14Jan18: How Trump Arose, based on Complexity Theory

How Trump Arose, based on Complexity TheoryNat Pernick, M.D.14 January 2018
Although the recent US presidential election results were not predictable, it was predictable that federal and state governmental officials would continue to worship the rich and powerful instead of providing for the “general welfare”. This is our fault and it is our responsibility to understand how it happened and what we must do to stop it.
Complexity theory, which I have written about in connection with how cancer arises (Pernick 2017a, Pernick 2017b) may be helpful to understand political trends. Complex systems have features that emerge from interactions between the parts, which cannot be predicted from even intense study of the parts. Thus, cell division cannot be fully understood by analyzing each cellular molecule, and the rise of bigotry in the US cannot be understood by studying each inhabitant. By focusing on interactions between the parts we may find patterns that are useful for understanding the whole.
Many biologic systems maintain tension between various forces which, when balanced, promotes optimum function and adaption to changing circumstances (Sigston 2017). For example, in blood vessels there is a constant battle between forces promoting and opposing coagulation (clotting of blood). When trauma damages blood vessels, cellular networks which  promote coagulation are activated to facilitate repair, but those opposing coagulation are also activated, albeit at a slower rate. As healing occurs, the balance shifts towards cellular networks opposing coagulation, to prevent excessive clotting. Disease (clotting or bleeding disorders) occurs when one system predominates for relatively long periods of time.
These balanced systems tend to have substantial redundancy to prevent catastrophic failure. “Efficient” systems without redundancy have difficulty with adaptation, and also tend to continue in the same direction, even while heading towards disaster. Thus, Flint’s Emergency Manager did not have to respond to opposition or even the public, which was easier for him, but also caused him to create the Flint Water Crisis.
Similarly, US society also has tensions that when balanced help maintain optimal function and facilitate the ability to change. When unbalanced, these tensions lead to societal dysfunction. This series of papers discusses some of these imbalances, beginning with the breakdown in the balance between corporate greed and corporate responsibility.
The free market system requires companies to be obsessed with making money. Businesses that do not focus intensely on profit will not survive. However, this focus on profit is typically balanced by a concern, based on personal integrity or public relations, with acting properly towards employees and the community.
Currently there is an excessive focus on corporate greed, highlighted by historically lavish executive and management pay and a marked reduction in business taxes. In the 1960s, the CEO pay ratio (CEO cash pay divided by median employee pay) was 20 to 1. Currently, this ratio is 271 to 1 (Fortune, 20Jul17). This is a problem because excessive management pay limits the money available to pay workers. It may cause management to overly focus on maintaining their exorbitant pay and not enough on the welfare of their employees (Economic Policy Institute, 20Jul17).
Business today is also obsessed with cutting business taxes. Historically, this was balanced by concern for the long term impact of those reductions on governmental functions, but no more. In many states, business no longer contributes substantially to State revenue (How States' Dependence on Corporate Taxes Has Declined, 6Jan16). In Michigan in 2011-12, net business taxes represented 5.5% of total state revenue by source (page 4) or 15.5% of general fund tax revenue (page 8). In 2015-16, this declined to 1.3% of total state revenue by source (page 4) and 3.9% of general fund tax revenue (page 8). Although businesses claim that they pay a large amount of taxes, many are not derived from business income, but are collected from others and simply passed through to tax authorities, such as the withholding tax.
The result of reduced tax collections is that Michigan and other states are in quasi-insolvency: they lack the funds to pay their reasonable bills. Budgets may appear balanced but only because public officials in Michigan, Kansas and other states have decided that mediocrity and minimal funding are acceptable for public schools, public colleges and universities, cities and infrastructure, and they are not bothered by the foreseeable consequences. Thus, I suggest that those who campaigned to reduce business taxes and elect our governor share responsibility for the results, including poisoning Flint residents with lead contamination, killing Genesee country residents with Legionnaire’s disease and making all Michiganders suffer from markedly inferior roads and other infrastructure.
How can we restore the imbalance between corporate greed and corporate responsibility? I suggest we “vote” with our pocketbooks and try to patronize businesses who pay their employees a living wage (Trader Joe’s and Costco) and pay their fair share of taxes, and avoid businesses who do not (CVS and Kroger). When we spend money at a business, we in effect tell CEOs that we agree with how they conduct their business - let’s make sure we really do. Long term, we must elect governments who ensure that businesses pay their fair share of taxes.