Here is the unedited version of an op-ed I wrote in response to another piece on Russia.

A Bear Reborn
The Dartmouth
May 17, 2007

I was very surprised to read on this page that Zachary Hyatt ’09 thinks the United States and Russia share similar national interests (“The Rumbling Bear: A Dying Art,” May 15). I believe that Russia’s recent actions, policies and rhetoric indicate the contrary.

For the past seven years, Russian President Vladimir Putin has eradicated the vestiges of democracy and civil society that his predecessor, the late Boris Yeltsin, had struggled to build. Putin eliminated the popular election of governors; now he appoints them. Putin has eliminated privately-owned Russian television stations; Kremlin told Russian radio stations that 50 percent of their news reports must be positive. Putin has consolidated Kremlin’s control over gas and oil through the Gasprom and Rosneft state monopolies. Putin has been accused of personally ordering the murder of his political opponents and critics. Putin’s steps consolidate power in long arm of the Kremlin, not in the hands of the Russian people. This goes against America’s interest, because democratic consolidation can ensure the stability of the world’s second largest nuclear power.

Hyatt thinks he has found the “one thing [Russia and the United States] both want more than anything else, and that is stability.” Mutual stability sounds silly because Russia wants nothing of the sort. The main reason the Russian people have taken to Putin, as Hyatt correctly suggests, is that the Russian GDP has been growing by an astounding average of 7 percent each year since 1999. The Russian people have been willing to trade democratic decline for relative economic prosperity.

The source of this economic miracle is oil and gas revenue. The IMF and the World Bank estimate that in 2005 the oil and gas sector represented 20 percent of the country’s GDP, and 60 percent of its export revenue. Russia’s future is tied to the price of oil and gas. According to an IMF study, a $1 per barrel increase in oil prices for one year will raise Russian federal budget revenues by 0.35 percent of GDP, or $3.4 billion. And what, above all else, keeps oil prices high? Instability. Specifically, unrest in the Middle East.

Political instability raises the price of oil and encourages importers to turn to Russia in efforts to diversify supply. So Russia continues to build the Bushehr nuclear reactor in Iran. It provides no troops to NATO efforts in Afghanistan or American efforts in Iraq. In fact, Russia is rumored to have supplied Iraqi military with U.S. war plans before the invasion. It sells weapons to the region. Russia has sold Syria $2 billion-worth of weapons, including surface-to-air missiles. It has sold Iran weapons worth $4 billion. Russia sells weapons to Hamas of the Palestinian Authority. It seems that America’s enemies in the Middle East are Russia’s friends. I don’t know about Hyatt, but that’s not what I call “mutual interests.”

Hyatt’s myth of “mutual interests” doesn’t even work from the Russian side of the story. From their perspective, for the past two decades the United States has been pushing for NATO expansion eastward against Russian protestations. While Russia was down, America advanced. The U.S. withdrawal from the ABM Treaty was a slap in the face to the Russians. Now, the United States wants to put ten missile interceptors in Poland and a mid-course radar in the Czech Republic. No matter that the interceptors are few in number and defensive in nature. Russia views U.S. military expansion into former Soviet territory as a challenge to Russia’s sovereignty. So, in a predictable fashion, it withdraws from treaties that control its military expansion into Eastern Europe and proscribe the construction of long-range missiles.

In another geopolitical setting, Hyatt’s desire to cooperate could have been salvaged if Russia and America cooled their tensions (as Condoleezza Rice is doing in Moscow right now) and found some sources of cooperation—a common ideology, mutual benefits, or mutual threats. But geopolitics prevent Russia from prolonged cooperation. Russia is threatened by an advancing U.S.-NATO alliance to the west, a rising China in the east, and Islamic extremism in the south. In short, the Russian bear has awoken and found itself cornered.

So I am sorry to disappoint Hyatt, but his question still remains—“How do we deal with an independent and bellicose Russia?”

This op-ed was published in the IAJ International Update.

The Eulogy Putin Gave
May 3, 2007

The famed philosopher Jacques Derrida wrote that a eulogy is a fundamentally selfish act. The eulogizer elevates himself, constructing his image through the death of the other.

