Getting Fracked – The Latest Rage in Moonscaping the Earth

“For capitalism to work, a desperate exploitable class of people is needed.”

Haha! Hate to break it to ya, but Capitalism works just fine when everyday people use their brain to create a fair trade of goods or services. A “desperate” exploitable class isn’t necessary at all. People who think and respect themselves however are.

As a capitalist, even I consider fracking companies “evil” but the rest of this article is exaggerated bunk if you’re trying to apply it to capitalism or labor in general. It’s clear that whoever wrote this has no first hand knowledge of what they’re talking about.

Regardless of what a company does in terms of workers vs contractors, the site itself has rules. The bigger the company, the more strict they are on the rules, not less, and those rules have to do with anyone who steps on site, even visitors. Every day you sign on and do a safety assessment with your crew and confirm that you have everything in place to do the job safely, including, believe it or not, enough energy to do the job. Accountability falls on individuals, not companies, and there’s always at least three individuals from different companies (if not four) on the hook for basic safety on every job site.

Also, Personal Protective Equipment is a government safety requirement through OHSA. Every company is required to provide this. If the company was saying it was not required, they broke the law which governments are obligated to enforce if companies themselves do not. That’s what your taxes are supposed to go to.

Otherwise, not one single company I’ve encountered believes that not providing a $40 respirator is worth the huge increase in fines if a worker (union or not, contractor or not) complains of breathing problems. Not only does the contractor want the additional scrutiny of a safety violation, the site doesn’t either as there are many unnecessary safety rules that actually make some work more dangerous and slow things down.

And unions being the savior here? Nice try, but sorry once again. In this economy unions are forcing many companies to be priced out of competing for jobs, and when time is of the essence for completing these jobs even most union guys would prefer half their roster left at the hall than on-site because typically half of union rosters are lazy, slow-moving, over-priced bums. Plus, if labor must remain at a constant but costs need to be cut, guess where they get cut? Equipment doesn’t get fixed as often, supply orders get delayed, less people mean more fatigue and chance for error with those who remain.

Plus in this story, if it were a union site then Jose would have never got the job in the first place, and if there were union guys on site, it wouldn’t surprise me that they were telling him NOT to wear PPE because that’s what most union guys think of “scabs”. You think labor unions are so noble and precious? (You’ve never criticized them once.) Try working inside a couple for awhile. :). From the bottom to the top they are nowhere near the romanticized image you have of them.

But yah, fracking sucks and the companies are generally evil. I saw “Gasland”, too, and what they’re doing in the name of Profiteering (not Capitalism) is sickening, as is their doing it under the guise of trying to “create jobs”, “reduce dependency on foreign oil”, and “create an energy future” which I would easily join you in scoffing at.

A blanket attack on capitalism through this, however, is a weak stretch to make something fit an idealistic and non-realistic liberal view in my opinion, and won’t actually solve or improve anything. This perspective on the issue is so out to lunch anyone within the fracking industry (or even those trying to regulate it) would easily dismiss it.

LikeLike

@Arb,

“Because everyone if they’d just take responsibility for their actions and get creative and working it would be okay.”
No, there’s still competition.

“Because, despite working, a good half of the US is considered to be below or at the poverty line.”
How many times does it have to be said that simply “working” isn’t enough anymore and hasn’t been enough for a long time? Those labor glory days where people didn’t have to think to get paid are long gone and will stay long gone forever. More people are educated, there’s far more technology and automation, and society has raised the bar.

By your thinking, because someone works as a waiter they should be entitled to own their own house? Or because someone can move a paintbrush they should be entitled to a brand new car every three years?

“Capitalism runs on exploitation of one class or another – or we’d all be rich right?” Then eliminate charities if that’s how strongly you feel against exploitation or you don’t believe in it. If it’s not voluntary then it isn’t charity, and if it’s not voluntary then it isn’t capitalism, either.

Here’s the thing – you seem to think that any worker, that’s what they are and always will be, that they can’t “get rich” yet the fact is no worker has to stay a worker. They can be an investor, an owner, and a businessperson and have the same opportunity for success that the rest of us have.

Many, unfortunately, think they have to be smarter, more talented, or better connected in order to succeed and that’s not true. On the one hand that’s profiteers selling them their own brand of kool-aid and on the other, it’s that person’s loser/mediocrity-trappeds friends trying to “protect them” from failing. Neither position is one that a capitalist takes because there are thousands of all shapes and sizes who have come from nothing (or less) and succeeded.

