OT - Hyperinflation as a goal?
RBnDFW
Mr. McDuffee, love to hear your opinion of this:
from http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2010/
Late last night I came up with my very own conspiracy theory. It seemed
a little odd at the time, but as I�ve continued to think it over, I�ve
not yet been able to poke any significant holes in it. Of course, it is
the kind of thing that an accountant turned science fiction author would
come up with.
Basically, I�m starting to think that certain factions within our
government actively want hyperinflation to occur as a surefire method of
instituting de-facto communism in America�
Crazy, right? I know, you�re thinking that surely Correia has gone off
the deep end and spouting off all sorts of doomsday nonsense, but hear
me out first.
As many of you know, I�m a history geek. Last year I wrote my first
alternative history novel set in 1932. Because I�m a stickler for
authenticity, I did an absurd amount of research. I read every book I
could get my hands on about what is normally called the interwar period.
I mostly concentrated on American history/culture but I also learned a
bit about the Weimar Republic.
The interesting factoids about the Weimar Republic that most of us
remember is that it was the home of hyperinflation (remember the
wheelbarrow full of money to buy a loaf of bread) and eventually it also
gave us one of history�s greatest scumbags, Hitler. Other than that,
most Americans don�t really know much about the Weimar Republic.
Okay, but where did the hyperinflation come from? I�m going to greatly
simplify this because A. I�m a writer and accountant, not a historian,
go to Wikipedia and B. This is only for a background to draw a
comparison to what we�re doing right now.
The Weimar Republic (If I recall correctly, they actually called
themselves the Deutsch Reich) came about after WWI. The German Empire
had fallen apart, leadership fled, and for the next couple of years
there were several battles fought between different factions of
communists, socialists, and conservatives. (and when I say conservative
it isn�t what it means here and now. I mean conservative back toward the
empire, royalty, and all that entails). These were not polite political
discussions. These were a series of violent mini-revolts where various
cities would go off and declare themselves independent, like the Soviet
State of Munich. Then a bunch of communists and the �Freikorps� would
clash in the streets, then repeat a week later in a different city. It
was bad.
Eventually the Weimar Republic was formed from the different groups, and
immediately it had a whole new set of problems. The Germans signed the
treaty of Versailles, they gave up a bunch of territory, and even worse,
then took on a massive war debt and an agreement to basically pay the
allies for the biggest war in history.
So what does a government, which is already sitting on a very damaged
economy, do in order to pay this debt? They printed more money. Sounding
familiar yet?
It got worse. As the Weimar printed more money, their government got
more bloated, and ate up even more of their resources. (at one point a
chancellor laid off several hundred thousand government employees to try
and make ends meet). As their money inflated and became more useless,
France got tired of not getting paid, and being jerks, invaded and took
over the Ruhr, which was one of the most productive regions in Germany.
This caused a drop in production, and then everybody else went on strike.
Meanwhile, the money kept inflating to levels that people couldn�t even
understand. Back during the war, the Mark was something like 4 to 1
against the dollar. By the time they hit hyperinflation, they�d gone to
millions to 1, and by the end, it was literally trillions to a single
dollar. They would print new bills, and a few days later all they were
good for was note paper. This is where the stories about the wheelbarrow
full of money for bread comes from. To put this in perspective, this
would be like you filling the trunk of your car with twenty dollar bills
and then using all those trash bags full of money to buy some shoelaces
and a tube of toothpaste.
So basically Germany was totally screwed.
So how did they get out of it? Contrary to what most Americans think, it
wasn�t Hitler that came along and fixed Germany�s economic problems and
turned them into an industrial powerhouse war machine through the sheer
power of him being a complete ass. There was actually a time period in
the thirties that the Weimer knew as the Golden Years, because they�d
finally gotten much of their economy back under control.
They rebooted their currency. If I recall correctly, their new currency
was called the Rentenmark. They introduced the Rentenmark, and you could
trade in your trillions of crappy marks for one of them. It went back to
4-1 with the dollar. Now here�s the thing. You can�t just change the
name and have new currency. Your currency has to actually be based on
something. (kind of like how the dollar is based on good feelings and
rainbows).
They based it on land. It was the one asset that the government could go
and take over to use as a base asset, and land is always valuable
because they aren�t making any more of it. Congratulations land owners,
all your dirt belongs to us, but people were so desperate (and tired of
carrying buckets of silly money around) that it didn�t matter. They were
desperate, and desperate times called for desperate (and sometimes
stupid) measures. Using the new asset-backed Rentenmarks, Germany was
able to start paying their debts again and get on with a semblance of
normalcy, well at least until they elected a bunch of lunatics in snazzy
uniforms.
So why this long story? Because it is to compare with what we�re doing
ourselves. Right now the United States is on the path to hyperinflation.
CBO is predicting that by 2020, our debt will be 90% of our GDP. (EDIT:
As was pointed out in the comments, my information there was wrong.
We�ll hit 90% way way earlier than that, so it is even worse) Think
about that for a second. That would be like if you had a $50,000 a year
job, but you owed vicious thumb-breaking loan sharks $45,000 that was
still collecting interest. Our entitlements are bankrupting us. Even
before Health Control (because if you believe the government is going to
spend a trillion bucks and cut the deficit, you must sleep in a helmet)
we�re only a few years from all our tax dollars only being able to pay
for Medicare, Social Security, and interest on our debt. That�s it.
Now, what happens when you as an individual can�t pay your debts or pay
your bills on time? Your credit rating goes down. And when your credit
rating goes down, you can no longer get that low interest
Visa-Black-Platinum-Playboy card (with Sky Miles!) you can now only get
the Soup-Kitchen-Discover card at 280% interest. Many people don�t
realize it, but governments have credit ratings too. Right now we�ve got
a great one, based on �because we�re so awesome�. But we�re getting
really close to losing our good credit rating, (because awesome will
only get you so far before you actually have to pay the bills) when that
happens, all of those already really bad estimates about our future debt
are going to get far worse. How much worse? Have you ever played Fallout
3 on the Xbox? Kind of like that.
So while we�re on our way to Thunder Dome, the government is printing
dollars like crazy, faster than ever before, with no signs of letting
up. Inflation is coming. When the credit rating tanks and the
entitlements get worse (or the oil currency switches to something else)
hello, Master Blaster! We�re in deep trouble. We�re looking at
hyperinflation. Dollars worth nothing, burning them to keep warm would
be more efficient, kind of thing.
Yet the government, that surely has some smart people in it, continues
to increase our spending, increase our debt load, and do things that are
the exact opposite of fiscally responsible. It is almost as if they want
the system to collapse�
Then I remember the Weimar Republic. They had hyperinflation. How did
they get out of it? By rebooting the currency. What was the new currency
based on? Land. Land is an asset.
The government is gobbling up land out west like crazy. Every time we
discover a deposit of oil or coal out here, the government immediately
discovers a snail or a flower on it that might be endangered and grabs a
couple hundred thousand more acres. The government is trying to kick
18,000 people out of their homes in Colorado to put in a new �tank range�.
But that wouldn�t be enough. Think beyond land. Think assets.
Fanny May and Freddy Mac now hold something like 50% of the mortgages in
the US. The government has recently either directly taken over, or
regulated the living crap out of our auto industry, insurance industry,
banking and finance industry, and now health care�
The people of the Weimar were so desperate, that they would do anything
to get out of their economic crisis.
Let�s imagine a hypothetical situation here. Let�s say that in a decade
or so, our currency has collapsed. We owe far more than we produce.
Companies are failing. Because all of our tax dollars are used just to
pay for our debt, taxes have to be raised, which causes even more
unemployment and decreased production. Entitlements can�t be met. The
current economic crisis looks awesome in comparison, but there is no
possible way out, because our money is now worthless.
So� Reboot the currency. Make a new RentenDollar.
The media can even point out what a fantastic idea this is because
historically, it has worked before! The politicians will tell us that
this is the only way and we must act quickly! People are desperate and
will be told that �the private system has failed! Only government
intervention can save us now!� (gee, why does that sound soooo familiar?)
Sure, they caused the problem, but that isn�t what most people will
think, but as they�ve shown, they don�t really care what we think
anyway. They will not let a good crisis go to waste. There is only one
teensy downside to this reboot though�
See, the RentenDollar can�t be based on good feelings like the old
dollar, it must be based on ASSETS. And since the capitalist system has
failed, and the government has already got its fingers in all these
various companies, instead of just regulating these companies, why
shouldn�t the government just own them?
All those mortgages? They now belong to the government. Banks? Belong to
the government. Industrial production? Government. Medical. Government.
They�re assets, and they�re necessary to back our new currency.
You don�t like it? People are starving. There are riots in the streets.
Cities are burning. We have to act now! Won�t somebody think of the
children! There�s no time to read this 9,000 page bill! HURRY!
�And just like that, America has become a communist country. State
control and ownership of everything.
So, let�s poke some holes in my late night theory. Please, somebody tell
me how this is impossible. Maybe we�re not heading for an economic
collapse. Maybe we�re not going to have hyperinflation. If anybody has
any evidence of that, I�d love to hear it, because this is kind of
depressing.
Or, the other way that this idea could be silly and implausible is if
there was no possible way that elements within our government would want
to exercise total control over our lives� Yeah� that�s just absurd.
Ask yourself this one question. Do you believe that our current federal
government, if presented with the opportunity, would take over and
control everything? Yes or No.
Help me out here, guys. I�m not getting any warm feelings from this
Ignoramus28422
There is a possibility that inflation could be used to repudiate the
debt, but in this instance, the author is basing his predictions
purely on his fantasy, and not on any kind of data or evidence.
There is many people with all kinds of opinions, and it is important
to quickly discard uninformed opinions.
i
On 2010-03-30, RBnDFW <burkh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Long but interesting.
>
> Mr. McDuffee, love to hear your opinion of this:
>
> from http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2010/
>
> Late last night I came up with my very own conspiracy theory. It seemed
> a little odd at the time, but as I?ve continued to think it over, I?ve
> not yet been able to poke any significant holes in it. Of course, it is
> the kind of thing that an accountant turned science fiction author would
> come up with.
>
> Basically, I?m starting to think that certain factions within our
> government actively want hyperinflation to occur as a surefire method of
> instituting de-facto communism in America?
>
> Crazy, right? I know, you?re thinking that surely Correia has gone off
> the deep end and spouting off all sorts of doomsday nonsense, but hear
> me out first.
>
> As many of you know, I?m a history geek. Last year I wrote my first
> alternative history novel set in 1932. Because I?m a stickler for
> authenticity, I did an absurd amount of research. I read every book I
> could get my hands on about what is normally called the interwar period.
> I mostly concentrated on American history/culture but I also learned a
> bit about the Weimar Republic.
>
> The interesting factoids about the Weimar Republic that most of us
> remember is that it was the home of hyperinflation (remember the
> wheelbarrow full of money to buy a loaf of bread) and eventually it also
> gave us one of history?s greatest scumbags, Hitler. Other than that,
> most Americans don?t really know much about the Weimar Republic.
>
> Okay, but where did the hyperinflation come from? I?m going to greatly
> simplify this because A. I?m a writer and accountant, not a historian,
> go to Wikipedia and B. This is only for a background to draw a
> comparison to what we?re doing right now.
>
> The Weimar Republic (If I recall correctly, they actually called
> themselves the Deutsch Reich) came about after WWI. The German Empire
> had fallen apart, leadership fled, and for the next couple of years
> there were several battles fought between different factions of
> communists, socialists, and conservatives. (and when I say conservative
> it isn?t what it means here and now. I mean conservative back toward the
> empire, royalty, and all that entails). These were not polite political
> discussions. These were a series of violent mini-revolts where various
> cities would go off and declare themselves independent, like the Soviet
> State of Munich. Then a bunch of communists and the ?Freikorps? would
> clash in the streets, then repeat a week later in a different city. It
> was bad.
>
> Eventually the Weimar Republic was formed from the different groups, and
> immediately it had a whole new set of problems. The Germans signed the
> treaty of Versailles, they gave up a bunch of territory, and even worse,
> then took on a massive war debt and an agreement to basically pay the
> allies for the biggest war in history.
>
> So what does a government, which is already sitting on a very damaged
> economy, do in order to pay this debt? They printed more money. Sounding
> familiar yet?
>
> It got worse. As the Weimar printed more money, their government got
> more bloated, and ate up even more of their resources. (at one point a
> chancellor laid off several hundred thousand government employees to try
> and make ends meet). As their money inflated and became more useless,
> France got tired of not getting paid, and being jerks, invaded and took
> over the Ruhr, which was one of the most productive regions in Germany.
> This caused a drop in production, and then everybody else went on strike.
>
> Meanwhile, the money kept inflating to levels that people couldn?t even
> understand. Back during the war, the Mark was something like 4 to 1
> against the dollar. By the time they hit hyperinflation, they?d gone to
> millions to 1, and by the end, it was literally trillions to a single
> dollar. They would print new bills, and a few days later all they were
> good for was note paper. This is where the stories about the wheelbarrow
> full of money for bread comes from. To put this in perspective, this
> would be like you filling the trunk of your car with twenty dollar bills
> and then using all those trash bags full of money to buy some shoelaces
> and a tube of toothpaste.
>
> So basically Germany was totally screwed.
>
> So how did they get out of it? Contrary to what most Americans think, it
> wasn?t Hitler that came along and fixed Germany?s economic problems and
> turned them into an industrial powerhouse war machine through the sheer
> power of him being a complete ass. There was actually a time period in
> the thirties that the Weimer knew as the Golden Years, because they?d
> finally gotten much of their economy back under control.