Russian President Vladimir Putin knows that lesson well. The eulogy Putin delivered at the funeral for former President Boris Yeltsin last Monday was the eulogy Putin himself wants to receive years hence. The speech was all democracy and greatness, bereft of Russia’s fall in Chechnya, the rise of the oligarchs, and today’s undemocratic democracy. As the Russian state archives have slowly closed, an official state history has begun to rise. Steven Lee Myers of The New York Times compared the eulogy to Stalin’s treatment of Lenin: “appropriating his legacy by transforming him ‘into the realm of state propaganda’ to be used for other ends.” By presenting a beautiful Boris, Putin created a wonderful, problem-free Putin—construction through exclusion, as Derrida would say.

Yeltsin created a constitution, said Putin, that declared the rights of the person as its highest virtue. But this is not Putin’s virtue. Earlier this month, he banned all foreigners from all retail markets across the vast country. Putin credited his predecessor with creating a government that “allowed people to freely express their thoughts.” But this is not Putin’s government. The previous week, his administration told all Kremlin-controlled radio stations—which are all of them, except Echo Moscow—that at least 50 percent of the news they report have to be positive, regardless of reality. Where Yeltsin grumbled but ultimately gave way for NATO expansion into Eastern Europe, Putin is making a Cuban missile crisis out of ten missile interceptors that even his generals concede pose no harm.

What do we students care of Russia’s government and its leaders’ eulogies?

Russia is not the great power Soviet Union once was. Our generation will not face an existential nuclear threat of Soviet proportions. We will face, instead, a people who search for identity in a largely imperial past—from the Romanov empire to the Soviet empire; from the czar to the general secretary. Building democracy with a guilty memory is hard, perhaps impossible. Germany did it once, but the communist grip has proven stronger. Even in Berlin you can tell when you cross into former East Germany.

We care, in short, because, while mitigated and transformed, the threat remains. Our generation will witness the unraveling of conflict in a dauntingly complicated and increasingly important region. If we are to understand that conflict, if we wish to offer constructive solutions, then we must learn the history of the region and its peoples—lest we repeat the mistakes of cowboy-style democratization.

Another Moscow eulogy was delivered later last week. Mstislav Rostropovich, the greatest cellist of his generation, passed away on Friday. Rostropovich was exiled from the Soviet Union for “anti-Soviet” activities that included providing shelter for the regime’s most potent critic, Alexandr Solzhenitsyn. In 2005, an interviewer asked Rostropovich about the proper attitude towards Russia: “Don't you think that the silence of the West might be justified by the necessity of peaceful world coexistence?” Rostropovich nodded as his wife, Galina, answered: “That was already done under Hitler, and that was enough! That method had been tried. Now maybe we should try another approach: force or disobedience!”

Here is the unedited version of the op-ed that ran in The Dartmouth today.

Boycott the Beijing Olympics
The Dartmouth
May 1, 2007

Last year, the Darfur Action Group at Dartmouth participated in a noble, successful but ultimately ineffectual effort to divest from companies that do business with Sudan. Their end was just—to facilitate the end of the Darfur genocide. But their divstment campaign was off the mark. They should have urged Dartmouth to divest from China.

China opposes all political solutions to the Darfur crisis that might compromise its economic interests in Sudan. Until recently, Beijing has threatened to veto any attempt by the American representatives on the UN Security Council to put sanctions on Sudan. China fears that sanctions would harm its oil interests in the region — and China has significant interests in Sudan.

Sudan is China’s largest overseas oil project. Over the past decade, China has invested billions of dollars into oil refineries in Sudan and pipelines to the Red Sea. Sudan has used the profits from its oil sales to China to buy Chinese T-59 tanks, howitzers, fighter aircraft, and landmines. And their military cooperation continues to grow. Last week, China’s minister of defense visited Sudan and pledged increased cooperation in “every sphere.”

China is Sudan’s largest supplier of arms. It is a knowing and willing accomplice in the Darfur genocide.

This genocide is serious. Over 200,000 Africans have been raped and killed by the Arab militants in Darfur since 2003; 2.5 million have become refugees. Just yesterday, a special UN panel reported that over the past six months, the Khartoum government has used planes disguised as UN aircraft for aerial bombardments of Darfur villages. Those planes were likely made in China.

I propose the revival of the Darfur Action Group. They should call on companies to boycott the 2008 Beijing Olympics — China’s most important public image campaign.