“I would disagree with this nature of this relationship being proposed. Contrarily, the larger the company, the less strict they are with rules that affect their profitability, hence the sacrifice zones, where the wild west robber barons rule and destroy the land (and people)”
I concede a point to you here in the way I put mine – BP comes to mind! Personal injury lawsuits seriously affect profitability, as does downtime. Again, I’m open to attacking fracking and the NG industry but as to capitalism in general re: “sacrifice zones”, too wide a generalization in my opinion. The stories you hear are the exception with companies, not the norm. I’ve been in tanks that don’t need 3 people from 3 different companies checking and re-checking the air inside them when they’re not hooked up to anything but fresh air, but they still do it because any accident where one single person is involved is bad news.

“Absolutely, because labour unions stifle profitability.”
Stifling profitability isn’t the problem – competition does that even more. The problem is that many unions will remain rigid and not allow an organization to adapt to increased competition or a changing market. It also forces a company to be stuck with shitty workers that often shouldn’t be in the job in the first place. Some unions cull their own, but many don’t because it stifles their own profitability.

“The morass left to next generation is what troubles me because we’re still doing the same stupid, greedy, short-sighted things over and over.”
Fully agree with you there. Capitalism is no saint, but let’s not let it hide the real sinners amongst those either for or against it is my position.

We’re going quibble about unions and capitalism…. I’m gonna say we need more government regulation and oversight because the government can give equal weight to stakeholder concerns as well as shareholder concerns. You’re gonna say that only makes things less efficient and an encumbrance on what business does, thus killing jobs and productivity.”
Um, no. :). I’m going to say we need to get more specific on what oversight is needed and where. Fracking and NG companies in general? Absolutely. Tearing down and over-governmentalizing capitalism as a whole? Nope. To me, that’s where most of the problems start in the first place.

“I’m sorry if calling bullshit on this sad state of affairs offends your worldview, but it isn’t right, it isn’t fair and it needs to be said.”
I hardly think things are great right now, Arb, and I certainly wouldn’t think otherwise simply because “profits are up”. People are looking to celebrate a new Dow record today and I think it’s all bullshit – all paper profits, no real value. That to me isn’t capitalism.

Obviously I defend capitalism, but perhaps not for the reasons you think I do. I don’t think it’s perfect or the be-all end-all, but I do defend it where I think it is being overgeneralized and lumped in with theft, profiteering, plutocracy, etc.. To me, what we see with big business (Canada or U.S.) isn’t even capitalism at all which is the main reason why it isn’t fair right now. I see capitalism as a voluntary exchange of value and believe for the most part, the mechanism for that still exists.

“Do you actually think I enjoy taking the minority view on capitalism? Did you think that disputing the conventional wisdom and having to explain axiomatically *every* time where I’m coming from is some sort pleasurable experience? Is being told in every-way ranging from condescending to patronizing to just plain loud, that I don’t know what I’m talking about some sort of bizarre life-affirming ritual I masochistically practice?”
Neither is having to explain along with other business owners and executives that we’re not sinister, criminal, unpatriotic, inhuman(e), etc. etc. etc. just because we prefer real capitalism – an open marketplace with fair competition between ourselves and labor, and ourselves and each other.

My associates and I don’t collude over labor, we compete over it as proper capitalism would dictate and pay well as a result. Yet we’re incorrectly assumed to be oppressors and profiteers simply because we are owners, and for one thing have to fight unfair and impractical unionization every step of the way even though we exceed every standard out there. The union’s beef? We pay below average workers below average wages no matter how long they’ve been there and of course we hire non-union workers for almost the same pay (more with performance bonuses). We don’t screw the environment not just because it’s not right, but because it affects long-term profits to do so same as it does if we try and “exploit” our workers.

“I might just drink the koolaid, grab my lyre, and join the triumphant “fuck-yah” Capitalism is the End of History Brigade.”
Haha! Fair enough. I fall guilty of lumping you into a single anti-capitalist brigade just as you may fall guilty of lumping me into the “Capitalism can do no wrong and is humankind’s savior Brigade”.

A spirited discussion nonetheless that I appreciate.

LikeLike

@Rob,

“Considering that coal is one of the worst greenhouse gas emitters, perhaps fracking should be used to extract natural gas. Since burning CO2 emits less CO2 than burning coal (per unit of energy output), in the short run it provides energy while allowing a reduction in CO2 emissions.”

I don’t know, Rob, I saw the documentary Gasland for one and it was some nasty $hit, similar to what was going on in the Erin Brockovich and Mann vs. Ford films which is basically buying off people and politicians and then polluting the crap out of things,

When amongst industry execs in Alberta and Denver, I’m no scientist but at the very least I’ll look or hope for the same level of detail in their responses to the Gasland documentaries and such re: fracking, and all I’ve ever really gotten in response is a shrug or “things are different here/now”.

