4
Wednesday, September 19, 1973
KANSAN commen
Editorials, columns and letters published on this page reflect only the opinions of the writers.
Phase Four Fallout
"They're raising their prices again," moaned the service station manager while hanging up the phone. "That was the oil company distributor and he's going to charge me more. That's the third hike this
"You can't pass that increase on to the customer asked rhetorically.
"Not with this freeze on retail prices," said the manager, leaning against his "SORRY—OUT OF GAS" sign. "The way the ceilings are, I had to lower my gas prices by a quarter." He didn't charge me more. I can't see why they should freeze my prices and not his."
Why has the big oil company been permitted to raise its prices under Phase IV controls while the retailer has not? Why shouldn't either everybody's or nobody's prices be controlled?
The station manager's predicament is a result of political expediency and economic planning that lacks commitment. The small businessman is usually the victim of this problem, because he satisfies both the consumer and the corporate interests, leaving fundamental problems unsolved.
The Nixon administration has tinkered with several solutions to inflation and the failing dollar. Superficially, it appears that there is no difference between an administration's phases so that one progresses logically to the next.
Actually, the phases represent a variety of unsuccessful attempts to solve economic problems, and none of the phases were given enough whole-hearted commitment to succeed.
Phase IV is representative of the entire sequence economic phases. It is a discriminatory and complex set of controls that attempts to patch up a totally worn fabric. Impulsive solutions that are abandoned with the first strong whiff of corporate or consumer irre cannot solve such a persistent problem as inflation.
Manifest political expediency usually leads to discrimination against less powerful people, such as the service station manager, the butcher and other small businessmen.
Certainly Republican presidents have nearly always been supported by the big money managers in the
banks, the corporations and other large industries. Right now, the oil companies in particular wield tremendous political influence. In dealing with environmental or economic issues, a ministration has demonstrated a consistent reluctance to contradict the magnates of the industry.
Although the big oil companies have much money and influence, they don't control many votes. To satisfy this need, a politician must attempt to prevent the consumer from feeling intolerably abused. The consumer should be checked on the retail level, lest the voters become rebellious.
The small businessman gets crushed between the government and the giants of industry and is the short-run loser. But price controls, discriminately applied, only postpone the problems for all.
As soon as the freeze is lifted, prices will rocket to new peaks, making up for lost time just as the food prices jumped in August. Thus, the consumer is ultimately a loser and since the general illhealth of the economy is unhealed, even the corporations falter.
Nixon's insubstantial economic "game plan" can be contrasted to President Truman's handling of similar problems. Following World War II, the nation was hampered by phlecomania induced by human's immune control is immensely unpopular but effective in curbing the rapid rise in prices.
Truman had been a small businessman who had gone bankrupt in the economic turbulence after World War 1. As President, he vowed never to control the economy in such a way that the small businessman would be the victim.
Truman imposed a dramatic across-the-board price and wage freeze that was backed by tough enforcement. The freeze made veryone unhappy, and Truman's popularity fell precariously low. Truman's policies would to all, and it successfully curbed the potentially disastrous inflation.
Similar determined and unselfish economic planning is needed today to alter the course of persistent inflation. The job will never be done by Mr. Nixon's sporadic and fultile splunged lungs.
—Bill Gibson
I have the distinct feeling I'm being duped. But I can't help it.
By Bob Simison
Dykes: Convincing Act
Of course that's exactly what he wants me to do. Our new chancellor makes it easy to like him. He smiles a lot and flatters students by asking them what they think.
And he tries hard to keep himself on good terms with this newspaper by treating its editor to classify Kansas Union food service dinners and taking him on various travels.
That's why I have the feeling I'm duped. Those techniques of public relations normally stir deep suspicions in newspaper people. Everybody, especially a new chancellor, hast his in interest to be nice to newspaper people.
But there's more to Archie Dykes than the fair for public relations. He also happens to know what he's doing as chancellor. And he works hard at it.
Last week, for example, Dykes made a two-day swing through KU strongholds in Oklahoma. He returned from Bartlesville at 10:30 a.m. Thursday and received James Bibb, state budget director, at 11:30 for a tour of the University.
Bibb's first visit to the campus as a guest of a chancellor. Bibb is the man who trims KU's budget as submitted by the Kansas Board of Regents. It then goes to the governor for recommendation to the Kansas Legislature.