We know that the Communist government has a weak spot for its Olympics. After actress Mia Farrow called the Beijing Games the “Genocide Olympics” and compared Steven Spielberg, the artistic adviser to the Beijing Olympics, to Leni Riefenstahl, Spielberg wrote a letter to Chinese President Hu Jintao, urging him “to bring an end to the human suffering” in Darfur. The plea, cloaked in the threat of a PR disaster, worked. President Hu bulged. He flew to Sudan and called on Khartoum to let 3,000 UN peacekeepers into Darfur. The Sudanese government relented, but has refused to allow a larger 21,000-member joint African Union-UN force to relieve the African Union soldiers already on the ground.

The Khartoum government hides behind the protective cloak of the Chinese veto. Pressure on Sudan has not worked. But pressure on China might do the trick. That pressure should be the focus of the Darfur Action Group.

The Group’s divestment effort failed because it was misdirected. Companies that do business with Sudan are not significant contributors to the crisis. Financial divestment has simply allowed Dartmouth to wash its hands free of implicit consent in genocide. It has not stopped that genocide. If Dartmouth activists are true to their pledge to stop the atrocities in Darfur, they must boycott the 2008 Beijing Olympics.

Here is an op-ed that ran in the AJC today (and in The Dartmouth yesterday).

Misguided protests worse than inaction
The Atlanta Journal Constitution
April 24, 2007

It happens every year, on every college campus: Students gather to protest some worldly injustice or call on some faceless organization (usually the U.S. government) to right some unspeakable wrong. Dartmouth is no exception: Last year, the Darfur Action Group gathered to sell T-shirts, put on concerts and hand out ribbons. They sought to put an end to the genocide of Africans in Darfur by forcing the College to divest from companies that do business with Sudan.

They won that battle, but lost the war. Dartmouth divested — along with Harvard, Yale and Stanford — yet the Sudanese kept (and keep) on dying. Content with their small victory, the Darfur Action Group disbanded.

Any hot-button issue can rouse the collegiate rabble from their homework and toward the megaphones. Although the Darfur genocide has receded to the background of our political lives, the Iraq war persists to fuel our anger. And so, on campuses across the nation, we forego class to call on President Bush to withdraw troops from Iraq. We protest despite the fact that withdrawal now would further destabilize the region. We protest despite the fact that if we exit, we will leave a Shiite-dominated Iraq — and play into Iran’s hands. We don’t understand politics. We understand injustice. And we protest against the current injustice, despite whatever greater injustice our proposed action might bring.

Political science, if we listened to it, would teach us that when people gather to pursue a collective purpose, the collective often subsumes the original purpose, and the people lose their true calling in the drunken excitement of the crowd.

We seem to protest for the sake of protest itself. A college protest is the act of “hanging out” politicized. For the proponents of “hanging out,” a protest is simply a change of venue. Yesterday, they rocked the stage in a fraternity basement. Today, they rock the stage for world peace. Perhaps we do this to spite our parents. Perhaps we do this because it just goes well with beer. Perhaps we sometimes stumble onto a valid argument, a true cause. On the off chance of that, please listen; but for the most part, don’t take us seriously.

I remember walking past an ad by a Georgia State University student group when I was home last summer. The ad invited all Georgians to “Save Palestine & Lebanon” by boarding the buses to Washington, D.C., and protesting in front of the Israeli embassy (a 10-hour ride). GSU students — whose college does not list any classes on the Arab-Israeli conflict in the course catalogue — discovered “injustice,” formed an opinion and began to rally the people.

You don’t need a Ph.D. in political science to understand cause and effect. Take the famous film director Steven Spielberg, who understands the political lesson his avid followers have yet to learn — find something your audience values, then leverage it to achieve your goal. Without incentive, protests will fail. The film director, now directing the artistic aspect of the 2008 Beijing Olympics, wrote a letter last week to Chinese President Hu Jintao, asking him “to bring an end to the human suffering” in Darfur. China cares about the Beijing Olympics, so when Spielberg wrote, Hu acted. He flew to Sudan and urged the government to accept U.N. peace workers. Last Monday, Khartoum agreed to let a 3,000-strong U.N.-African Union force into Darfur.