It appears more to me to be a “yah we’re screwing things up but we’re certain our scientists will fix it” thing and that they’re counting on a fix rather than a prevention of the damage, similar to what BP did with the dispersants in the Gulf.

LikeLike

Oops – credit to Mastersen for the Brooks find:

http://sasoc.wordpress.com/2013/03/01/david-brooks-on-obamas-statism-a-poetic-rhetorical-demolition/

LikeLike

Arb,

Forgot this one:

“Fascinating, then would you agree that we should structure society so people don’t have to face the choice of either working or starving? I’m glad we agree on something (although we really don’t on this one).”

Our system has always been work or starve (more like “think or starve”), but I don’t see it being that simple. Should it be “choose not to work and don’t worry, you won’t starve”? Should it be “choose not to work and don’t worry, we’ll force someone else to feed you”? Now, how many aren’t voluntarily out of work, and how many are actually dying of starvation in our society? It’s more than just an appeal to emotion. The math has to back it up.

I think you’ve made strong cases for more social nets in society, but I think the math works only if those requiring them are in the minority and we’re under the assumption that most want to work and be productive in a way that involves more than just having kids. Communism tried to solve that problem by giving everyone jobs, and even early American settlers tried communal farms yet neither worked, so what do we do?

My personal thought: raise charity exemptions and make LOCAL charities one of the best tax havens on the one hand. On the other, show me how much of every dollar I spend in taxes to the government goes to actually feeding the needy, just as a charity is required to, to increase efficiency and accountability in the existing system. Businesses aren’t charities and shouldn’t be forced to be, and I regrettably believe government has to enforce a basic level of social service from most individuals as a tax which is where I differ from Rand and Libertarians.

LikeLike

@ Arb:
“No, but I do believe that people should not be destitute, hopeless and starving in the richest nation in the world.”
When speaking economically, isn’t this a matter of charity (perhaps a matter of forced charity) rather than capitalism? i.e. human decisions made after capitalism “occurs” rather than the mechanism of capitalism itself? Capitalism doesn’t and can’t decide who gets what when there’s no money involved, and it certainly can’t decide charity. Charity, to me, is the matter and decision of an individual aftercapitalism occurs, save for one caveat I will get into here shortly re: short-term vs. long-term thinking. Either way, though, failures of charity speak more to me about human failings rather than the limits of an economic system.

“If public education is the panacea that will bring people into the knowledge economy, why is it been systematically underfunded over the years?”
Ahhh! Now we get into MY criticism of Capitalism, Arb – that there is an inherent short-sightedness built into it that puts the long-term at risk for the sake of the short-term. Examples of this are “stepping over dollars to save pennies” if speaking financially, or ruining the environment, injuring people, or starving people for the sake of a greater profit margin if speaking socially. In the end, this short-sightedness can destroy profits but Capitalism doesn’t have its own mechanism built-in to prevent that or offer that perspective.

“I’m pretty sure you’ll say because of the Teacher’s Unions (among other factors)…”
Actually no, I wouldn’t say that. I’d put almost all of the blame on the short-sightedness inherent in Capitalism here again. Specifically to education, if you recall we had the discussion before where I said the problem with teacher pay is that it’s difficult from a capital/financial/monetary perspective to connect teaching today to value today. In education, cause and effect are separated by too much time and space for Capitalism to really recognize or quantify value. It’s the same for soft-skill or culture training in the work that I do. Spend $500 per person on Leadership Development, who says that’s going to improve the bottom line that month, or that year? Most believe it is going to have an impact, but it’s hard to quantify how much of one.

“…private charity and philanthropy are often held up as examples of the rich helping the poor. “
Yes, a similar argument to that of politicians “helping” minority classes. I agree that it’s better to give them a mechanism to help themselves, but I think we disagree on the best vehicles or where perhaps the starting point of that change needs to be. My experience is that psychology is the starting point, not the system, but even with that I agree with you – it’s not noble to keep people poor and then come in and help them. Where I think we disagree from here is that I think you blame capitalism for keeping these people poor to where they’re “forced” to take crap/unsafe jobs. My point is that if they’re “forced” to do anything, then it isn’t actually capitalism because capitalism requires freedom to choose.

We can both agree that the charity/philanthropy topic is a gargantuan one that is full of flaws and deserved criticisms. For our discussion here, I would simply say that if government were organized with the efficiency and accountability of local charities (I don’t believe in national charities), I think a lot more could be done to help the needy. Charities are supposed to put 90% of their revenues directly to their mandate. In government I think it’s more the other way around where only like 10% actually goes there.