>
> They rebooted their currency. If I recall correctly, their new currency
> was called the Rentenmark. They introduced the Rentenmark, and you could
> trade in your trillions of crappy marks for one of them. It went back to
> 4-1 with the dollar. Now here?s the thing. You can?t just change the
> name and have new currency. Your currency has to actually be based on
> something. (kind of like how the dollar is based on good feelings and
> rainbows).
>
> They based it on land. It was the one asset that the government could go
> and take over to use as a base asset, and land is always valuable
> because they aren?t making any more of it. Congratulations land owners,
> all your dirt belongs to us, but people were so desperate (and tired of
> carrying buckets of silly money around) that it didn?t matter. They were
> desperate, and desperate times called for desperate (and sometimes
> stupid) measures. Using the new asset-backed Rentenmarks, Germany was
> able to start paying their debts again and get on with a semblance of
> normalcy, well at least until they elected a bunch of lunatics in snazzy
> uniforms.
>
> So why this long story? Because it is to compare with what we?re doing
> ourselves. Right now the United States is on the path to hyperinflation.
> CBO is predicting that by 2020, our debt will be 90% of our GDP. (EDIT:
> As was pointed out in the comments, my information there was wrong.
> We?ll hit 90% way way earlier than that, so it is even worse) Think
> about that for a second. That would be like if you had a $50,000 a year
> job, but you owed vicious thumb-breaking loan sharks $45,000 that was
> still collecting interest. Our entitlements are bankrupting us. Even
> before Health Control (because if you believe the government is going to
> spend a trillion bucks and cut the deficit, you must sleep in a helmet)
> we?re only a few years from all our tax dollars only being able to pay
> for Medicare, Social Security, and interest on our debt. That?s it.
>
> Now, what happens when you as an individual can?t pay your debts or pay
> your bills on time? Your credit rating goes down. And when your credit
> rating goes down, you can no longer get that low interest
> Visa-Black-Platinum-Playboy card (with Sky Miles!) you can now only get
> the Soup-Kitchen-Discover card at 280% interest. Many people don?t
> realize it, but governments have credit ratings too. Right now we?ve got
> a great one, based on ?because we?re so awesome?. But we?re getting
> really close to losing our good credit rating, (because awesome will
> only get you so far before you actually have to pay the bills) when that
> happens, all of those already really bad estimates about our future debt
> are going to get far worse. How much worse? Have you ever played Fallout
> 3 on the Xbox? Kind of like that.
>
> So while we?re on our way to Thunder Dome, the government is printing
> dollars like crazy, faster than ever before, with no signs of letting
> up. Inflation is coming. When the credit rating tanks and the
> entitlements get worse (or the oil currency switches to something else)
> hello, Master Blaster! We?re in deep trouble. We?re looking at
> hyperinflation. Dollars worth nothing, burning them to keep warm would
> be more efficient, kind of thing.
>
> Yet the government, that surely has some smart people in it, continues
> to increase our spending, increase our debt load, and do things that are
> the exact opposite of fiscally responsible. It is almost as if they want
> the system to collapse?
>
> Then I remember the Weimar Republic. They had hyperinflation. How did
> they get out of it? By rebooting the currency. What was the new currency
> based on? Land. Land is an asset.
>
> The government is gobbling up land out west like crazy. Every time we
> discover a deposit of oil or coal out here, the government immediately
> discovers a snail or a flower on it that might be endangered and grabs a
> couple hundred thousand more acres. The government is trying to kick
> 18,000 people out of their homes in Colorado to put in a new ?tank range?.
>
> But that wouldn?t be enough. Think beyond land. Think assets.
>
> Fanny May and Freddy Mac now hold something like 50% of the mortgages in
> the US. The government has recently either directly taken over, or
> regulated the living crap out of our auto industry, insurance industry,
> banking and finance industry, and now health care?
>
> The people of the Weimar were so desperate, that they would do anything
> to get out of their economic crisis.
>
> Let?s imagine a hypothetical situation here. Let?s say that in a decade
> or so, our currency has collapsed. We owe far more than we produce.
> Companies are failing. Because all of our tax dollars are used just to
> pay for our debt, taxes have to be raised, which causes even more
> unemployment and decreased production. Entitlements can?t be met. The
> current economic crisis looks awesome in comparison, but there is no
> possible way out, because our money is now worthless.
>
> So? Reboot the currency. Make a new RentenDollar.
>
> The media can even point out what a fantastic idea this is because
> historically, it has worked before! The politicians will tell us that
> this is the only way and we must act quickly! People are desperate and
> will be told that ?the private system has failed! Only government
> intervention can save us now!? (gee, why does that sound soooo familiar?)
>
> Sure, they caused the problem, but that isn?t what most people will
> think, but as they?ve shown, they don?t really care what we think
> anyway. They will not let a good crisis go to waste. There is only one
> teensy downside to this reboot though?
>
> See, the RentenDollar can?t be based on good feelings like the old
> dollar, it must be based on ASSETS. And since the capitalist system has
> failed, and the government has already got its fingers in all these
> various companies, instead of just regulating these companies, why
> shouldn?t the government just own them?
>
> All those mortgages? They now belong to the government. Banks? Belong to
> the government. Industrial production? Government. Medical. Government.
> They?re assets, and they?re necessary to back our new currency.
>
> You don?t like it? People are starving. There are riots in the streets.
> Cities are burning. We have to act now! Won?t somebody think of the
> children! There?s no time to read this 9,000 page bill! HURRY!
>
> ?And just like that, America has become a communist country. State
> control and ownership of everything.
>
> So, let?s poke some holes in my late night theory. Please, somebody tell
> me how this is impossible. Maybe we?re not heading for an economic
> collapse. Maybe we?re not going to have hyperinflation. If anybody has
> any evidence of that, I?d love to hear it, because this is kind of
> depressing.
>
> Or, the other way that this idea could be silly and implausible is if
> there was no possible way that elements within our government would want
> to exercise total control over our lives? Yeah? that?s just absurd.
>
> Ask yourself this one question. Do you believe that our current federal
> government, if presented with the opportunity, would take over and
> control everything? Yes or No.
>
> Help me out here, guys. I?m not getting any warm feelings from this
Ignoramus28422
be rude. I just wanted to say that that blog post was written with
little evidence presented.
I am sorry.
i
Ed Huntress
"RBnDFW" <burkh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hot5hk$ach$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Long but interesting.
>
> Mr. McDuffee, love to hear your opinion of this:
>
> from http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2010/
I'm sure George will supply you with his, but FWIW, here's mine: The guy is
ignorant of economics; he doesn't have even 1/4 of the relevant information
involved in his estimations. He doesn't appear to know what the relevant
information *is*.
He should stick to writing fantasy novels, or take a couple of years of
college-level economics. His conclusions are nonsense.
--
Ed Huntress
Ed Huntress
"Ignoramus28422" <ignoram...@NOSPAM.28422.invalid> wrote in message
news:cvGdnY2BBItIgy_W...@giganews.com...
> Rex, I am sorry if what I wrote came across as rude. I did not mean to
> be rude. I just wanted to say that that blog post was written with
> little evidence presented.
>
> I am sorry.
>
> i
You were right the first time. d8-)
--
Ed Huntress
John R. Carroll
Or both.
The best fiction is plausible and so has it's roots in fact.
--
John R. Carroll
RBnDFW
> Rex, I am sorry if what I wrote came across as rude. I did not mean to
> be rude. I just wanted to say that that blog post was written with
> little evidence presented.
>
No offense taken, Ig. I thought it thought-provoking.
You are right that there is no evidence, but then it's an opinion piece,
not a doctoral thesis.
Shabtai
Austria, as a child. This instability allowed a national socialist
tyrant with personality problems to take control, plunge the world into
CHAOS, and send my family to death camps. YES it can happen here!!
Those who belittle your open thinking are practicing the religion of
Socialism or are blind to the dangers of forced wealth redistribution,
i.e. Socialism.
simon shabtai evan
William Wixon
"Shabtai" <shabta...@att.net> wrote in message
news:inqsn.40829$NH1....@newsfe14.iad...
> You are not far off. My father watched it happen while living in Austria,
> as a child. This instability allowed a national socialist
> tyrant with personality problems to take control, plunge the world into
> CHAOS, and send my family to death camps. YES it can happen here!!
>
> Those who belittle your open thinking are practicing the religion of
> Socialism or are blind to the dangers of forced wealth redistribution,
> i.e. Socialism.
>
> simon shabtai evan
>
>
that's what we were saying during bush. watch out during the next election,
resurgence of the wackos preying on people's fear, some right wing wacko
bankrolled (recent supreme court decision) by corporate america will rise to
prominence.
b.w.
F. George McDuffee
wrote:
<snip>
>So, let�s poke some holes in my late night theory. Please, somebody tell
>me how this is impossible. Maybe we�re not heading for an economic
>collapse. Maybe we�re not going to have hyperinflation. If anybody has
>any evidence of that, I�d love to hear it, because this is kind of
>depressing.
<snip>
===========
IMNSHO the problem is not some grand conspiracy but rather the
results of a series of largely opportunistic and expedient
political decisions based on ideology rather than facts/logic,
with the hindsight rationale "but it seemed like such a good idea
at the time."
One example of this is the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act of
1933 by The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA), also known as the
Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, (Pub.L. 106-102,
113 Stat. 1338, enacted November 12, 1999)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm%E2%80%93Leach%E2%80%93Bliley_Actwhich
which laid the foundations for much of the current economic
crisis. When the CFTC Modernization Act of 2000
http://www.stroock.com/SiteFiles/Pub134.pdf was enacted, largely
exempting derivatives from any control.oversight and removing
controls/oversight on commodity trading/traders including foreign
exchange, disaster was insured.
History appears to indicate that any state that exists for a
significant period of time always debases their currency, even
gold and silver based, until the value disappears entirely. More
or less concurrently the national economy shifts from "value
added" real production to "financial engineering," which is
largely imaginary. Thus, socio-economic collapse of a state
should not be seen as any sort of historical anomaly or the
results of a cabal, but rather it is the expected final stage of
a natural progression, much as death is the final stage for all
living things including human beings.
More than likely, many people in government are aware of this and
are "grasping at straws" through ever more intrusive regulation
of the individual (but seldom the large corporations), in what
has historically proven to be a futile attempt to delay the
inevitable. Indeed, it appears such desperate actions only
contribute to the problems in the last stages by dissipating
dwindling governmental resources on non productive activities and
further alienating its already disenchanted citizens/subjects.
for some insight see
http://www.economics.harvard.edu/files/faculty/51_This_Time_Is_Different.pdf
also available in expanded book format.
Unka George (George McDuffee)
..............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).
John Husvar
"Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
> "Ignoramus28422" <ignoram...@NOSPAM.28422.invalid> wrote in message
> news:cvGdnY2BBItIgy_W...@giganews.com...
> > Rex, I am sorry if what I wrote came across as rude. I did not mean to
> > be rude. I just wanted to say that that blog post was written with
> > little evidence presented.
> >
> > I am sorry.
> >
> > i
>
> You were right the first time. d8-)
In the Holy Words of Odin: "It's all fun and games until somebody loses
an eye." :)
Ed Huntress
"John Husvar" <jhu...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:jhusvar-94B40C...@news.eternal-september.org...
It's so frustrating to try to answer something like that, and I'm sure that
Iggy felt that frustration. I really don't worry about it anymore. It's
better to just be frank about it.
For the record, the guy missed the ENTIRE monetary issue with
between-the-wars Germany. The world was on a gold standard then, and we had
taken all their gold. Between the Brits and the French (and us) we took just
about everything else that wasn't nailed down, too, as war reparations.
When the world monetary system is based on gold and you don't have any,
you're screwed. Germany was utterly, thoroughly screwed economically. They
printed something that amounted to worthless script in an attempt to prevent
an absolute meltdown. But there was no gold, so there was no money.
To pay reparations, they monetized the only thing they had left -- land.
There is NOTHING that would force such a thing now. Thank God we're off the
gold standard. We have a variety of other ways to control money, and the
world is doing pretty well with it, considering that we just had a very deep
recession.
So there are no meaningful parallels. That's true from a variety of angles.
For someone to conjure up a bunch of claims like those in that little essay,
in a situation in which it's obvious that the guy made not the slightest
attempt to study the monetary history, is sloppy and foolish.
--
Ed Huntress
Gunner Asch
>Long but interesting.
>
>Mr. McDuffee, love to hear your opinion of this:
>
>from http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2010/
>
>Late last night I came up with my very own conspiracy theory. It seemed
>a little odd at the time, but as I’ve continued to think it over, I’ve
>not yet been able to poke any significant holes in it. Of course, it is
>the kind of thing that an accountant turned science fiction author would
>come up with.
>
>Basically, I’m starting to think that certain factions within our
>government actively want hyperinflation to occur as a surefire method of
>instituting de-facto communism in America…
>
>Crazy, right? I know, you’re thinking that surely Correia has gone off
>the deep end and spouting off all sorts of doomsday nonsense, but hear
>me out first.
>
>As many of you know, I’m a history geek. Last year I wrote my first
>alternative history novel set in 1932. Because I’m a stickler for
>authenticity, I did an absurd amount of research. I read every book I
>could get my hands on about what is normally called the interwar period.
>I mostly concentrated on American history/culture but I also learned a
>bit about the Weimar Republic.
>
>The interesting factoids about the Weimar Republic that most of us
>remember is that it was the home of hyperinflation (remember the
>wheelbarrow full of money to buy a loaf of bread) and eventually it also
>gave us one of history’s greatest scumbags, Hitler. Other than that,
>most Americans don’t really know much about the Weimar Republic.