At the end of that same week, Amnesty International held a rally at the Chinese mission to the United Nations in New York. It sought to gather “more than 1,000 Amnesty International activists, primarily students” to “protest human rights abuses in Sudan.” They wanted Beijing to stop selling Khartoum weapons and to stop blocking sanctions on Sudan in the U.N. Security Council. Their call came too late; Spielberg beat them to it. Of the promised 1,000, only about 30 people came. I think the rest did their homework.

The New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof is scheduled to speak about the Darfur genocide in Filene Auditorium tomorrow. The injustices he will describe will make your blood boil. The first genocide of the 21st century is all the more reprehensible because so little has been done. Hearing that, you will want to act. But please, before you act, think — do your homework.

"Of Markets, Morals and Men" is an essay I wrote for The Association of Private Enterprise Education (APEE) 2006 essay contest. The essay received 5th place, an honorable mention.



Of Markets, Morals and Men



While markets don’t turn men into angels, they do provide incentives to curb unethical behavior. In fact, the more closely an existing market approaches its theoretical model, the more ethically its participants will act. Yet newspapers sensationalize corporate fraud and underreport statistics that would provide a more balanced perspective. Giving way to fear over facts, public opinion pushes for government market regulation and business ethics standards. Neither of these policies, however, achieves its desired outcome. Governments, public opinion and markets would all benefit if they were to realize what this essay will show: markets are good for morality.

Categorizing behavior along ethical standards complicates every discussion of business ethics. Under commonplace definitions of “ethical” — “morally right, honorable, virtuous, decent”i behavior — theft, perjury and fraud are obviously unethical. Other practices escape easy categorization. Is a ban on insider trading — a transaction based on information not available to the public — an example of bad laws (because law prohibits a performance incentive for managers) or of bad morals (because law prohibits it)?ii The Qur’an, like Medieval Catholicism, prohibits its adherents from charging interest. Should our conception of ethics include this definition as well? Because such puzzles are the purview of entire essays,iii this one will assume some commonly-accepted definitions of ethics: no fraud, no theft, no lies.

Now that we understand ethics, let’s understand markets. A free market, broadly defined, is an arena (such as a bazaar, the New York Stock Exchange, or eBay) where people meet to exchange goods or services (such as apples for oranges, stock options for money, or money for bread). Differences in people’s possessions and abilities, combined with differences in their wants and needs, create opportunities for mutually-beneficial trade. As people interact in a free market, self-interest encourages them to maximize the satisfaction of their demands and discourages them from paying the full cost of that satisfaction. Critics claim that this contradiction between the desires to maximize benefit and minimize cost motivates unethical behavior. They overlook, however, two important market mechanisms: repeat interaction and demand for information.

To understand repeat interactions, consider any restaurant.iv A cursory observer may think that customers have an incentive to under-tip (or not tip) the waiters, and waiters have an incentive to shirk, not bothering to re-fill glasses or wash the silverware. If the customer and the waiter both seek to maximize benefit and minimize cost, then the customer would rather pay less for his food, and the waiter would rather work less for the same tip. If the customer-waiter interaction is a one-time deal, then this behavior might hold true. Most interactions, however, are not one-time deals. Introduce repeat interactions and everything changes.

Imagine a customer who frequents a particular restaurant. He orders, eats, tips, and leaves—but plans to return. Now the customer, on the one hand, has an incentive to tip for service, lest the waiter remember him and refuse to serve him the next time — or worse, spit in his food! The waiter, on the other hand, has an incentive to serve well, lest the customer decide to switch waiters — or worse, switch restaurants! In the language of economic theory, repeat interactions increase the long-run cost to unethical behavior. For a rationally profit-maximizing actor, long-term cost outweighs short-term gain (irrational customers will be refused service, and for good reason!). Such is the power of repeat interactions that both actors behave ethically if they expect to meet again in the future.

The availability of accurate information similarly shapes behavior. Take Subway. The same atmosphere and menu throughout its global franchises says one thing: expect similar service in all Subway outlets. Subway knows that if one of its employees shortchanges Joe in Atlanta, Joe will tell his Atlanta friends to avoid Subway restaurants, and when he visits his cousins in Pittsburgh, his will tell them that, too. With such a spread of information, one person’s unethical act will produce first reputational, and then monetary, costs to the restaurant chain. So Subway’s network franchise has a monetary incentive to enforce ethical behavior, because for every Joe it disappoints, it stands the chance of losing the business of Joe’s friends and family. Such is the power of information.