Later Thursday, Dykes drove to Kansas City for a meeting of the University of Kansas Medical Center's alumni board of directors. Friday, he drove to Concordia for a meeting with legislators about next year's inauguration in a meeting Saturday morning with alumni.
So are the meetings with alumni groups. The goal there is to "develop a more positive public environment for higher education" (improve the University's image), which will in turn help in the effort to ensure the availability of resources' (money).
He was back in Lawrence in time to be introduced at KU's opening football game Saturday afternoon and to meet with the team at the institution's board of directors Saturday night.
Meanwhile, Dykes says he hopes to glean ideas and gain support here by meeting the
That's the pattern Dykes has established. The meetings with legislators and the state budget director are part of a strategy to "increase the number of resources" (money) to the University.
faculty in a series of visits to schools, divisions and departments. He already has called together student leaders from both campuses, and he says he plans to drop in on some residence halls to meet more students.
All of these are techniques proven and perfected in Dykes' previous stints at chancellor of first the Martin, then the campuses of the University of Tennessee.
Dykes was known in Tennessee for his travels about the state. In April, shortly after he was named chancellor here, I accompanied him on a speaking joint to Johnson City, Tenn., where he addressed the Rotary Club.
There, Dykes delivered a pitch for support of higher education that was similar in many ways to speeches he has made here. He defended higher education against the critics who overeduced. That theme came up here recently in a discussion between Dykes and
So Dykes' apparent sincerity about promoting higher education for everyone's good must be genuine. His smooth, witty manner must be his way of getting his point across.
And all of this, I suspect, is exactly what Dykes was honing I'd write.
He also told newsmen that one of the main challenges facing higher education was its extension to adults in the form of online courses. He has been heard here since Doyle's arrival.
student leaders.
And Dykes was known in Tennessee for working long hours. Here, he says, he raises at 8 a.m., most days to be at work by 7. And he works every evening appearances here or out of town.
To what end does Dykes do all of these things, including the well-calculated public relations campaign? In Tennessee, there was specialization Dykes was preparing for a career in politics, but he squelched that rumor by dearting.
Readers Respond Nixon Gnosticism
To the Editor:
We're all sorely aware of the Watergate affair and Nikon's clever misandrilings of it, but you're not supposed to be dled stop while he's ahead! isn't being dragged through the courts on the counts of burglary, conspiracy, wretaking, camouflaging illegalities and bribery enough?
Apparently not. Mr. Nixon's new goal has not been established as the constitution.
In the side battle of who gets the Watergate tapes (or who gets to listen to them), what may be the biggest—and possibly the most disastrous—constitutional battle in American history is taking its hideous shape.
With Judge Sirica's ruling that the President should turn over the tapes (at least to a reviewing committee) and with Nixon's refusal to do so, the case now comes before a nine-man federal appeals court. Speciulation (and the court's previous decisions) will determine Mr. Nixon. Then comes the Supreme Court. Nixon claims that he will obey a "definitive" ruling by the Supreme Court, and he may very well get that definitive ruling. Although four of the nine members of the Court are Nixon-appointed, all nine are decided in favor of separation of power and the sovereignty of the constitution. The judicial branch should execute its power of enforcement, the executive, and with good reason.
If the Supreme Court should rule in favor of Nixon, it would declare that there was someone who was above the power of the president to act as precedent set, the President would be virtually unimpaired in his powers. Why not? He would have the precedent that would say he was above the capacity of a precedent set.
With the Supreme Court's very likely ruling against Mr. Nixon comes the next question: Will Congress impeach and convict him? (We will assume that he will continue to refuse to obey the land's highest court.)
Congress, as is implied in the constitution, is obligated to impeach and convict a recalcitrant president or vice president. By any logical definition of Nixon's past actions, he clearly falls within the impeachment provisions.
But what is logical to you may not be logical to me. Your claim that the President should not be impeached because he is the President would not make sense to me. It's that him, and this is why he has but this attitude seems to prevail among Nixon's electorate throughout the country, as though the title "President" were synonymous with "God." Contrary to what many believe, the President of the United States is not God-appointed—and Nixon positively isn't.
Besides, who wants to commit heresy?