>
>Okay, but where did the hyperinflation come from? I’m going to greatly
>simplify this because A. I’m a writer and accountant, not a historian,
>go to Wikipedia and B. This is only for a background to draw a
>comparison to what we’re doing right now.
>
>The Weimar Republic (If I recall correctly, they actually called
>themselves the Deutsch Reich) came about after WWI. The German Empire
>had fallen apart, leadership fled, and for the next couple of years
>there were several battles fought between different factions of
>communists, socialists, and conservatives. (and when I say conservative
>it isn’t what it means here and now. I mean conservative back toward the
>empire, royalty, and all that entails). These were not polite political
>discussions. These were a series of violent mini-revolts where various
>cities would go off and declare themselves independent, like the Soviet
>State of Munich. Then a bunch of communists and the “Freikorps” would
>clash in the streets, then repeat a week later in a different city. It
>was bad.
>
>Eventually the Weimar Republic was formed from the different groups, and
>immediately it had a whole new set of problems. The Germans signed the
>treaty of Versailles, they gave up a bunch of territory, and even worse,
>then took on a massive war debt and an agreement to basically pay the
>allies for the biggest war in history.
>
>So what does a government, which is already sitting on a very damaged
>economy, do in order to pay this debt? They printed more money. Sounding
>familiar yet?
>
>It got worse. As the Weimar printed more money, their government got
>more bloated, and ate up even more of their resources. (at one point a
>chancellor laid off several hundred thousand government employees to try
>and make ends meet). As their money inflated and became more useless,
>France got tired of not getting paid, and being jerks, invaded and took
>over the Ruhr, which was one of the most productive regions in Germany.
>This caused a drop in production, and then everybody else went on strike.
>
>Meanwhile, the money kept inflating to levels that people couldn’t even
>understand. Back during the war, the Mark was something like 4 to 1
>against the dollar. By the time they hit hyperinflation, they’d gone to
>millions to 1, and by the end, it was literally trillions to a single
>dollar. They would print new bills, and a few days later all they were
>good for was note paper. This is where the stories about the wheelbarrow
>full of money for bread comes from. To put this in perspective, this
>would be like you filling the trunk of your car with twenty dollar bills
>and then using all those trash bags full of money to buy some shoelaces
>and a tube of toothpaste.
>
>So basically Germany was totally screwed.
>
>So how did they get out of it? Contrary to what most Americans think, it
>wasn’t Hitler that came along and fixed Germany’s economic problems and
>turned them into an industrial powerhouse war machine through the sheer
>power of him being a complete ass. There was actually a time period in
>the thirties that the Weimer knew as the Golden Years, because they’d
>finally gotten much of their economy back under control.
>
>They rebooted their currency. If I recall correctly, their new currency
>was called the Rentenmark. They introduced the Rentenmark, and you could
>trade in your trillions of crappy marks for one of them. It went back to
>4-1 with the dollar. Now here’s the thing. You can’t just change the
>name and have new currency. Your currency has to actually be based on
>something. (kind of like how the dollar is based on good feelings and
>rainbows).
>
>They based it on land. It was the one asset that the government could go
>and take over to use as a base asset, and land is always valuable
>because they aren’t making any more of it. Congratulations land owners,
>all your dirt belongs to us, but people were so desperate (and tired of
>carrying buckets of silly money around) that it didn’t matter. They were
>desperate, and desperate times called for desperate (and sometimes
>stupid) measures. Using the new asset-backed Rentenmarks, Germany was
>able to start paying their debts again and get on with a semblance of
>normalcy, well at least until they elected a bunch of lunatics in snazzy
>uniforms.
>
>So why this long story? Because it is to compare with what we’re doing
>ourselves. Right now the United States is on the path to hyperinflation.
>CBO is predicting that by 2020, our debt will be 90% of our GDP. (EDIT:
>As was pointed out in the comments, my information there was wrong.
>We’ll hit 90% way way earlier than that, so it is even worse) Think
>about that for a second. That would be like if you had a $50,000 a year
>job, but you owed vicious thumb-breaking loan sharks $45,000 that was
>still collecting interest. Our entitlements are bankrupting us. Even
>before Health Control (because if you believe the government is going to
>spend a trillion bucks and cut the deficit, you must sleep in a helmet)
>we’re only a few years from all our tax dollars only being able to pay
>for Medicare, Social Security, and interest on our debt. That’s it.
>
>Now, what happens when you as an individual can’t pay your debts or pay
>your bills on time? Your credit rating goes down. And when your credit
>rating goes down, you can no longer get that low interest
>Visa-Black-Platinum-Playboy card (with Sky Miles!) you can now only get
>the Soup-Kitchen-Discover card at 280% interest. Many people don’t
>realize it, but governments have credit ratings too. Right now we’ve got
>a great one, based on ‘because we’re so awesome’. But we’re getting
>really close to losing our good credit rating, (because awesome will
>only get you so far before you actually have to pay the bills) when that
>happens, all of those already really bad estimates about our future debt
>are going to get far worse. How much worse? Have you ever played Fallout
>3 on the Xbox? Kind of like that.
>
>So while we’re on our way to Thunder Dome, the government is printing
>dollars like crazy, faster than ever before, with no signs of letting
>up. Inflation is coming. When the credit rating tanks and the
>entitlements get worse (or the oil currency switches to something else)
>hello, Master Blaster! We’re in deep trouble. We’re looking at
>hyperinflation. Dollars worth nothing, burning them to keep warm would
>be more efficient, kind of thing.
>
>Yet the government, that surely has some smart people in it, continues
>to increase our spending, increase our debt load, and do things that are
>the exact opposite of fiscally responsible. It is almost as if they want
>the system to collapse…
>
>Then I remember the Weimar Republic. They had hyperinflation. How did
>they get out of it? By rebooting the currency. What was the new currency
>based on? Land. Land is an asset.
>
>The government is gobbling up land out west like crazy. Every time we
>discover a deposit of oil or coal out here, the government immediately
>discovers a snail or a flower on it that might be endangered and grabs a
>couple hundred thousand more acres. The government is trying to kick
>18,000 people out of their homes in Colorado to put in a new “tank range”.
>
>But that wouldn’t be enough. Think beyond land. Think assets.
>
>Fanny May and Freddy Mac now hold something like 50% of the mortgages in
>the US. The government has recently either directly taken over, or
>regulated the living crap out of our auto industry, insurance industry,
>banking and finance industry, and now health care…
>
>The people of the Weimar were so desperate, that they would do anything
>to get out of their economic crisis.
>
>Let’s imagine a hypothetical situation here. Let’s say that in a decade
>or so, our currency has collapsed. We owe far more than we produce.
>Companies are failing. Because all of our tax dollars are used just to
>pay for our debt, taxes have to be raised, which causes even more
>unemployment and decreased production. Entitlements can’t be met. The
>current economic crisis looks awesome in comparison, but there is no
>possible way out, because our money is now worthless.
>
>So… Reboot the currency. Make a new RentenDollar.
>
>The media can even point out what a fantastic idea this is because
>historically, it has worked before! The politicians will tell us that
>this is the only way and we must act quickly! People are desperate and
>will be told that “the private system has failed! Only government
>intervention can save us now!” (gee, why does that sound soooo familiar?)
>
>Sure, they caused the problem, but that isn’t what most people will
>think, but as they’ve shown, they don’t really care what we think
>anyway. They will not let a good crisis go to waste. There is only one
>teensy downside to this reboot though…
>
>See, the RentenDollar can’t be based on good feelings like the old
>dollar, it must be based on ASSETS. And since the capitalist system has
>failed, and the government has already got its fingers in all these
>various companies, instead of just regulating these companies, why
>shouldn’t the government just own them?
>
>All those mortgages? They now belong to the government. Banks? Belong to
>the government. Industrial production? Government. Medical. Government.
>They’re assets, and they’re necessary to back our new currency.
>
>You don’t like it? People are starving. There are riots in the streets.
>Cities are burning. We have to act now! Won’t somebody think of the
>children! There’s no time to read this 9,000 page bill! HURRY!
>
>…And just like that, America has become a communist country. State
>control and ownership of everything.
>
>So, let’s poke some holes in my late night theory. Please, somebody tell
>me how this is impossible. Maybe we’re not heading for an economic
>collapse. Maybe we’re not going to have hyperinflation. If anybody has
>any evidence of that, I’d love to hear it, because this is kind of
>depressing.
>
>Or, the other way that this idea could be silly and implausible is if
>there was no possible way that elements within our government would want
>to exercise total control over our lives… Yeah… that’s just absurd.
>
>Ask yourself this one question. Do you believe that our current federal
>government, if presented with the opportunity, would take over and
>control everything? Yes or No.
>
>Help me out here, guys. I’m not getting any warm feelings from this
You are a very imaginative man. And a very smart one.
That is indeed one of the possibilities of the near future. And a likely
one.
Gunner
"First Law of Leftist Debate
The more you present a leftist with factual evidence
that is counter to his preconceived world view and the
more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without
losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot,
homophobe approaches infinity.
This is despite the thread you are in having not mentioned
race or sexual preference in any way that is relevant to
the subject." Grey Ghost
Shabtai
Right-wing? Left-wing? Hitler came in through the Democratic Socialist
Party!!!!!
Socialism, Marxism, etc will come through ANY party! It's an ideology
that does not care about parties. It only wants power.
You have to watch for it.
Wes
>For the record, the guy missed the ENTIRE monetary issue with
>between-the-wars Germany. The world was on a gold standard then, and we had
>taken all their gold. Between the Brits and the French (and us) we took just
>about everything else that wasn't nailed down, too, as war reparations.
>
>When the world monetary system is based on gold and you don't have any,
>you're screwed. Germany was utterly, thoroughly screwed economically. They
>printed something that amounted to worthless script in an attempt to prevent
>an absolute meltdown. But there was no gold, so there was no money.
>
>To pay reparations, they monetized the only thing they had left -- land.
>There is NOTHING that would force such a thing now. Thank God we're off the
>gold standard. We have a variety of other ways to control money, and the
>world is doing pretty well with it, considering that we just had a very deep
>recession.
As it is we are borrowing money. Eventually it has to be repaid. With what?
I'm thinking of a senario where the next time there is a treasury auction, no one wants to
buy.
Wes
John R. Carroll
The same thing used during the end of the Clinton years Wes.
You use the tax collections that exceed spending.
>
> I'm thinking of a senario where the next time there is a treasury
> auction, no one wants to buy.
That happened about five years ago more that once Wes.
Treasury auctions were undersubscribed numerous times.
--
John R. Carroll
Stormin Mormon
promises. However, what are the odds that the US government
(or any employee thereof) would ever break a promise?
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"Wes" <clu...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:EBEsn.114378$Bs1.1...@en-nntp-01.dc1.easynews.com...
Ed Huntress
Basically, what John said. Also, we were far deeper in debt after WWII than
we are now. The answer was to grow out of it, and to collect taxes so we
could pay it down. Growth was easier then. That's one part of the problem
now.
So the big goal is to get growth going. It's going to be hard to get enough
of it; the stimulus program is the only realistic thing government can do.
Business sure as hell won't do much on its own. You can cut taxes and lower
wages until you're blue, but they won't invest if they think there are no
buyers for their products. When a recession gets this deep, you really have
to stimulate the demand side.
With growth and sensible taxes, you pay the debt down. No growth, no chance.
No taxes, no chance.
In extremis, you let your currency deflate. Milton Friedman thought that it
was the natural and logical thing, and should not be resisted. Your economy
will still suck but you won't go bankrupt. And things won't collapse if you
do it carefully.
Again, because we're not on a gold standard and because our debts are almost
all denominated in our own currency, we're in relatively good shape. All of
that makes it more necessary, however, to handle these things responsibly.
"Responsibly" doesn't mean what it means in home economics, either.
--
Ed Huntress
F. George McDuffee
<snip>
>As it is we are borrowing money. Eventually it has to be repaid. With what?
>
>I'm thinking of a senario where the next time there is a treasury auction, no one wants to
>buy.
========
See how Argentina does it.
Easy solution -- change the regulations so that people with IRAs
and 401ks must "invest" in government bonds. Also change banking
rules so that 5% of a banks capital must be in government
securities (for safety).
F. George McDuffee
<nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote:
<snip>
>Or both.
>The best fiction is plausible and so has it's roots in fact.
The "bait-n-switch" scam is alive and well. Anyone want to buy a
solid gold bar?
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601108&sid=arFjbsBO7BS8
Amazing that the CDO underwriters such as Merrilll-Lynch and
Goldman-Sachs [aka the vampire squid] could get a AAA rating for
their creations, and the CDO administrators could then switch the
collateral.
If I borrow money from the bank to buy a new car, and then sell
the new car and replace it with a junker, I stand a good chance
of going to jail. If I am a CDO administrator and replace the
good collateral, which earned the AAA ratings and possibly sold
the investors, with junk and the CDO stops paying interest and
the return of the principal is highly questionable -- its tough
darts investors [and bond insurers like AIG].
You can't make this stuff up....
RBnDFW
> On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 05:29:55 -0500, Wes <clu...@lycos.com> wrote:
> <snip>
>> As it is we are borrowing money. Eventually it has to be repaid. With what?
>>
>> I'm thinking of a senario where the next time there is a treasury auction, no one wants to
>> buy.
> <snip>
> ========
> See how Argentina does it.
>
> Easy solution -- change the regulations so that people with IRAs
> and 401ks must "invest" in government bonds. Also change banking
> rules so that 5% of a banks capital must be in government
> securities (for safety).