In short, repeat interactions generate rules and guidelines for ethical behavior, while the access to information ensures actors don’t cheat those rules and guidelines. Not every market, unfortunately, offers perfect information and repeat interactions. This is because market efficiency is not a binary condition, but rather a matter of degree. Some markets are more efficient than others. On the one end of the efficiency spectrum, the New York Stock Exchange allows its participants to interact frequently using comprehensive and immediately available information. The stock prices Bloomberg displays are thus as accurate as can be, because Bloomberg’s reputation relies on it. On the other end of the spectrum, a tourist visiting a car mechanic on a secluded Arizona highway should be wary of getting cheated out of his money — not because people are less moral in Arizona, but because he is engaging in a one-time interaction with a mechanic about whom no information is available.v

Markets, therefore, enforce ethics. Where markets function efficiently, we can expect to find a high degree of ethical behavior. For markets to function efficiently, information needs to flow among suppliers, among consumers, and between suppliers and consumers; and all of them must interact frequently. It is true, however, that some markets are less efficient than others. By examining the evolution of one less-efficient market, we can gain insight into ethical behavior.

Let’s examine an unlikely candidate for ethical behavior: the political market.vi A democratic government can be described as a market for power. Candidates for political office supply good governance to citizens who demand different candidates by casting votes. Here the actors enter the market not to acquire a good, such as a car or a toaster, but to secure a future service. This gives the political market a special characteristic — one side of the transaction (the vote) occurs immediately, whereas the other side (governance) occurs over time. This market condition provides an incentive for elected candidates to underperform — that is, to provide a service less adequate than that expected by the electorate.

This observation is entirely correct. In fact, it was made in the 18th century by the father of utilitarianism, James Mill. Mill theorized that representative governments provide “the greatest happiness for the greatest number.”vii His only concern was that representatives might act to increase their happiness at the expense of the happiness of their electors. His solution was simple: frequent elections check arbitrary rule.viii In market terms, frequent elections are nothing more than repeat interaction between two exchanging parties, the voter and the representative. Unbeknownst to him, Mill was taking an inefficient free market, the 19th century parliamentary system, and trying to make it more efficient in order to increase ethical behavior. This essay can do little more than rephrase his analysis: better markets make better people.
If the more efficient a market, the more ethical its participants, then why the hype about unethical business? Two major sources have contributed to the increase in attention paid to business ethics over the past 20 years: the media and government regulation. Sensationalist newspapers and overeager pundits over-report the unethical behavior of individual firms — such as the recent fraud at Enron, WorldCom, Peregrine, and Tyco — and fail to put these cases in perspective by reporting statistical data on ethical breaches. As Dartmouth Trustee T. J. Rodgers tells us, while only “10 to 20 public corporations have been justifiably accused of serious wrongdoing,” that is only “0.1 percent of America's 17,500 public companies.”ix In comparison to the less-well functioning political market, that number is 10 times lower than the “failure rate” of U.S. presidents (defined as “forced or almost forced from office”).x

Unethical behavior also increases when governments, seeking to regulate markets, skew incentives. To measure whether bad behavior results from government regulation or “the inherent immorality of capitalism,”xi we must do the seemingly impossible: find markets free from government regulation. I have found two such markets: in Norway and, surprisingly, in Russia. Both examples show how markets without government intervention efficiently enforce ethical behavior.

The Oslo Mercantile Association (OME) in Norway provides a perfect example of a market-created enforcement mechanism that works. The OME was established in 1878 by Norwegian businessmen to defend general standards of business practice and adjudicate disputes among market participants.xii OME’s carefully kept records show that the standards set by the businessmen were, in fact, stricter than those defined by modern governments. For example, most of the complaints filed were for “disloyal conduct,” which OME described as “derogatory remarks concerning other tradesmen and their products” — a practice common in modern business. Over the course of OME’s existence (1880-1953, except during the Nazi occupation), the most egregious ethical violations, such as claims of “dishonesty,” “breach of confidence,” “failure to perform,” and “unreasonable demands,” all fell over time.xiii Claims of “disloyal conduct,” however, rose. This indicates that, as the market enforced compliance, ethical offenders moderated their misbehavior from the egregious to the inconsequential.