My question regarding impeachment was, however, not rhetorical. In my opinion, the president's impeachment prevailed in impeach Nixon. They're too lily-livered and weak-kneed, they've all got re-election bids coming next year and they're not any more powerful than a precedent than Andrew Johnson's Congress.
Grego Softsmith
Fresno, Calif., Sophomore
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY
KANSAN
Published at the University of Kansas daily during the semester. Mail subscription rates: $4 a summer; $10 a year. Second class postage paid for summer subscriptions. Mail subscription rate: $1.35 a semester paid in student activity fee. Advertiser offered to all students without regard to gender. Admission are not necessarily those of the University and are not necessarily those of the University.
NEWS STAFF
BUSINESS STAFF
News adviser .. Susanne Shaw
Editor Bob Simpson
Business Adviser .. Mel Adams
Business Manager
Steven Liggett
as Manager Steven Liggett
Members Associated Collective Board
The Future / Under Control ...
By JOHN J. GOLDMAN
JOHN S. GOLDEN
THE LOS ANGELES TIMES
Expert's calls it futurology—the notion of predicting and trying to fashion a desirable aesthetic.
NEW YORK-The idea dates back to the ancient Greeks. It was shaped in France during the Enlightenment and honed by bellls and others at the start of the 20th century.
It is far more than crystal-ball predicting. It is a system of trying to sharpen the view of the present so that trends can be recognized and abilities in the years ahead can be examined.
At the University of Michigan last semester, one of the best attended classes was the future world course. Lecturers in the course designed by designer and philosopher; science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke and Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, who spoke on the future of the U.S. political system. Many universities are starting similar courses.
The aim is not to lay out some utopia. Rather, it is to interest you in a range of available possibilities so that they will begin to make sense of what about you want the future to be like.
FUTUROLOGY IS A WORLD-WIDE phenomenon. In the United States alone, about 10,000 predictive publications are in print. Futures institutes are active in France, the United Kingdom, Germany, Japan and the Soviet Union.
Futurology is popular. More than 3.86 million copies of Alvin Teffer's book, "Future Shock," have been printed in paperback alone. Sales total more than $7.5 million and new orders are running at a rate of 50.00 conies a month.
These special institutes, many of them nonprofit, are looking farther down the road.
BY FAR THE MOST ambitious effort planned in the field goes by the title of the National Commission on Critical Choices for America. It was organized by New York University's bookkeeper,
Futurologists generally use several methods to study the years ahead. These
Last February, the President expanded
bakerier's study into a national commi-
nity.
include projections of current trends and constructing analytic models of theoretical economies. Scenarios writing in popular media illustrate how students on their likelihood or desirability, periodically, at conferences, futures scholars gain to exchange information about future prospects.
"The real emphasis in the solid works being done is understanding the processes of change, how they take place and how they are interrelated." *How Amara*, president of the University of Chicago.
LEADING FUTURES INSTITUTES
not only in location and size, but in orientation.
Several themes run through the institute's work: that America is moving into a period where society's key resource will become information, that man doesn't really know who he is, and that today's governments and managers too often are forced to be crisis-oriented, that most problems are really caused by obsolete institutions and that America should take a fresh look at the functioning of its government as congress and other policymaking bodies.
The Center for Intergrative Studies at the state university at Binghamton, N.Y., is of the smaller institutes (employing six professors) in the College of Engineering director, John McHale, a tall pipe-smoking Englishman with a PH.D. in sociology, is one of the nation's leading academic leaders.
"In the past, people were too busy surviving to speculate on what the human condition should be and what society's questions facing society in the years ahead will be how to offer more choices and more time for people."
The institute's outlook is quite long-range. McHale likens the center to a sophisticated sensing unit that detects change and stress in the body, with the stress on social and cultural trends.
THE OTHER DAY the tall, thin academician stood with a visitor in his squash court lined with charts of world history. It was an ideal place for large-scale displays.
"Institutions in the legislative areas still work by 18th-century rules. The founding fathers invented a new society, why not do the same?" McHale said.
Mehale believes a fundamental shift in values is taking place in the world's advanced countries. As fewer people become occupied in manufacturing, emphasis is moving from just making a dollar to issues of satisfaction in jobs and life-lenses.