Seems to be working real well for Argentina ;/
John R. Carroll
> On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 09:13:03 -0800, "John R. Carroll"
> <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote:
> <snip>
>> Or both.
>> The best fiction is plausible and so has it's roots in fact. <snip>
>
> The "bait-n-switch" scam is alive and well. Anyone want to buy a
> solid gold bar?
>
> http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601108&sid=arFjbsBO7BS8
>
> Amazing that the CDO underwriters such as Merrilll-Lynch and
> Goldman-Sachs [aka the vampire squid] could get a AAA rating for
> their creations, and the CDO administrators could then switch the
> collateral.
>
> If I borrow money from the bank to buy a new car, and then sell
> the new car and replace it with a junker, I stand a good chance
> of going to jail. If I am a CDO administrator and replace the
> good collateral, which earned the AAA ratings and possibly sold
> the investors, with junk and the CDO stops paying interest and
> the return of the principal is highly questionable -- its tough
> darts investors [and bond insurers like AIG].
>
> You can't make this stuff up....
Even more off the wall - CDS's are still the rage.
I was talking to a guy last weekend about how difficult it would be to
really put a value on anyone in the financial services busines these days
because of all of the CDS's, CDO's and SIV's lurking off balance sheet ant
he said, and I swear to God he actually did, "Well, at least they aren't
doing those anymore." You should have seen the look on his face as we had a
look at a ten day old prospectus.....
--
John R. Carroll
Ignoramus30291
> Ignoramus28422 wrote:
>> Rex, I am sorry if what I wrote came across as rude. I did not mean to
>> be rude. I just wanted to say that that blog post was written with
>> little evidence presented.
>>
>
> No offense taken, Ig. I thought it thought-provoking.
> You are right that there is no evidence, but then it's an opinion piece,
> not a doctoral thesis.
It is always a good idea to think about things lke these, to try to
discern if any trouble is brewing beyond the horizon.
i
Stormin Mormon
The USA used to be populated with hard working people who
preferred to make their own decisions, and who preferred
freedom.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:4bb367f3$0$21869$607e...@cv.net...
Ed Huntress
"Stormin Mormon" <cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hp0cj5$1uv$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> You are a dyed in the wool liberal, I gather? What a shame.
> The USA used to be populated with hard working people who
> preferred to make their own decisions, and who preferred
> freedom.
No, I'm a centrist on many things and generally mainstream economically.
That is, my understanding of economics comes from real, mainstream
economists, and it leaves me slightly right of the current center on those
issues. I'm left of center on most social/cultural issues.
I'd feel better about people like youself making your own decisions if I
thought you knew what you were talking about half the time, Chris. As it is,
I think you're a decent guy who has a head full of oatmeal on national
economic issues.
--
Ed Huntress
Wes
>>> To pay reparations, they monetized the only thing they had left --
>>> land. There is NOTHING that would force such a thing now. Thank God
>>> we're off the gold standard. We have a variety of other ways to
>>> control money, and the world is doing pretty well with it,
>>> considering that we just had a very deep recession.
>>
>>
>> As it is we are borrowing money. Eventually it has to be repaid.
>> With what?
>
>The same thing used during the end of the Clinton years Wes.
>You use the tax collections that exceed spending.
Okay that makes sense in the sort term.
>
>>
>> I'm thinking of a senario where the next time there is a treasury
>> auction, no one wants to buy.
>
>That happened about five years ago more that once Wes.
>Treasury auctions were undersubscribed numerous times.
I didn't know that.
Thanks John,
Wes
Wes
>Basically, what John said. Also, we were far deeper in debt after WWII than
>we are now. The answer was to grow out of it, and to collect taxes so we
>could pay it down. Growth was easier then. That's one part of the problem
>now.
John's answer made sense to me.
When a good portion of the world was bombed out, growth was a bit easier. Now, that is a
tough nut. I've always thought the unrestrained immigration was an attempt to increase
growth. But if the basic economics of increased population growth doesn't work year over
year, it becomes yet another cheat or scam.
>
>So the big goal is to get growth going. It's going to be hard to get enough
>of it; the stimulus program is the only realistic thing government can do.
>Business sure as hell won't do much on its own. You can cut taxes and lower
>wages until you're blue, but they won't invest if they think there are no
>buyers for their products. When a recession gets this deep, you really have
>to stimulate the demand side.
But what are we stimulating? I'm under the impression we are stimulating state
governments by propping them up. So far 6.35B has been sent to my state. Recovery.org
shows it directed at various state agencies. To bad we don't have a department of
manufacturing. Engler left too soon.
As far as I know, none of it has been used to say help my company or other companies buy a
machine or invest in a process to grow the business and increase employment.
Seems to me the money is keeping the state from making deep cuts in number of state
employees and their fringe benefits. Something that has happened in the real world aka
that part that is the private sector. Is this Obama's version of 'trickle down'?
>
>With growth and sensible taxes, you pay the debt down. No growth, no chance.
>No taxes, no chance.
I think growth would be easier to achieve if there was less government to support. Taxes,
well those are going to go up, whether I like it or not, the nation ran up a big bill in
recent history.
>
>In extremis, you let your currency deflate. Milton Friedman thought that it
>was the natural and logical thing, and should not be resisted. Your economy
>will still suck but you won't go bankrupt. And things won't collapse if you
>do it carefully.
And that is the cruelest tax of all. It punishes those that have worked and produced and
put away some of their earings to provide for them in their later years.
>
>Again, because we're not on a gold standard and because our debts are almost
>all denominated in our own currency, we're in relatively good shape. All of
>that makes it more necessary, however, to handle these things responsibly.
>"Responsibly" doesn't mean what it means in home economics, either.
That raises another question, if our debtors force payment in a basket of currencies,
where does that put us? IIRC some of the oil producing countries figure they are going to
get screwed taking US dollars.
Wes
F. George McDuffee
<cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
>What a shame.
>The USA used to be populated with hard working people who
>preferred to make their own decisions, and who preferred
>freedom.
============
Those days are gone and THEY AIN'T COMMIN BACK!
"Free trade," Multi-lateral Investment Agreements, stealth
chains/rollups, domestic deregulation and transnational
corporations have done far more damage to the US economy and
socio-cultural-political environment than any slight increase in
CO2 is ever going to do to the physical environment.
While many people would still like to make their own decisions
and still prefer freedom, the socio-cultural and economic
changes/reality and rapid increases in the complexity of life are
continually reducing the benefits of these traits except possibly
in personal satisfaction, which won't pay the bills.
The truth of the matter is that your (and your community's) level
of socio-economic status, which in turn now largely determines
your level of "freedom," is now determined to a large extent by
forces outside your control, e.g. NAFTA/WTO, Goldman-Sachs, and
the possible PIIGS [default]. The few factors still within your
control, such as boozing/wenching/fighting on the job, are
negative factors only, in that these may well get you fired, but
the absence of these behaviors does not in anyway assure your
continued employment or advancement in your chosen trade or
profession, even with multiple employers.
Your complaints/observations are certainly valid, but the
assumption that these changes are due to governmental actions
does not appear to be correct. Rather the governmental actions
are simply responses to rapidly changing conditions such as
massive outsourcing, financial manipulation/fraud and
undocumented immigration. Most unfortunately, this results in
treating the most obvious symptoms in the order of the public
outrage rather addressing/correcting the root causes, thus
shoveling sand against the tide.
Wes
>At which point, our creditors would be left with worthless
>promises. However, what are the odds that the US government
>(or any employee thereof) would ever break a promise?
I don't see us ever defaulting. I could see us pulling our military forces back from the
116 nations or so we are helping to defend and telling them, hey, we got to pay our bills.
Better man up and be ready to defend yourself.
I think we tend to be a super power because too many nations don't want to be a power and
we are suckers when it comes to defense.
The war in Iraq and Afhganistan makes it pretty darn clear. I'll grant that Iraq wasn't
the 'good war' but Afhganistan was supposed to be. Look how pitfull the support is of our
allies. Too many countries send small detachments that are not even allowed to enter into
combat.
I probably insulted a couple nations. UK, I wasn't talking about you.
Wes
Ed Huntress
> "Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>Basically, what John said. Also, we were far deeper in debt after WWII
>>than
>>we are now. The answer was to grow out of it, and to collect taxes so we
>>could pay it down. Growth was easier then. That's one part of the problem
>>now.
>
> John's answer made sense to me.
> When a good portion of the world was bombed out, growth was a bit easier.
> Now, that is a
> tough nut. I've always thought the unrestrained immigration was an
> attempt to increase
> growth. But if the basic economics of increased population growth doesn't
> work year over
> year, it becomes yet another cheat or scam.
Unrestrained immigration was an "attempt" by poverty-stricken campesinos and
others to find a better life. I seriously doubt if anyone else involved in
the decisions had any volition in it at all.
Population growth is going to be a big factor in coming years. You'll notice
that some European countries now have negative population growth. We'll
learn a few things from them.
>
>>
>>So the big goal is to get growth going. It's going to be hard to get
>>enough
>>of it; the stimulus program is the only realistic thing government can do.
>>Business sure as hell won't do much on its own. You can cut taxes and
>>lower
>>wages until you're blue, but they won't invest if they think there are no
>>buyers for their products. When a recession gets this deep, you really
>>have
>>to stimulate the demand side.
>
> But what are we stimulating? I'm under the impression we are stimulating
> state
> governments by propping them up. So far 6.35B has been sent to my state.
> Recovery.org
> shows it directed at various state agencies. To bad we don't have a
> department of
> manufacturing. Engler left too soon.
Short-run jobs and consumption. Stimulating consumption with deficit
spending doesn't build an economy, but it can keep one that's in recession
from tanking completely. Then, once you have an upturn in employment, you
quickly try to get some investment going and work for sustainable growth.
It's difficult to stimulate real growth with deficit spending. At best, it
might turn a decline around, but the effect is a weak one. Stimulus is not
about creating long-term sustainable growth. It's about keeping money
turning over and keeping up the purchase of goods and services.
We're already out of the recession. But since employment typically lags the
upturn in GDP, you have to keep it up for a while or your recovery can wind
up stillborn. That's what happened in 1936.
>
> As far as I know, none of it has been used to say help my company or other
> companies buy a
> machine or invest in a process to grow the business and increase
> employment.
Why would you buy machines if you don't have new customers, or increased
sales to existing ones? And, if you have increased sales, why do you need to
get the government involved?
Why would the government help you employ people if you don't already have
work for them to do? And if you already have work for them to do, why
haven't you hired them already? d8-)
>
> Seems to me the money is keeping the state from making deep cuts in number
> of state
> employees and their fringe benefits. Something that has happened in the
> real world aka
> that part that is the private sector. Is this Obama's version of 'trickle
> down'?
They've cut $500,000,000 from education here in NJ over the past month. It
doesn't seem to be stopping them from cutting. Why isn't your government
cutting state employees or their benefits?
>
>
>>
>>With growth and sensible taxes, you pay the debt down. No growth, no
>>chance.
>>No taxes, no chance.
>
> I think growth would be easier to achieve if there was less government to
> support.
Of course. What would you like to cut first? It has to be something
substantial or you're whistling Dixie. How about Social Security or
Medicare? How about the Defense Department? Education? We can make kids as
dumb as we want.
They're all huge expenses. Most of the rest is chicken feed.
> Taxes,
> well those are going to go up, whether I like it or not, the nation ran up
> a big bill in
> recent history.
If we had Reagan or Bush in office, they'd probably just keep cutting until
the country was bankrupt.
>>
>>In extremis, you let your currency deflate. Milton Friedman thought that
>>it
>>was the natural and logical thing, and should not be resisted. Your
>>economy
>>will still suck but you won't go bankrupt. And things won't collapse if
>>you
>>do it carefully.
>
> And that is the cruelest tax of all. It punishes those that have worked
> and produced and
> put away some of their earings to provide for them in their later years.
That's the way it goes. If you think you know a way to break the business
cycle and to prevent recessions, and the consequent need for deficit
spending, there are a lot of people who would like to hear from you.
>
>>
>>Again, because we're not on a gold standard and because our debts are
>>almost
>>all denominated in our own currency, we're in relatively good shape. All
>>of
>>that makes it more necessary, however, to handle these things responsibly.
>>"Responsibly" doesn't mean what it means in home economics, either.
>
> That raises another question, if our debtors force payment in a basket of
> currencies,
> where does that put us?
Right where we are now. They can't "force" it. We have contracts. As for new
contracts, there is no other currency that's likely to stand up better than
the dollar, and they know it. Otherwise, oil contracts would not be in
dollars.
> IIRC some of the oil producing countries figure they are going to
> get screwed taking US dollars.
Poor them. <g> They love to bitch, don't they?
The solution there is to stop burning so God-damned much oil.
--
Ed Huntress
Wes
>> John's answer made sense to me.
>> When a good portion of the world was bombed out, growth was a bit easier.
>> Now, that is a
>> tough nut. I've always thought the unrestrained immigration was an
>> attempt to increase
>> growth. But if the basic economics of increased population growth doesn't
>> work year over
>> year, it becomes yet another cheat or scam.
>
>Unrestrained immigration was an "attempt" by poverty-stricken campesinos and
>others to find a better life. I seriously doubt if anyone else involved in
>the decisions had any volition in it at all.
The feds haven't been trying very hard to stop them from coming in.
>
>Population growth is going to be a big factor in coming years. You'll notice
>that some European countries now have negative population growth. We'll
>learn a few things from them.
Japan is investing heavily into robotics. They want to maintain their mono culture in the
face of decreasing population growth.
Europe will be interesting. The took in a bunch of Muslims, as we took in Hispanics for
cheap work. I think we got a less problematical group that will assimilate eventually.