The Russian Commodity Exchange (RCE) provides a more recent example of government-free market ethics. Set up after 1989, the RCE inaugurated capitalism’s entrance into the former communist stronghold. Gorbachev’s government had just emerged from central planning, and had little experience with markets. “A centrally planned system,” Peter Hill tells us, “holds individuals much less accountable [than a market].”xiv The Russian Duma, therefore, put up no regulations to prevent closed-door dealings or to force participants to honor contracts. Unregulated and inexperienced, the RCE seemed set up to fail. So how did it fare? According to Kolosov, et al.,xv the RCE set up institutional rules to promote ethical behavior. The RCE followed no set laws and meted out no set punishments; rather, it evaluated each offense on a case-by-case basis, and then simply announced its finding for or against the accused. The brokers themselves punished the convicted by refusing to trade with them. Punishments also ranged from temporary suspensions to permanent losses of business, in accordance with the severity of the offenses. Unsurprisingly, Kolosov, et al., point out two mechanisms that facilitated such regulation: repeat interaction and access to information.xvi Thus, with neither government regulation nor market experience, the Russian Commodity Exchange promoted ethical behavior in its effort to increase market efficiency.

So markets can efficiently enforce ethics, but maybe governments can do a better job? We cannot tell, because government regulation, just like market efficiency, is a matter of degree. Economists do know, however, that more government regulation always makes a market less efficient in terms of profit. Increased regulation requires increased paperwork, increased oversight, and decreased maneuverability for market participants. Regulation raises transaction costs, and high costs deter business. Both efficiency and regulation are a matter of degree, but whereas more market efficiency certainly means better ethics, more government regulation means less efficiency, and maybe better ethics. While the jury is still out, governments should avoid enforcing ethics, lest they fail at both ethics and efficiency.

Unethical behavior exists inside and outside of markets. Unfortunately, when men act unethically outside of markets, we blame them, but when they act unethically as they sell, trade, or barter, we blame the market. As a system of determining prices and facilitating exchange, a market has no moral obligation. Market participants, however, soon realize that in order for markets to benefit them, they must act in a certain, ethical way. This is the market’s contribution to morality: Markets might not make angels out of men, but they can curb the worse demons of our nature.


Works Cited

Friedman, Milton, John Mackey, T.J. Rogers. “Rethinking the Social Responsibility of Business.” Reason. Oct., 2005. Accessed Nov. 13, 2006. .

Hill, Peter J. “Markets and Morality.” Bozeman, MT: Political Economy Research Center. 1988.

Kolosov, Michael, et al. “Ethics and behavior on the Russian commodity exchange.” Journal of Business Ethics. Vol. 12. 1993. pp. 741-744.

Lewis, Phillip V. “Defining ‘business ethics’: Like nailing jello to a wall.” Journal of Business Ethics (1985).

Lunde, Johs. “Business Ethics in Norway.” The Business History Review. Vol. 33. No. 3. Autumn, 1959. pp. 401-408.

McMurtry, John. Value Wars: The Global Market Versus the Life Economy. Pluto Press, 2002.

Mill, James. “On Government,” in Jack Lively & John Rees, Utilitarian Logic and Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984. pp. 72-28.

Moore, Jennifer. “What is really unethical about insider trading?” Journal of Business Ethics (1990). pp. 171-182.

NBC4. “Is your mechanic cheating?” Accessed Nov. 4, 2006. .

Wilson, James Q. “The Free Society Requires a Moral Sense, Social Capital.” Interview. July/Aug., 1999. Religion and Liberty. Accessed Nov. 13, 2006. .