“Equal opportunity? I’m curious, do you invest in microsoft, or pay your rent? Do you upgrade your education or feed your family? How do you propose get away from ‘being a worker’ when real wages have stagnated since the 70′s. Essentially, the worker is expected to do more with significantly less. The vaunted social mobility the US once had, and which seems to hold a certain mythical status, just isn’t there.”
I disagree. The ability to start a home-based business is more affordable and available now to everyday individuals than it’s ever been. There are dozens of ways to make more money if one needs to. The problem, to me, has been however that most people either a) think those ways “aren’t for them” (ex: “I’m a butcher, not a web guy”), or b) are out of reach to them due to their education level, class, capital, etc.. They don’t believe more income or a better life is possible for them and therefore they become blinded as to their options.

Now I know in response to this it’s easy for people to ask/say, “So all I need to do is start a business or better yet, just believe that I can make more money and I’ll be rich?” To which my answer is of course not, but my answer also is that what makes those people successful more than anything is their brain-based work over their brawn-based work, and I see more often than not people trying to do things the other way. Most refuse to use their brain.

This is different than people being “stupid” – it’s people telling themselves they can’t do something because of their situation when in fact there’s dozens, hundreds, thousands out there starting off in worse situations who have. it’s people not recognizing their true value to the marketplace and instead just believing what some company or individual out there tells them it is. Yes, there are people who can’t help themselves and we can argue over who’s best to help them and how, but there’s many in the “I need help” category who actually have more than enough already to improve things – they just don’t want to take the risks or make the sacrifices that other people do.

“Some of the larger businesses though, have lost this leg of responsibility, the sense of empathy the sense of not having to ask themselves, “Would I want this happening in my community and how would it effect me and my family?”. On a large enough scale, people become divorced from the reality on the ground and this allows them to make some truly heinous decisions.”
Yes, To me it’s this time and space thing again, plus when you’re in these big companies you lose sight of the front-line and on-the-ground perspectives. These things to me, however, are failures of leadership, not failures of capitalism. Capitalism just allowed them to get big – it didn’t give people or companies a free pass to be ignorant. If big was automatically bad we’d hate Steve Jobs and Apple but we don’t,.

Here’s what I find interesting: to me, Capitalism is a vehicle for growth that along the way best allows for invention, discovery, and change in a society. When you think about it, capitalism literally forces leaders to take on even more responsibility as their company grows, and capitalism demands it. If they don’t, the leaders get ousted, and the company goes broke – and does so quickly. There are dozens of companies that have ended up in the graveyard this way.

Yet we want government to interfere with capitalism so much so that it takes these things away. Companies don’t have to invent, discover, or change when government is protecting them. We may not want government to protect these companies but when we give government a blanket authority to “attack” companies for engaging in capitalism (not just protecting the individual or the environment as they’re supposed to), we automatically give government the ability to protect companies as well which leads companies to their bloated, top-heavy, over-infrastructured state. In the hands of the market, these protected and outdated giants would topple and new startups and new jobs would be created all through Capitalism, so in my opinion we need more of it along with personal power, not less.

“Perhaps were we disagree is the amount of tempering required to get the right mix of public vs. private in a society. :)”
I think that’s it. In the same way you get defensive when someone might say, “Teachers are lazy”, I get defensive when people throw the “Capitalism is evil” thing out there. I consider both statements to be very dangerous to constructive dialogue that takes focus off the problems we’re trying to see solved. To me, if the public consensus is to attack capitalism then we get laws like the 1099 receipt rule and others which end up harming small business in the name of “reigning in” Capitalism. If the public consensus is that “Teachers are lazy”, then we get pay freezes and contract stalls and that sorts of things just because of popular opinion, not fact.

Going one step further, for me a misconception of Capitalism keeps many stuck in this pattern of “my shitty job is all I can ever expect” and in perpetual poverty, which I’ve seen first-hand. We can argue over charity or government being their savior, but to me better than both is these people creating their own business and playing more of a controlling role in their future.

“Wearing the black hat can’t be very much fun. I think you’ll have to do more to distinguish yourselves from the robber barons that currently running the table. Popular anger once provoked will not be discriminating between the good business guys and the bad business guys once the poo hits the fan.”
As for the black hat, we can handle it. If we cared about our own popularity we’d never be employers. ;) My concern is more at the government level in the U.S.. They’ve done a great job of failing to distinguish upper-middle class from “rich” in terms of their policies. A 50-employee company isn’t a big company and $250k annual household incomes in some cities and States isn’t “rich”. When government says, “We’re taxing the rich” to me they’re really still including a lot of the small businesses and middle class in there, and that concerns me.

I know most don’t have a problem with small businesses, but small businesses need Capitalism just as much as big businesses do so we should be careful and more distinctive, I believe, in exactly what we’re blaming. That goes for me as well the other way.

And yes, locking horns is healthy and fun for us at times! :)

LikeLike