>
>>
>>>
>>>So the big goal is to get growth going. It's going to be hard to get
>>>enough
>>>of it; the stimulus program is the only realistic thing government can do.
>>>Business sure as hell won't do much on its own. You can cut taxes and
>>>lower
>>>wages until you're blue, but they won't invest if they think there are no
>>>buyers for their products. When a recession gets this deep, you really
>>>have
>>>to stimulate the demand side.
>>
>> But what are we stimulating? I'm under the impression we are stimulating
>> state
>> governments by propping them up. So far 6.35B has been sent to my state.
>> Recovery.org
>> shows it directed at various state agencies. To bad we don't have a
>> department of
>> manufacturing. Engler left too soon.
>
>Short-run jobs and consumption. Stimulating consumption with deficit
>spending doesn't build an economy, but it can keep one that's in recession
>from tanking completely. Then, once you have an upturn in employment, you
>quickly try to get some investment going and work for sustainable growth.
>
>It's difficult to stimulate real growth with deficit spending. At best, it
>might turn a decline around, but the effect is a weak one. Stimulus is not
>about creating long-term sustainable growth. It's about keeping money
>turning over and keeping up the purchase of goods and services.
Okay, that makes sense.
>
>We're already out of the recession. But since employment typically lags the
>upturn in GDP, you have to keep it up for a while or your recovery can wind
>up stillborn. That's what happened in 1936.
>
>>
>> As far as I know, none of it has been used to say help my company or other
>> companies buy a
>> machine or invest in a process to grow the business and increase
>> employment.
>
>Why would you buy machines if you don't have new customers, or increased
>sales to existing ones? And, if you have increased sales, why do you need to
>get the government involved?
There is a good question. We, meaning my employer, invest because we see that we can make
a profit. So how does government create real jobs? Real meaning not taxed funded jobs.
>
>Why would the government help you employ people if you don't already have
>work for them to do? And if you already have work for them to do, why
>haven't you hired them already? d8-)
>
>>
>> Seems to me the money is keeping the state from making deep cuts in number
>> of state
>> employees and their fringe benefits. Something that has happened in the
>> real world aka
>> that part that is the private sector. Is this Obama's version of 'trickle
>> down'?
>
>They've cut $500,000,000 from education here in NJ over the past month. It
>doesn't seem to be stopping them from cutting. Why isn't your government
>cutting state employees or their benefits?
I'm trying to look into this. We have this wonderful Internet and search engines but some
things I really want to see seem to be out of my grasp.
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>With growth and sensible taxes, you pay the debt down. No growth, no
>>>chance.
>>>No taxes, no chance.
>>
>> I think growth would be easier to achieve if there was less government to
>> support.
>
>Of course. What would you like to cut first? It has to be something
>substantial or you're whistling Dixie. How about Social Security or
>Medicare? How about the Defense Department? Education? We can make kids as
>dumb as we want.
Defense and Education.
I posted my thoughts on how we are getting rolled on defense by our allies in another part
of this thread.
Education, we don't need a federal department of education. Let the States deal with it
on their terms. You seem to have a lot of faith in the feds. I have a lot of faith in
the individual states. If one state is screwing up, it will soon look to how the other
states that are getting it right are doing it.
>
>They're all huge expenses. Most of the rest is chicken feed.
>
>> Taxes,
>> well those are going to go up, whether I like it or not, the nation ran up
>> a big bill in
>> recent history.
>
>If we had Reagan or Bush in office, they'd probably just keep cutting until
>the country was bankrupt.
There are two thoughts on taxes. Laffer curve and the cow that keeps producing milk. Part
of tax cutting is an attempt to reduce the size of goverment. Unfortuantly, too many in
Congress accept deficit spending.
>
>>>
>>>In extremis, you let your currency deflate. Milton Friedman thought that
>>>it
>>>was the natural and logical thing, and should not be resisted. Your
>>>economy
>>>will still suck but you won't go bankrupt. And things won't collapse if
>>>you
>>>do it carefully.
>>
>> And that is the cruelest tax of all. It punishes those that have worked
>> and produced and
>> put away some of their earings to provide for them in their later years.
>
>That's the way it goes. If you think you know a way to break the business
>cycle and to prevent recessions, and the consequent need for deficit
>spending, there are a lot of people who would like to hear from you.
Avoiding some of this stupid crap like the Nasdaq bubble, insane mortgages via fanie m and
fanie m would be start. Then there are the derivatives. I'm not a big government fan but
there was a place a bit of regulation would have paid off.
>
>>
>>>
>>>Again, because we're not on a gold standard and because our debts are
>>>almost
>>>all denominated in our own currency, we're in relatively good shape. All
>>>of
>>>that makes it more necessary, however, to handle these things responsibly.
>>>"Responsibly" doesn't mean what it means in home economics, either.
>>
>> That raises another question, if our debtors force payment in a basket of
>> currencies,
>> where does that put us?
>
>Right where we are now. They can't "force" it. We have contracts. As for new
>contracts, there is no other currency that's likely to stand up better than
>the dollar, and they know it. Otherwise, oil contracts would not be in
>dollars.
We have contracts for a time. Contracts expire and have to be renegotiated.
>
>> IIRC some of the oil producing countries figure they are going to
>> get screwed taking US dollars.
>
>Poor them. <g> They love to bitch, don't they?
Get enough of them together and we squeel like a pig. I remember odd even.
>
>The solution there is to stop burning so God-damned much oil.
I'm all for nuclear power. Get that right, you can do electric vehicals.
We can even put charging coils in interstates and main arteries to increase range of EV's
to make them acceptable.
Wes
John R. Carroll
> "Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>> John's answer made sense to me.
>>> When a good portion of the world was bombed out, growth was a bit
>>> easier. Now, that is a
>>> tough nut. I've always thought the unrestrained immigration was an
>>> attempt to increase
>>> growth. But if the basic economics of increased population growth
>>> doesn't work year over
>>> year, it becomes yet another cheat or scam.
>>
>> Unrestrained immigration was an "attempt" by poverty-stricken
>> campesinos and others to find a better life. I seriously doubt if
>> anyone else involved in the decisions had any volition in it at all.
>
> The feds haven't been trying very hard to stop them from coming in.
The federal interest in illegal immigration is focused almost exclusively on
security and criminal issues Wes.
States rights - remember?
Our borders are, and have always been, porous.
>>>> So the big goal is to get growth going. It's going to be hard to
>>>> get enough
>>>> of it; the stimulus program is the only realistic thing government
>>>> can do. Business sure as hell won't do much on its own. You can
>>>> cut taxes and lower
>>>> wages until you're blue, but they won't invest if they think there
>>>> are no buyers for their products. When a recession gets this deep,
>>>> you really have
>>>> to stimulate the demand side.
>>>
>>> But what are we stimulating? I'm under the impression we are
>>> stimulating state
>>> governments by propping them up. So far 6.35B has been sent to my
>>> state. Recovery.org
>>> shows it directed at various state agencies. To bad we don't have a
>>> department of
>>> manufacturing. Engler left too soon.
Every State employee or teacher that doesn't lose their job is one less
person on the dole and one more person buying things rather than disposing
of assets to survive. The reverse of that is a full on depression with
rampant deflation. Everyone, as an individual, ends up in fire sale mode and
prices collapse right along with income.
>>
>> Short-run jobs and consumption. Stimulating consumption with deficit
>> spending doesn't build an economy, but it can keep one that's in
>> recession from tanking completely. Then, once you have an upturn in
>> employment, you quickly try to get some investment going and work
>> for sustainable growth.
>>
>> It's difficult to stimulate real growth with deficit spending. At
>> best, it might turn a decline around, but the effect is a weak one.
>> Stimulus is not about creating long-term sustainable growth.
AAAAAHHHH - Not exactly.
At least there is another aspect to this. What you defecit spend ON can
create the foundation for future growth and this is an important
consideration.
>>>
>>> As far as I know, none of it has been used to say help my company
>>> or other companies buy a
>>> machine or invest in a process to grow the business and increase
>>> employment.
Were the economy to truly collapse, you wouldn't have a job Wes.
There would not be a market for anything your employer makes.
A lot of stimulus money went into insuring that there were customers for
your product.
The appropriate response would be gratitude both that this didn't happen and
that there were people around that, perfectly or not, took actions that
halted the slide. Pat yourself on the back <G> as a tax payer.
>>>
>>> Seems to me the money is keeping the state from making deep cuts in
>>> number of state
>>> employees and their fringe benefits. Something that has happened
>>> in the real world aka
>>> that part that is the private sector. Is this Obama's version of
>>> 'trickle down'?
Not just his Wes and not trickle down. Michigan doesn't need another big
group geting benefit check from the local unemployment office. You also have
to look at just what the employees you'd like to get rid of do for you. Wich
services would you like to dispense with?
>>>> With growth and sensible taxes, you pay the debt down. No growth,
>>>> no chance.
>>>> No taxes, no chance.
>>>
>>> I think growth would be easier to achieve if there was less
>>> government to support.
The size and cost of government is only something you can evaluate in terms
of revenue.
Government, large or small, has got to be affordable. This is a case where
size truly doesn't matter in and of itself.
>>
>> Of course. What would you like to cut first? It has to be something
>> substantial or you're whistling Dixie. How about Social Security or
>> Medicare? How about the Defense Department? Education? We can make
>> kids as dumb as we want.
>
> Defense and Education.
>
> I posted my thoughts on how we are getting rolled on defense by our
> allies in another part of this thread.
>
> Education, we don't need a federal department of education. Let the
> States deal with it on their terms. You seem to have a lot of faith
> in the feds. I have a lot of faith in the individual states. If one
> state is screwing up, it will soon look to how the other states that
> are getting it right are doing it.
Your faith in the States has no basis in either history or reality Wes.
What happens is that the poorest States spend nothing.
We end up with large numbers of uneducated red necks that can't participate
in our economy in a meaningful and beneficail way.
Why would anyone want to squander that resource?
>>> Taxes,
>>> well those are going to go up, whether I like it or not, the nation
>>> ran up a big bill in
>>> recent history.
>>
They don't have to.
>> If we had Reagan or Bush in office, they'd probably just keep
>> cutting until the country was bankrupt.
>
> There are two thoughts on taxes. Laffer curve and the cow that keeps
> producing milk. Part of tax cutting is an attempt to reduce the size
> of goverment. Unfortuantly, too many in Congress accept deficit
> spending.
>
>>
>>>>
>>>> In extremis, you let your currency deflate. Milton Friedman
>>>> thought that it
>>>> was the natural and logical thing, and should not be resisted. Your
>>>> economy
>>>> will still suck but you won't go bankrupt. And things won't
>>>> collapse if you
>>>> do it carefully.
>>>
>>> And that is the cruelest tax of all. It punishes those that have
>>> worked and produced and
>>> put away some of their earings to provide for them in their later
>>> years.
Punishment?
We'd be a third world economy without many of the things taxes support.
Can you imagine an America without an Interstate Highway System Wes?
I can remember what that was like.
>>
>> That's the way it goes. If you think you know a way to break the
>> business cycle and to prevent recessions, and the consequent need
>> for deficit spending, there are a lot of people who would like to
>> hear from you.
>
> Avoiding some of this stupid crap like the Nasdaq bubble, insane
> mortgages via fanie m and fanie m would be start. Then there are the
> derivatives. I'm not a big government fan but there was a place a
> bit of regulation would have paid off.
You don't understand how the mortgage industry or GSE's work if you think
they were a big part of the current problem Wes.
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Again, because we're not on a gold standard and because our debts
>>>> are almost
>>>> all denominated in our own currency, we're in relatively good
>>>> shape. All of
>>>> that makes it more necessary, however, to handle these things
>>>> responsibly. "Responsibly" doesn't mean what it means in home
>>>> economics, either.
>>>
>>> That raises another question, if our debtors force payment in a
>>> basket of currencies,
>>> where does that put us?
>>
>> Right where we are now. They can't "force" it. We have contracts. As
>> for new contracts, there is no other currency that's likely to stand
>> up better than the dollar, and they know it. Otherwise, oil
>> contracts would not be in dollars.
>
> We have contracts for a time. Contracts expire and have to be
> renegotiated.
They can but when you say "force" you are talking about the present.
The world won't tolerate very much monkey business with the Dollar Wes.
One country flexing it's muscle would have little effect beyond screwing
everyone that had dollar denominated contracts or currency reserves.
Everyone except us. We're the only game in town that makes dollars.
--
John R. Carroll
Cross-Slide
> Everyone except us. We're the only game in town that makes dollars.
>
> --
> John R. Carroll
I was under the impression that worldwide, a Significant portion of
the (paper)dollars in circulation were counterfeit.
True or false?
F. George McDuffee
<nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote:
<snip>
>They can but when you say "force" you are talking about the present.
>The world won't tolerate very much monkey business with the Dollar Wes.
>One country flexing it's muscle would have little effect beyond screwing
>everyone that had dollar denominated contracts or currency reserves.
>Everyone except us. We're the only game in town that makes dollars.
>--
>John R. Carroll
Rumors persist that one of the major reasons for the Iraq war was
that Saddam Hussein had begun to sell oil in Euros, Yen and Yuan.