At the Institute for the Future in Menlo Park, N.J., much of the research is aimed at long-range problems businesses will face. One recent study looked at the future of the telephone industry. It concluded that federal regulations would increase in the years ahead and that the number of phones would double to 200 million by 1990.
"It's a quick way to come up to date with everything predicted in an area," said Ted Gordon, the organization's president. "A client will call up and say, 'I don't want other people to know, but we're working in this area.'"
In an office building in Glastonbury, Conn., a suburb of Hartford, a computer named "Scott" spews out forecasts on to the internet for the development of drugs for the prevention and cure of hypertension (80 per cent probability by 1980) to the development of a non-carcinogenic cigarette (50 per cent by 1982). This is a compilation of existing predictions.
To look at a single field such as leisure trends costs between $500 and $1,000.
... Or Over-Controlled?
By ERNEST CONINE
The Los Amreles Times
The more you think about the brave new world that some of the best brains of our society are confidently predicting, the more sure you will wonder whether you want any part of it.
You do, that is, if you still have the old-fashioned idea that one American is as good as another, or if you can't buy the notion that U.S. corporations should leave their recently discovered social consciencees and move to places of less success in places like Russia and South Africa.
Ten years have passed since Harvard sociologist Daniel Bell coined the phrase "post-industrial society" to describe the world in which people work in factories and employ fewer factory workers and more and more engineers, lawyers, economists and computer programmers; an America in which knowledge, rather than power, was the touchstone of political power.
Lately Bell brought it all up to date with a book, "The Coming of Post-Industrial Society," which looks at a bit more the former than the mindful of what the road to hell is paved with.
ALREADY, HE OBERVES, we are well on the way to developing a "communal ethic." As a people, we have become aware that "private" decisions that make sense
The next step, Bell says, is to put the regulators into the decision-making process at an earlier stage—to anticipate good and bad effects of a given project, and decide ahead of time whether it is in keeping with the kind of America we want.
from a straight profit-and-loss point of view—things like building big cars, strippingmotor or constructing a nuclear power station—can have adverse consequences for those companies. So we avoid or mitigate those consequences through government regulation.
In other words, we will choose our goals and priorities deliberately through the political system rather than haphazady the realization of a future that nature won't just happen; it will be planned.
Considering the crowded and polluted nature of the planet on which we live, Bell may well be right when he says that this is one of the most obviously right, too, when he frankly acknowledges that there will be precious little room for individualism, or democracy as we have known it, in the new America and a number of other analysts foresee.
WHO WILL DECIDE WHAT kind of America we want. Will we do the plan?
Presumably we will still go through the motions of voting for whichever politician
Griff and the Unicorn
by Sokoloff
paints the vision of the future closest to our own. One man, one vote. But the real decisions will be made by the only people with the power to make and commission of experts, drawn from the intellectual elite that will be the dominant political force in the new "knowledge society" the technocrats, "obviously at home with America's populist, egalitarian ideals."
Not everybody agrees with Bell that corporations are destined to play increasingly less important roles in our lives. There is a contrary body of thought, for example, holding that multinational corporations must also come to bring the world together in peace and trust in all the well-meaning diplomats and world federalists put together.
AND WHO CAN QUARREL with that?
a benefit, unfortunately, there is a
doubt about it.
The disciples of world peace-through-commerce essentially share the idea put forward by President Nixon and Henry Kissinger—that as nations with differing ideologies become economically interdependent, they will develop a vested peace and stability. Confrontation will be less attractive than cooperation.
The vehicle for economic togetherness is to be what Samuel Pisar, a leading authority on East-West trade, calls the “trans-ideological corporation”—which jointly owned and managed by West-East leaders, has developed Communist state monoconsols on the other
Such hybrids already exist in Eastern Europe. So far, the Soviet Union is hanging back, but Pisar and other experts predict that the Kremlin leaders will ultimately see that joint ventures of this sort are the only option for their future. But with the West can be successfully arranged.
By definition, the Western multinational corporations participating in such deals will be ideologically blind. Unfortunately, as the current persecution of would-be democratic leaders demonstrates, you can't be ideologically blind without being morally blind. too
It is ironic that the same liberal impulses that press American businessmen to be more socially conscious at home drive them toward being moral eunuchs abroad.