communist" because that word has gathered the "bad breath" of the totalitarian examples of Stalin's Russia and Mao's China. I think it is better to think of it as idealistic socialism.)

HOW UTOPIA DECLINED

So, I asked, if it was so ideal, why did you and your husband leave?

Well, it turned out that her husband ["wanted to be a success in the business world."] was not satisfied with the productivity of the work arrangements. He, along with some others, wanted to start a factory and hire outsiders to work there and also supply labor for the farm. ["The philosophy of this kibbutz was that all work was to be done by members and if something required extra hands, that work would not be undertaken if it required becoming a 'boss' to outside 'workers.' This arose in one case because we had a few extra fields where peanuts or potatoes could be planted, but not enough 'hands' to do the work, so the fields remained fallow."] The problem with that was the idealistic idea that no one should have any employees and no one should work for anyone else. The whole problem with capitalism, according to this view, is ownership of the means of production by the capitalist class and the necessary exploitation of labor class that that system implies.

Shortly before she and her husband left the kibbutz, a decision was reached to purchase a communal TV set. That, in her opinion, was the beginning of the end of the kibbutz as she knew it!

They came to the US where they completed their educations and found professional employment and raised their family.

THE END OF UTOPIA

She made two subsequent visits to her former kibbutz and sadly recounted how things had changed.

A decision was reached to build a factory and hire outside workers. ["There is now a factory for polymers, but there are only three workers, none hired from outside. The crops have changed to amaryllis for export rather than crops for local and internal consumption. And there is the major difference that they have migrant workers for the fields (interestingly, from Thailand primarily) -- which is so against the Marxist philosophical foundation)."] With additional income, kibbutz members demanded larger stipends and used that money to purchase their own record players and other luxuries.

Children no longer lived in separate housing. Apartments were enlarged to accommodate entire families.

As outside workers were hired to work the farm, more and more kibbutz members found employment outside the kibbutz. The number of kibbutz members working the farm declined to six (out of the total membership that remained about 100). Those earning larger salaries in their outside employment objected to giving their entire earnings to the kibbutz to be shared equally with those working the farm. ["More members now work outside the kibbutz than inside the kibbutz, but it is not true that they resent having their larger salary pooled back into a central source. "] Demands were made for larger stipends and they were met. The level of privately-owned luxuries increased. ["As exposure to material comforts increases, through television and movies -- and the consumer movement, the stipends must grow."]

More and more non-kibbutz Israelis settled in areas near the kibbutz until it was no longer remote from outside influences. The kibbutz had houses built on some of their former farmlands and rented them to non-members. ["While some kibbutzem do rent out houses for outsiders, the kibbutz where I worked and lived does not. Interestingly, of the 100 plus people who lived there in the '60's, so many have remained! I was truly astonished at how many old friends were still there. Of course, the obverse is also true, I did not see that many new people and changes, such as the pending decision to allow individual automobiles, is being pushed by the newer members."]

I must confess I was sad to hear how their utopian, idealistic socialism had been corrupted by capitalistic tendencies. The kibbutz members were now owners of a factory and farm that employed others as laborers and also landlords of rental properties. Oy!

ANY LESSON FROM THIS?

Well, we have been led to believe that democratic socialism does not go far enough and that "real communism" has never been tried.

The problem, we have been told, was with tyrants like Stalin and Mao and others who distorted communism and replaced the privileged capitalist class with "The New Class" (Milovan Djilas) of privileged Communist ruling elite.

The problem was the large scale of supposedly communist countries.

However, the story above has no tyrants at all. It is on a small scale of 100 people who voluntarily agreed to come together on a kibbutz. And yet, it still failed to maintain the idealistic utopian concept. [This apparently was an overstatement by me. My relative disagrees: "I think that by and large it still has maintained most of its Marxist underpinnings, but they are being eroded by time and a shrinking world. The kibbutz movement started primarily from a harsh need; how to survive and how to build an agrarian community with only a handful of people."]

Perhaps the problem is the basic concept: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"?

Perhaps it is irreversibly at odds with inate human nature?

Ira Glickstein

Only Sadness

Although I am on the other side politically, had I still lived in New York when he ran for governor, I would have voted for Eliot Spitzer because I thought he was a genuine latter-day "untouchable" Eliot Ness. Perhaps he is and was incorruptable in the ordinary sense of that word. Why must our heros have feet of clay?

I confess that in the case of "toe-tapping" Larry Craig I found some thrill in his exposure, as I did in the cases of homo- and hetero-sexual politicos and defrocked televangelists who got their tail caught in a crack.

But I take no joy in Spitzer's forced resignation. He was and is different and all I feel is sadness. Not just for his wife and daughters - I was also sorry for Craig's wife and the wives of the others - but also for Spitzer the man.

I believe deeply in democracy and know that capitalism is the only economic system that provides independent centers of weath and influence and makes true representative democracy possible. (In other systems where the government absolutely controls all or most means of production and, therefore, everyone is dependent upon the government for their jobs and welfare, real democracy is all but impossible.) For capitalism to function well, the bad apples on Wall Street and in corporate board rooms must be exposed and convicted when they violate the law. Spitzer did that effectively. We will miss him.

Why am I giving Spitzer a partial free pass for his crimes? I hope it is not because he is Jewish. Is it less of a crime to obtain adulterous sex in a fair business transaction with a high-class professional hooker than it is to accept "voluntary" sex from a low-class underling in exchange for keeping a job or getting a promotion, or for the distinction of having a close relationship with a high-powered celebrity? In the former case, the bad actor is exposed to blackmail that could affect public policy, particularly since illicit sex operations are often controlled or allied with organized crime. In the latter case, there is a tremendous unbalance of power between the underling and the celebrity. I just don't know!

Ira Glickstein

Major Barbara

Sometime back Howard commented on a post by quoting Major Barbara by Shaw.  I hadn't seen or read that play and I was curious.  I finally got around to reading it the other day and found it full of very interesting comments concerning economic philosophy, religion and the meaning of life.  Perhaps it would be interesting if Howard wanted to lead a discussion of Shaw's ideas.  With respect -Joel