This had the potential to put a knot in the pantyhose of several
very influential groups in the US including the currency
traders/speculators as well as greatly increasing the cooperation
and trade between Iraq and the EEC/PRC/Japan while cutting out
the US middle men/banks, so Saddam had to go [and Chavaz may be
next on the hit list for the same reason].
http://www.feasta.org/documents/papers/oil1.htm
http://www.oftwominds.com/journal10/black-gold03-10.html
http://www.iraqdirectory.com/DisplayNews.aspx?id=11996
FWIW -- Iran will no longer accept the U.S. dollar in payment for
oil, and is phasing out all dollar denominated securities.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_oil_bourse
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/30/business/main4057490.shtml
John R. Carroll
> On Mar 31, 8:14 pm, "John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote:
>
>
>> Everyone except us. We're the only game in town that makes dollars.
>>
>
> the (paper)dollars in circulation were counterfeit.
> True or false?
Most of the dollars in the world only exist on computers.
--
John R. Carroll
John R. Carroll
> On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 17:14:27 -0800, "John R. Carroll"
> <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote:
> <snip>
>> They can but when you say "force" you are talking about the present.
>> The world won't tolerate very much monkey business with the Dollar
>> Wes. One country flexing it's muscle would have little effect beyond
>> screwing everyone that had dollar denominated contracts or currency
>> reserves. Everyone except us. We're the only game in town that makes
>> dollars. --
>> John R. Carroll
> ============
> Rumors persist that one of the major reasons for the Iraq war was
> that Saddam Hussein had begun to sell oil in Euros, Yen and Yuan.
It wasn't a rumor George. At one of their meetings in 2001, OPEC had begun
looking at a proposal to denominate their sales in Euro's rather than
dollars. They could see that the Euro was appreciating and the Bush
administration specifically stated that they weren't going to support to
prop up the US dollar, which was falling at the time. OPEC took a terrible
beating - the dollar lost 40 percent of it's value in a relatively short
period.
>
> FWIW -- Iran will no longer accept the U.S. dollar in payment for
> oil, and is phasing out all dollar denominated securities.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_oil_bourse
> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/30/business/main4057490.shtml
They are not, however, encouraging anyone to follow their lead and the
amounts involved are trivial on their own.
Iran is seen by most of the world as a sort of retarded child at this point.
--
John R. Carroll
John R. Carroll
> "Stormin Mormon" <cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> At which point, our creditors would be left with worthless
>> promises. However, what are the odds that the US government
>> (or any employee thereof) would ever break a promise?
>
> I don't see us ever defaulting.
Double digit inflation isn't much different than default if you are holding
long term debt issued at low rates - like today's.
It's a great way for us to wipe out our debt with cheapened dollars,
however, and that is why it's important for the Fed and the rest of our
government to be convincing in their arguments that they are serious about
fighting inflation when the time is right and that they know how to do so
and will.
--
John R. Carroll
dca...@krl.org
> But what are we stimulating? I'm under the impression we are stimulating state
> governments by propping them up. So far 6.35B has been sent to my state. Recovery.org
> shows it directed at various state agencies.
It used to be that Government employees got paid less than employees
in private industry, but the jobs were more secure. Less likely to be
laid off in a government job. But now government jobs pay more, have
better benefits, and are still more secure. So we are propping up
those government jobs.
There is a good chance that there will be not be much job creation
except in the public sector. The private sector has found ways to
reduce the number of employees. Computers are still getting more
powerful while getting cheaper. So we now have more automated
telephone systems, movies that employ computer graphics instead of
actors, etc.
Dan
> Seems to me the money is keeping the state from making deep cuts in number of state
> employees and their fringe benefits. Something that has happened in the real world aka
> that part that is the private sector. Is this Obama's version of 'trickle down'?
>
>
> Wes
Ed Huntress
>
>
> They've cut $500,000,000 from education here in NJ over the past month. It
> doesn't seem to be stopping them from cutting. Why isn't your government
> cutting state employees or their benefits?
Correction and update: It's a cut of $820,000,000 to education; 1,300 state
workers laid off; and a reduction of almost $500,000,000 in aid to towns and
cities.
--
Ed Huntress
Ed Huntress
> "Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>> John's answer made sense to me.
>>> When a good portion of the world was bombed out, growth was a bit
>>> easier.
>>> Now, that is a
>>> tough nut. I've always thought the unrestrained immigration was an
>>> attempt to increase
>>> growth. But if the basic economics of increased population growth
>>> doesn't
>>> work year over
>>> year, it becomes yet another cheat or scam.
>>
>>Unrestrained immigration was an "attempt" by poverty-stricken campesinos
>>and
>>others to find a better life. I seriously doubt if anyone else involved in
>>the decisions had any volition in it at all.
>
> The feds haven't been trying very hard to stop them from coming in.
Why start trouble? There is nothing to be gained by it, politically. It will
take a government with guts to fix it, and it could wind up being another
one of those things, like the CRA of '64, that costs one party or the other
most of its power for a generation. Or two or three.
>>
>>Population growth is going to be a big factor in coming years. You'll
>>notice
>>that some European countries now have negative population growth. We'll
>>learn a few things from them.
>
> Japan is investing heavily into robotics. They want to maintain their
> mono culture in the
> face of decreasing population growth.
>
> Europe will be interesting. The took in a bunch of Muslims, as we took in
> Hispanics for
> cheap work. I think we got a less problematical group that will
> assimilate eventually.
I think we got the better deal. <g> There's a heck of a story in the
Telegraph this week telling how the Muslims in one district in London have
the entire government there intimidated.
Yet, my town is loaded with Muslims, mostly East Indian. One is my son's
best friend. The ones I know are great, generous, hard-working people. My
cardiologist's name is Muhammed, and he's a laugh a minute. <g> I really
don't get it.
You've opened another discussion. I will avoid it for now. <g>
This is a gross oversimplification, but, with some argument, I think that
mainstream economists today would mostly agree that you can't stop a slide
into recession by encouraging investment, because no one in his right mind
will increase his operating costs while his market is retracting. But the
things you can do to stimulate consumption are limited in their ability to
sustain growth. I think of them more as a push in the rear to get things
moving on their own. I see from John's message that I will have to argue
this point a bit with him. d8-)
Defense is always going to be politically tough, but I'll be right behind
you. As for cutting federal education contributions, all it will do is push
the costs onto the states. I really don't see that one having legs.
Of course, there's always a reason things can't be cut. It's great for bar
discussions, but I don't think anyone has any realistic answers. We're
already one of the two or three lowest-taxed countries in the developed
world, so we're up against a lot of contrary facts when we think we have a
solution, that everyone else must see it, but for nefarious reasons they
don't do anything about it. I don't think the reasons are so nefarious.
>
> I posted my thoughts on how we are getting rolled on defense by our allies
> in another part
> of this thread.
>
> Education, we don't need a federal department of education. Let the
> States deal with it
> on their terms. You seem to have a lot of faith in the feds. I have a
> lot of faith in
> the individual states. If one state is screwing up, it will soon look to
> how the other
> states that are getting it right are doing it.
I have almost no faith at all in the states. I agree with James Madison that
government becomes less competent as its geographic and population scope
become smaller. If they weren't propped up by the federal government, they'd
collapse like so many houses of cards.
And they're much more corrupt. The state governments are mostly either
corrupt as hell, buffoonish, or both.
Of course, my impression is colored by living in one of the leading states
in both corruption and incompetence, <g> but I think the evidence is very
widespread.
>
>>
>>They're all huge expenses. Most of the rest is chicken feed.
>>
>>> Taxes,
>>> well those are going to go up, whether I like it or not, the nation ran
>>> up
>>> a big bill in
>>> recent history.
>>
>>If we had Reagan or Bush in office, they'd probably just keep cutting
>>until
>>the country was bankrupt.
>
> There are two thoughts on taxes. Laffer curve and the cow that keeps
> producing milk. Part
> of tax cutting is an attempt to reduce the size of goverment.
> Unfortuantly, too many in
> Congress accept deficit spending.
The Laffer curve is widely misunderstood. It's a curve that shows revenue
going up as you increase taxes, until you reach a point where taxes are
excessive, at which point revenues decline. No one knows where the peak
point is because the whole thing is a vast simplification, which doesn't
take such things as progressive tax rates into account. It's good for
illustrating a concept but it's all but useless as a guide for describing
real economies, except in the most general terms. Laffer has said this is in
so many words.
Laffer himself attributes the idea to John Meynard Keynes. Keynes also gave
us the theories behind deficit spending, and when it was appropriate. Thanks
to Reagan and his budget director, "Kill the Beast" Stockman, Democrats and
Republicans alike now think it's just a political issue. Witness Dick
Cheney, and his comment that "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter."
Sheesh.
>
>>
>>>>
>>>>In extremis, you let your currency deflate. Milton Friedman thought that
>>>>it
>>>>was the natural and logical thing, and should not be resisted. Your
>>>>economy
>>>>will still suck but you won't go bankrupt. And things won't collapse if
>>>>you
>>>>do it carefully.
>>>
>>> And that is the cruelest tax of all. It punishes those that have worked
>>> and produced and
>>> put away some of their earings to provide for them in their later years.
>>
>>That's the way it goes. If you think you know a way to break the business
>>cycle and to prevent recessions, and the consequent need for deficit
>>spending, there are a lot of people who would like to hear from you.
>
> Avoiding some of this stupid crap like the Nasdaq bubble, insane mortgages
> via fanie m and
> fanie m would be start. Then there are the derivatives. I'm not a big
> government fan but
> there was a place a bit of regulation would have paid off.
It sure would have.
I haven't heard about that one, but cheap electricity opens up a lot of
possibilities. I'm hopeful but wary.
--
Ed Huntress
dca...@krl.org
>
> I have almost no faith at all in the states. I agree with James Madison that
> government becomes less competent as its geographic and population scope
> become smaller. If they weren't propped up by the federal government, they'd
> collapse like so many houses of cards.
>
> And they're much more corrupt. The state governments are mostly either
> corrupt as hell, buffoonish, or both.
>
> Of course, my impression is colored by living in one of the leading states
> in both corruption and incompetence, <g> but I think the evidence is very
> widespread.
>
>
I recall that some studies have been made on the optimum size of
cities. The conclusion was that cities of about 100,000 to 150,000
had the best quality of life.
Big enough to have the hospitals, schools, entertainment, etc, but
with a lower crime rate than larger cities.
Dan
RBnDFW
> Yet, my town is loaded with Muslims, mostly East Indian. One is my son's
> best friend. The ones I know are great, generous, hard-working people. My
> cardiologist's name is Muhammed, and he's a laugh a minute. <g> I really
> don't get it.
I do. He's a sleeper agent. Watch your back!
> Defense is always going to be politically tough, but I'll be right behind
> you. As for cutting federal education contributions, all it will do is push
> the costs onto the states. I really don't see that one having legs.
I'm all for that. Education should be a very local issue.
The Feds should have never stuck their nose under that tent.
>> Education, we don't need a federal department of education. Let the
>> States deal with it
>> on their terms. You seem to have a lot of faith in the feds. I have a
>> lot of faith in
>> the individual states. If one state is screwing up, it will soon look to
>> how the other
>> states that are getting it right are doing it.
>
> I have almost no faith at all in the states. I agree with James Madison that
> government becomes less competent as its geographic and population scope
> become smaller. If they weren't propped up by the federal government, they'd
> collapse like so many houses of cards.
If by competent you mean efficient, I don't know that I want a very
efficient federal government. Germany was very efficient until about 1943.
> And they're much more corrupt. The state governments are mostly either
> corrupt as hell, buffoonish, or both.
The Feds are giving them a real run for their money, but Illinois and NJ
are way ahead. But there are plenty of good examples in State
government. If you ignore Rick Perry (and we do), I think we're doing OK
on that score here in Texas.
>> We can even put charging coils in interstates and main arteries to
>> increase range of EV's
>> to make them acceptable.
Probably cause cancer, or at least insanity. ;)
(Do I really have to put a smiley after a line like that?)
Hawke
> "Stormin Mormon"<cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> At which point, our creditors would be left with worthless
>> promises. However, what are the odds that the US government
>> (or any employee thereof) would ever break a promise?
>
> I don't see us ever defaulting. I could see us pulling our military forces back from the
> 116 nations or so we are helping to defend and telling them, hey, we got to pay our bills.
> Better man up and be ready to defend yourself.
Default is that last thing we'll ever do. The negative effects from that
would be far too great to ever do. But as for our military forces
helping to "defend" 116 nations, that's not close to reality. First off,
I've heard the figure 140 nations we have forces or bases in. Whatever
the real number we're not there to defend those countries. If we are who
are we defending them from? In today's world most countries only need
minimal military forces to defend themselves because there is little or
no military threat against them. If every country has a tiny military
then they are no threat to their neighbors and vice versa.
>
> I think we tend to be a super power because too many nations don't want to be a power and
> we are suckers when it comes to defense.
You're a sucker if you think our military is about defense at all.
Projection of power and using military force is not defense. The U.S.
has virtually no enemies at this time. No other country is any military
threat to the U.S. so having a huge military is not for defending
ourselves from other nations. It's about the benefits obtained from
having overwhelming military power. It's about what we get from having
the biggest military not because we need it for our defense.
>
> The war in Iraq and Afhganistan makes it pretty darn clear. I'll grant that Iraq wasn't
> the 'good war' but Afhganistan was supposed to be. Look how pitfull the support is of our
> allies. Too many countries send small detachments that are not even allowed to enter into
> combat.
Unlike us, they don't have big military forces they paid big bucks for
sitting around waiting to go into combat. Unlike us, they want to avoid
wars, which benefit no one. A quick look is all it takes to see that
none of the wars the U.S. is in were necessary, but were undertaken by
someone's political choice. It seems that everyone but us has figured
out going to war is a stupid thing to do and should be avoided. The only
time it should be an option is when there is no other option. Clearly,
we don't follow that policy, and we have paid a ridiculously high price
and have gained nothing. Makes you wonder why we keep making this
mistake over and over when the rest of the world isn't.