ENDNOTES

i “Ethical,” Oxford English Dictionary Online. Accessed Nov. 4, 2006.
ii For a discussion on the ethics of regulating insider trading, see Jennifer Moore, “What is really unethical about insider trading?” Journal of Business Ethics (1990) pp. 171-182.
iii For a discussion of the definition of business ethics, see Phillip V. Lewis, “Defining ‘business ethics’: Like nailing jello to a wall,” Journal of Business Ethics (1985).
iv This example flows from James Q. Wilson’s description of restaurants and markets in James Q. Wilson, “The Free Society Requires a Moral Sense, Social Capital,” Religion and Liberty, Interview, July/Aug., 1999.
v A national mechanic service like Jiffy Lube, however, self-enforces anti-fraudulent behavior as soon as information of its misconduct becomes available to the public. (NBC4, “Is your mechanic cheating?” Accessed Nov. 4, 2006, .)
vi Peter Hill makes private property central to his definition of markets. If each citizen controls his or her vote, then that vote can be considered a form of private property. (Peter J. Hill, “Markets and Morality” (Bozeman, MT: Political Economy Research Center, 1988), p. 1.)
vii James Mill, “On Government,” in Jack Lively & John Rees, Utilitarian Logic and Politics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984), pp. 72-28.
viii Mill, in fact, called for annual elections, which is much more frequent than modern parliamentary elections, which must occur at least every five years.
ix “Rethinking the Social Responsibility of Business,” by Milton Friedman, John Mackey, and T.J. Rogers, Reason, 2005, Oct., .
x Ibid.
xi John McMurtry, Value Wars: The Global Market Versus the Life Economy (Pluto Press, 2002), Introduction.
xii The brief summary of the OME comes from Johs Lunde, “Business Ethics in Norway,” The Business History Review, Vol. 33, No. 3 (Autumn, 1959), pp. 401-408.
xiii In the language of modern economic theory, these violations would be called, respectively, misinformation, default and unfair contracts.
xiv Peter J. Hill, “Markets and Morality” (Bozeman, MT: Political Economy Research Center, 1988), p. 3.
xv Michael A. Kolosov, Deryl W. Martin and Jeffrey H. Peterson, “Ethics and behavior on the Russian commodity exchange,” Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 12, 1993, pp. 741-744.
xvi About repeat interaction, Kolosov, et al, said: “Seldom is a market participant seeking a one-time transaction.” About information, they said: “To be trusted for larger transactions involving deferred delivery, and larger profits, the unethical broker must earn back his respectability over time.”

Here is the unedited version of an article published in the Atlanta Journal Constitution a while back. I meant to post this earlier, but forgot.

To Sum Up, Students' Math Skills Fall Short
The Atlanta Journal Constitution
18 July 2006

President Bush once said, “Rarely is the question asked, ‘Is our children learning?’” Our state’s college math students would answer with a definitive no. And I know why.

I tutor mathematics at Georgia State University. Throughout the day, I help people of all ages with math of all types, from elementary algebra to advanced calculus. I have worked with teenage students and with students in their forties who want to get a math degree or just exercise their brain. I have noticed that—whether young or old, whether full-time employees, full-time students or both—they share a single Achilles’ heel. They lack basic math skills.

When solving arithmetic, statistics or calculus problems, my tutees struggle with the additive, associative and commutative properties. They would understand derivation and integration—calculus is taught well at Georgia State—but would stumble through the basics, such as simplifying equations or complex fractions. The problem is not with our colleges or our high schools, but with our elementary and middle schools. The source of our state’s math woes lies somewhere between second and fifth grades.

My experience lacks a wide perspective. After all, Georgia State is only one university and the group of people who take summer math classes might radically differ from the overall student population. Still, Georgia State is a large university in a large city. If not indicative of the country as a whole, it strongly represents the state of education in Georgia.

If our schools fail to teach basic math, how did I learn it? I was lucky in two ways: where and to whom I was born. I was born in St. Petersburg, Russia, and went to school there until fourth grade. My parents put my education above all else. In all subjects they knew, they drilled me extensively and expected only the highest grades. To alter an inspirational quote hung in my Holcomb Bridge Middle School homeroom, my parents told me that if I shoot for the moon and land among the starts, shoot again.

Perhaps my two accidents of birth can provide a solution to our fledgling mathematic education. No, I do not mean that we should send students to Russia. But for all the things that country did poorly, it excelled at mathematics education. I was methodically drilled on how to multiply, divide, reduce complex fractions and simplify equations. Our schools should learn from them.

The real path to education, however, starts at home. Learning from my parents, when I become a father I will also push my children to excel. There should be no middle ground here. If parents don’t set their children up to succeed, they set them up to fail.

Once parents step up to the plate, however, and once schools improve to better facilitate the learning process, then together we can put me out of a job.