> I probably insulted a couple nations. UK, I wasn't talking about you.
>
> Wes
I doubt they are offended, Wes. Most of them believe they have taken the
smart course and that we are idiots for our military adventures that
cost us a ton and gain us Jack. I tend to agree with them.
Hawke
John R. Carroll
> "Wes" <clu...@lycos.com> wrote in message
> news:zwQsn.118434$Bs1....@en-nntp-01.dc1.easynews.com...
>> "Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>> Why would you buy machines if you don't have new customers, or
>>> increased sales to existing ones? And, if you have increased sales,
>>> why do you need to
>>> get the government involved?
>>
>> There is a good question. We, meaning my employer, invest because
>> we see that we can make
>> a profit. So how does government create real jobs? Real meaning not
>> taxed funded jobs.
>
> You've opened another discussion. I will avoid it for now. <g>
>
> This is a gross oversimplification, but, with some argument, I think
> that mainstream economists today would mostly agree that you can't
> stop a slide into recession by encouraging investment, because no one
> in his right mind will increase his operating costs while his market
> is retracting. But the things you can do to stimulate consumption are
> limited in their ability to sustain growth. I think of them more as a
> push in the rear to get things moving on their own. I see from John's
> message that I will have to argue this point a bit with him. d8-)
>
LOL
I'll bet.
>
> Defense is always going to be politically tough, but I'll be right
> behind you.
Any significant reduction in sending will necessrily have to ne made where
the money is, not where it isn't.
You could easily, for instance, whack $100 billion a year from defense
spending without reducing readiness or otherwise impeding our global
national security posture. That would, however, require the American public
to grow a pair and stop being afraid of their own shadow. That isn't
practical with all of the hype from every possible direction so it will
require that our politicians display a little courage, possibly by falling
on their own swords for the greater good.
Here is a quote that Nancy Pelosi is said to have repeated during her
efforts to "persuade" certain Democrats to vote for the bill:
"I don't order you to fight, I order you to die."
It's the first Part of an order issued by Ataturk (Col. Kerman Mustafa) to
his subordinates at Gallipoli.
To his troops he said "You can not run away from your enemy! If you have no
amunition you have your bayonets."
It will take that sort of thing to make cuts in defense spending.
--
John R. Carroll
Wes
>You could easily, for instance, whack $100 billion a year from defense
>spending without reducing readiness or otherwise impeding our global
>national security posture. That would, however, require the American public
>to grow a pair and stop being afraid of their own shadow. That isn't
>practical with all of the hype from every possible direction so it will
>require that our politicians display a little courage, possibly by falling
>on their own swords for the greater good.
Even when DOD tries to cut spending, congress critters put it back in.
Consider the C-130.
http://lobby.la.psu.edu/_107th/092_C_130_Procurement/summary_c_130.html
Wes
John R. Carroll
The C-17 is another example. That program had been shut down every year or
two since 1999.
Gates and Obama finally pulled the plug a few months ago.
The comment I originally made, and which you excluded, was entirely
appropriate.
The only reason these programs are continued is that they get votes.
Should the numbers continue to show the improvement reported today, you will
see the results at the polls in a few months Wes and it won't be pretty for
Republicans. The reverse is also equally true. An adverse change will be bad
for Democrats.
You might remember "It's the economy stupid!" from a past President and it
is as true now as it was then.
--
John R. Carroll
Ed Huntress
"RBnDFW" <burkh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hp2ee3$jrf$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Ed Huntress wrote:
>
>> Yet, my town is loaded with Muslims, mostly East Indian. One is my son's
>> best friend. The ones I know are great, generous, hard-working people. My
>> cardiologist's name is Muhammed, and he's a laugh a minute. <g> I really
>> don't get it.
>
> I do. He's a sleeper agent. Watch your back!
<g> And my endocrinologist, until I left him, was named Hussein. He's a
friend of my cardiologist, Muhammed. No kidding.
>
>
>> Defense is always going to be politically tough, but I'll be right behind
>> you. As for cutting federal education contributions, all it will do is
>> push the costs onto the states. I really don't see that one having legs.
>
> I'm all for that. Education should be a very local issue.
> The Feds should have never stuck their nose under that tent.
I think it's the opposite. The more local you make school control, the
dumber it gets. You won't find local control among any of the countries that
beat our kids' pants off on standardized tests.
The very idea of a local school board is like a comic parody. Once they've
set the date for the senior prom, and decided who is going to fix the leak
in the elementary school roof, they're out of intellectual gas.
>
>
>>> Education, we don't need a federal department of education. Let the
>>> States deal with it
>>> on their terms. You seem to have a lot of faith in the feds. I have a
>>> lot of faith in
>>> the individual states. If one state is screwing up, it will soon look
>>> to how the other
>>> states that are getting it right are doing it.
>>
>> I have almost no faith at all in the states. I agree with James Madison
>> that government becomes less competent as its geographic and population
>> scope become smaller. If they weren't propped up by the federal
>> government, they'd collapse like so many houses of cards.
>
> If by competent you mean efficient, I don't know that I want a very
> efficient federal government. Germany was very efficient until about 1943.
I mean capable of coming up with good solutions to problems, having the
resources to do something about them, and having access to the people who
can get it done. The smaller government gets, the less likely all three of
those things are.
Going back to Madison and Jefferson, Madison's point was that you needed a
certain number of people in a governing body, no matter how many people were
being governed, just to avoid being victimized by factional interests. In
fact, state legislatures tend to have a high representative rate compared to
the federal government -- often by 50:1 or even more.
As the population from which you draw gets smaller, you have decreasing
likelihood of coming up with enough quality people. Jefferson, on the other
hand, thought that small units of government were a good thing, but that
they had very limited competence. All of the FFs thought we needed a federal
government with real authority to get the big jobs done.
I think all of them had an important insight, based on their understanding
of immutable human nature. And I think that education is one of the big
jobs.
>
>> And they're much more corrupt. The state governments are mostly either
>> corrupt as hell, buffoonish, or both.
>
> The Feds are giving them a real run for their money, but Illinois and NJ
> are way ahead. But there are plenty of good examples in State government.
> If you ignore Rick Perry (and we do), I think we're doing OK on that score
> here in Texas.
I think that Louisianna is still highest on the FBI's anti-corruption
investigation unit list, but we're in the running. <g> Regarding Texas, when
the Democrats in your legislature have to hide out in Oklahoma so the
Republicans can't assemble a quorum, you have your share of buffoons, too.
d8-)
>
>
>>> We can even put charging coils in interstates and main arteries to
>>> increase range of EV's
>>> to make them acceptable.
>
> Probably cause cancer, or at least insanity. ;)
> (Do I really have to put a smiley after a line like that?)
It's hard to do a tongue-in-cheek.
I love all of these futuristic ideas. I don't mean to make light of them. I
just want to see some real projects underway, rather than being the subject
of future-science articles in the newspapers, or "color" stories that wrap
up the evening news.
--
Ed Huntress
Wes
I sure don't want to go back to the Nixon, Ford, and Carter economy. Remember WIN, Whip
Inflation Now?
Wes
John R. Carroll
What I remember was being at 1% over prime and paying 21% interest on a 90
day revolving line of credit in 1981/82.
--
John R. Carroll
F. George McDuffee
<snip>
>I don't see us ever defaulting.
No need to default as long as the printing presses keep running,
or in this new era as long as the computers are up. The FRB can
and will create all the money needed to cover the bonds, t-bills,
entitlements, etc. The question "will this money be worth
anything?" is another topic.
RBnDFW
> Wes wrote:
>> "John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote:
>>
>>> You could easily, for instance, whack $100 billion a year from
>>> defense spending without reducing readiness or otherwise impeding
>>> our global national security posture. That would, however, require
>>> the American public to grow a pair and stop being afraid of their
>>> own shadow. That isn't practical with all of the hype from every
>>> possible direction so it will require that our politicians display a
>>> little courage, possibly by falling on their own swords for the
>>> greater good.
>> Even when DOD tries to cut spending, congress critters put it back in.
>>
>> Consider the C-130.
>>
>> http://lobby.la.psu.edu/_107th/092_C_130_Procurement/summary_c_130.html
>>
>
> The C-17 is another example. That program had been shut down every year or
> two since 1999.
> Gates and Obama finally pulled the plug a few months ago.
> The comment I originally made, and which you excluded, was entirely
> appropriate.
> The only reason these programs are continued is that they get votes.
That's the "Bringing Home the bacon" or Pork Barrel Spending, depending
on whether it means jobs in your state or another.
these days you can't even build in airplane at one factory. You have to
parcel it out to 15 companies in as many states to spread out the pork.
RBnDFW
Same here. Had a 21% note on $75K buying a business.
RBnDFW
> "RBnDFW" <burkh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:hp2ee3$jrf$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Ed Huntress wrote:
>>
>>> Yet, my town is loaded with Muslims, mostly East Indian. One is my son's
>>> best friend. The ones I know are great, generous, hard-working people. My
>>> cardiologist's name is Muhammed, and he's a laugh a minute. <g> I really
>>> don't get it.
>> I do. He's a sleeper agent. Watch your back!
>
> <g> And my endocrinologist, until I left him, was named Hussein. He's a
> friend of my cardiologist, Muhammed. No kidding.
>
>>
>>> Defense is always going to be politically tough, but I'll be right behind
>>> you. As for cutting federal education contributions, all it will do is
>>> push the costs onto the states. I really don't see that one having legs.
>> I'm all for that. Education should be a very local issue.
>> The Feds should have never stuck their nose under that tent.
>
> I think it's the opposite. The more local you make school control, the
> dumber it gets. You won't find local control among any of the countries that
> beat our kids' pants off on standardized tests.
Then how do home schoolers excel over public-schooled students?
Doesn't get much more local than that.
Most of us on this board got a public school education when local
control was the rule, and the feds had little influence.
Except for Cliff and a few others, this seems like a smart bunch.
<g> Regarding Texas, when
> the Democrats in your legislature have to hide out in Oklahoma so the
> Republicans can't assemble a quorum, you have your share of buffoons, too.
> d8-)
Unfortunately, the buffoons came back.
John R. Carroll
> Ed Huntress wrote:
>> "RBnDFW" <burkh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:hp2ee3$jrf$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> Ed Huntress wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yet, my town is loaded with Muslims, mostly East Indian. One is my
>>>> son's best friend. The ones I know are great, generous,
>>>> hard-working people. My cardiologist's name is Muhammed, and he's
>>>> a laugh a minute. <g> I really don't get it.
>>> I do. He's a sleeper agent. Watch your back!
>>
>> <g> And my endocrinologist, until I left him, was named Hussein.
>> He's a friend of my cardiologist, Muhammed. No kidding.
>>
>>>
>>>> Defense is always going to be politically tough, but I'll be right
>>>> behind you. As for cutting federal education contributions, all it
>>>> will do is push the costs onto the states. I really don't see that
>>>> one having legs.
>>> I'm all for that. Education should be a very local issue.
>>> The Feds should have never stuck their nose under that tent.
>>
>> I think it's the opposite. The more local you make school control,
>> the dumber it gets. You won't find local control among any of the
>> countries that beat our kids' pants off on standardized tests.
>
> Then how do home schoolers excel over public-schooled students?
> Doesn't get much more local than that.
They don't always.
>
> Most of us on this board got a public school education when local
> control was the rule, and the feds had little influence.
The feds have had a lot of influence since education becme mandatory by
federal statute.
All anyone really has to do is be willing to forego federal funding to opt
out.
Any volunteers?
--
John R. Carroll
Ed Huntress
> Ed Huntress wrote:
>> "RBnDFW" <burkh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:hp2ee3$jrf$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> Ed Huntress wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yet, my town is loaded with Muslims, mostly East Indian. One is my
>>>> son's best friend. The ones I know are great, generous, hard-working
>>>> people. My cardiologist's name is Muhammed, and he's a laugh a minute.
>>>> <g> I really don't get it.
>>> I do. He's a sleeper agent. Watch your back!
>>
>> <g> And my endocrinologist, until I left him, was named Hussein. He's a
>> friend of my cardiologist, Muhammed. No kidding.
>>
>>>
>>>> Defense is always going to be politically tough, but I'll be right
>>>> behind you. As for cutting federal education contributions, all it will
>>>> do is push the costs onto the states. I really don't see that one
>>>> having legs.
>>> I'm all for that. Education should be a very local issue.
>>> The Feds should have never stuck their nose under that tent.
>>
>> I think it's the opposite. The more local you make school control, the
>> dumber it gets. You won't find local control among any of the countries
>> that beat our kids' pants off on standardized tests.
>
> Then how do home schoolers excel over public-schooled students?
> Doesn't get much more local than that.
If you had one teacher for each one or two student in public school classes,
reacting to each student's learning patterns individually, they'd probably
beat the hell out of home schoolers, too. It would only cost us around
$70,000/student/year.
>
> Most of us on this board got a public school education when local control
> was the rule, and the feds had little influence.
>
> Except for Cliff and a few others, this seems like a smart bunch.
It is a smart bunch. I imagine that, collectively, we'd score well up in
test percentages.
>
> <g> Regarding Texas, when
>> the Democrats in your legislature have to hide out in Oklahoma so the
>> Republicans can't assemble a quorum, you have your share of buffoons,
>> too. d8-)
>
> Unfortunately, the buffoons came back.
<g>
--
Ed Huntress
dca...@krl.org
>
> If you had one teacher for each one or two student in public school classes,
> reacting to each student's learning patterns individually, they'd probably
> beat the hell out of home schoolers, too. It would only cost us around
> $70,000/student/year.
>
>
> Ed Huntress
Actually there are no reputable studies that have found any
correlation between class size and learning.
Indeed in todays WSJ there is an article about Jaime Escalante who
died this week. The movie " Stand and Deliver " was about his
teaching advanced math to kids in Garfield High School in Los
Angeles. He often had classes with as many as 50 kids. The teachers
union ran him out of the school because he did not support their
efforts to reduce class size.
Dan
cavelamb
Since you mentioned him, he just passed away this week...
--
Richard Lamb
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb/
John R. Carroll
On Caesar Chavez Day no less.
--
John R. Carroll
Wes
>> Since you mentioned him, he just passed away this week...
>
>On Caesar Chavez Day no less.
I actually admire the guy. Speaking of César Chávez.
At least in his earlier days, he was anti illegal immigration since he knew that
undermined the wages of mexican americans that were farm laborers.
Wes
John R. Carroll
> "John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote:
>
>>> Since you mentioned him, he just passed away this week...
>>
>> On Caesar Chavez Day no less.
>
>
> At least in his earlier days, he was anti illegal immigration since
> he knew that undermined the wages of mexican americans that were farm
> laborers.
One of the unintended consequences of his efforts was that illegal
immigration became more attractive.
He also has managed to get State offices closed one day each year.
I went to file a motion in Superior Court and they were closed. I should
have twigged to a holiday of some sort because traffic was pretty light. Man
was I pissed. Three hours of driving and $20.00 to park for nothing.
LOL
--
John R. Carroll
Ed Huntress
"John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in message
news:GvCdnbAGRL-oeC7W...@giganews.com...
> Wes wrote:
>> "Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
<snip>
>>>
>>> It's difficult to stimulate real growth with deficit spending. At
>>> best, it might turn a decline around, but the effect is a weak one.
>>> Stimulus is not about creating long-term sustainable growth.
>
> AAAAAHHHH - Not exactly.
> At least there is another aspect to this. What you defecit spend ON can
> create the foundation for future growth and this is an important
> consideration.
In theory, it can. In practice, it's very difficult, or maybe impossible, to
direct *enough* of a stimulus into projects that specifically lead to real
growth. You won't get anything but a fizzle if you try to make it all
infrastructure, or education, or other things that arguably provide a
foundation for growth. You can't move enough money, fast enough, that way.
The mainstream view, if I'm not behind on it (I haven't been reading
economics journals for a while), is that you really have to focus on how
money is going to move around, and who it is who needs that money to prevent
a crumbling of important institutions like home ownership, the credit
system, the existing education system and vital services such as police and
fire, etc. The Obama plan does a lot of that. It doesn't do a lot of direct
building of the economy; it keeps crucial institutions from collapsing.
So everyone is always in favor of stimulus that directly feeds real growth,
but no one has ever really succeeded in directing money that way in a
recession. I don't know of a way to do it, politics aside.
--
Ed Huntress
Ed Huntress
<dca...@krl.org> wrote in message
news:36fd4b4b-71bc-425b...@j41g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
Yeah, I think those studies are dealing mostly with the issues of social
services and their necessary scales; interrelationships of business and
people; and so on. At least, that's the way the subject was analyzed in city
planning studies, 40 years ago, when I last encountered it.
Madison was dealing with the question of how to prevent special interests
from politically exploiting the citizenry as a whole. He was speculating,
but his ideas are interesting. And then he sat down and wrote most of the US
Constitution. d8-)
--
Ed Huntress
Wes
>Wes wrote:
>> "John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote:
>>
>>>> Since you mentioned him, he just passed away this week...
>>>
>>> On Caesar Chavez Day no less.
>>
>> I actually admire the guy. Speaking of César Chávez.
>>
>> At least in his earlier days, he was anti illegal immigration since
>> he knew that undermined the wages of mexican americans that were farm
>> laborers.
>
>One of the unintended consequences of his efforts was that illegal
>immigration became more attractive.
I'm not a fan of slave labor which is my definition of illegal aliens working in our
economy. I wasn't around when slavery was legal to make a stand so I'll just have to say
that winking at illegals is very much the same thing.
>He also has managed to get State offices closed one day each year.
>I went to file a motion in Superior Court and they were closed. I should
>have twigged to a holiday of some sort because traffic was pretty light. Man
>was I pissed. Three hours of driving and $20.00 to park for nothing.
20 bucks to park? Does that come with valet service? I haven't paid a parking fee in
years other than attending NAMES.
Wes
Ed Huntress
<dca...@krl.org> wrote in message
news:e3333443-0209-4894...@e21g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 1, 11:59 pm, "Ed Huntress" <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> If you had one teacher for each one or two student in public school
> classes,
> reacting to each student's learning patterns individually, they'd probably
> beat the hell out of home schoolers, too. It would only cost us around
> $70,000/student/year.
>
>
> Ed Huntress
>Actually there are no reputable studies that have found any
>correlation between class size and learning.
Oh, come on, Dan. We aren't talking about 15 students versus 30. We're
talking about *one on one* versus mass classes.
>Indeed in todays WSJ there is an article about Jaime Escalante who
>died this week. The movie " Stand and Deliver " was about his
>teaching advanced math to kids in Garfield High School in Los
>Angeles. He often had classes with as many as 50 kids. The teachers
>union ran him out of the school because he did not support their
>efforts to reduce class size.
>
> Dan
So, go find yourself some more Jaime Escalantes. I'm sure there are at least
three or four more somewhere in the United States.
But if there were more, there would be no article about him in the WSJ.
You can't design an education system, any more than a business organization,
on the premise that you'll hire Superman.
--
Ed Huntress
John R. Carroll
> "John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in message
> news:GvCdnbAGRL-oeC7W...@giganews.com...
>> Wes wrote:
>>> "Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>>>
>>>> It's difficult to stimulate real growth with deficit spending. At
>>>> best, it might turn a decline around, but the effect is a weak one.
>>>> Stimulus is not about creating long-term sustainable growth.
>>
>> AAAAAHHHH - Not exactly.
>> At least there is another aspect to this. What you defecit spend ON
>> can create the foundation for future growth and this is an important
>> consideration.
>
> In theory, it can. In practice, it's very difficult, or maybe
> impossible, to direct *enough* of a stimulus into projects that
> specifically lead to real growth.
The TVA lead to real growth Ed.
So did the construction of the Interstate highway System, the St. Lawrence
Seaway, and the Erie Canal. Some jobs were produced right away to build the
things but they all made real long term growth possible far beyond anything
that would have been possible in their absence. The Corps of Engineers
hasn't stopped digging and dredging in NJ in your lifetime. The economy
would collapse if they did.
N.O. Needs a big harbor project and we'll either get about the job or the
Mississippi won't be passable to open water. Doing this stuff no makes
perfect sense especially now because it wouldn't put pressure on a tight
labor market and be inflationary.
Even John Boehner is admitting that he was wrong in his stated belief that
health care would collapse the country this week or next.
We might as well start acting as though there is going to be a future by
preparing to take the fullest possible advantage of the opportunities that
exist now and will down the road. Somebody probable ought to sit down and
make a damned plan or something<G>
>You won't get anything but a fizzle
> if you try to make it all infrastructure, or education, or other
> things that arguably provide a foundation for growth. You can't move
> enough money, fast enough, that way.
I honestly don't think actual amounts matter at ten percent unemployment.
Ten percent is painful, but hardly catastrophic.
90 percent are working, sort of. Consumer confidence is still low and the
needle needs a shove.
I'll be pleased as hell when Bernanke starts getting twitchy about
inflation.
Everyone but bond holders ought to cheer when the Fed raises rates two
meetings in a row.
As a public matter, we ought to be selling as much long term debt as we can
find buyers for right now.
Money will not be this cheap again for a long time and there will be
inflation. We need there to be inflation as a matter of fact.
Two or three percent would do nicely.
>
> The mainstream view, if I'm not behind on it (I haven't been reading
> economics journals for a while), is that you really have to focus on
> how money is going to move around, and who it is who needs that money
> to prevent a crumbling of important institutions like home ownership,
> the credit system, the existing education system and vital services
> such as police and fire, etc. The Obama plan does a lot of that. It
> doesn't do a lot of direct building of the economy; it keeps crucial
> institutions from collapsing.
And has the advantage of not really costing a whole lot.
Don't forget that one, as you mention this is preservative and defensive.
They don't lead to anything. Preventing collapse is certainly worth doing
but why pass up a perfectly good crisis to actually get some things done for
the future. Absent some big water projects in our city's, we will all be
drinking water that resembles piss from a broken down system that can't
deliver product reliably. These kinds of things can pose a real headwind for
future growth.
Worse that higher levels of debt by far.
As for the "mainstream" view, did you see Krugman's piece today? He
contradicts his own argument.
I think he's lost a marble or had a brain fart.
>
> So everyone is always in favor of stimulus that directly feeds real
> growth, but no one has ever really succeeded in directing money that
> way in a recession.
The recession is over unless we have another dip and it has been. Global
debt and the bond market are worrisome but it's the long term future and the
public's role that genuinely concerns me.
Crappy infrastructure and yesterdays energy policy will be a real drag on
future growth and anyone, economist or not, should be able to understand
that - even without a computer model. The world as we all knew it doesn't
exist.
--
John R. Carroll
dca...@krl.org
> You can't design an education system, any more than a business organization,
> on the premise that you'll hire Superman.
>
> --
> Ed Huntress
You can design a business organization on the promise that you will
hire only people that are way above average. The funny thing is that
it does not cost that much more in salaries. Hewlett Packard did that
back in the '60's. And because their employees were above average,
they attracted above average applicants. Makes a hell of a difference
in the work environment. Google, Microsoft, and Cisco do that now.
I suspect that the same thing applies to education systems too. The
Ivy league colleges hire the best and brightest. Seems to work out
for them. Because they have the best professors, they get the
brightest students. And because they get the brightest students, they
have the brightest alumnae. Who contribute to the colleges, so the
colleges have the biggest endowments and hire the best and brightest.
Dan
John R. Carroll
That's nothing Wes. It's $352.00 just to file a motion.
At least I wrote my own. That saved a bunch of money - unless I F'd it up.
People bitch a lot about the cost of litigation but I can tell you it looks
like a lot less work to a client than it is.
I've probably got 20 hours tied up just looking over case law in Shepard's.
--
John R. Carroll
dca...@krl.org
> Oh, come on, Dan. We aren't talking about 15 students versus 30. We're
> talking about *one on one* versus mass classes.
>
> Ed Huntress
I do not think it makes any difference. The reason home schooling
gets such good results is not so much the one on one teaching. It is
because the average home schooled student comes from a family of above
average education who place a high value on getting a good education.
So the kids would do better than average even if they were in public
schools. Also the kids are motivated to do well because they are
doing it for their parents. They would not be as motivated to work as
hard for a teacher, even if it was a one on one situation.
Dan
F. George McDuffee
<hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
<snip>
>So everyone is always in favor of stimulus that directly feeds real growth,
>but no one has ever really succeeded in directing money that way in a
>recession. I don't know of a way to do it, politics aside.
>
>--
>Ed Huntress
While highly desirable, this is very difficult in a rapidly
changing economy/culture. While historical data exists and tools
such as input-output analysis are available, this leaves the
policy makers in the position of attempting to drive down the
interstate at 70 MPH by looking in the rear view mirror.
Another problem is defining "real growth." Does this mean
"economic growth," e.g. more of the same only better (which is
largely how/why we got into trouble in the first place) or does
it mean "economic development," e.g. the development of new
products, services and organizations. Another facet of this
question is how are the benefits to be shared?
As I have indicated in previous posts on other threads, until and
unless Draconian financial and corporate governance
reform/regulation is enacted and rigorously/intensively enforced
for both institutions and individuals, this is simply sending
good [taxpayer] money after bad, as the economic crises,
debacles, catastrophes, disasters, etc. will just keep occurring,
and the retail investors/taxpayers will continue to take it
directly and indirectly in the shorts.
Ed Huntress
<dca...@krl.org> wrote in message
news:a14c46ea-9e6b-4b41...@z9g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
Yeah, well, it's nice and good to say we should hire better teachers. My
wife is a teacher. I can assure you that, unless you get an unusual
individual who is just devoted to the idea of teaching, there is little
about our educational system that is going to attract the "best and the
brightest."
We slander teachers all the time; relative to comparably difficult jobs in
business and industry, they're paid pretty sadly (my wife made a little more
than half of what I made as an editor, when I was full-time, and her job was
harder). My wife is dedicated and teaches special ed. Sometimes I wonder
why.
Unlike Princeton and Harvard grads, they have no hope of getting a trading
job on Wall Street and making 8-figure bonuses.
--
Ed Huntress
Dan
John R. Carroll
Just have one of her students write a trading program Ed.
Nobody understands that stuff anyway.
Ed Huntress
"John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in message
> Ed Huntress wrote:
>> "John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in message
>> news:GvCdnbAGRL-oeC7W...@giganews.com...
>>> Wes wrote:
>>>> "Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It's difficult to stimulate real growth with deficit spending. At
>>>>> best, it might turn a decline around, but the effect is a weak one.
>>>>> Stimulus is not about creating long-term sustainable growth.
>>>
>>> AAAAAHHHH - Not exactly.
>>> At least there is another aspect to this. What you defecit spend ON
>>> can create the foundation for future growth and this is an important
>>> consideration.
>>
>> In theory, it can. In practice, it's very difficult, or maybe
>> impossible, to direct *enough* of a stimulus into projects that
>> specifically lead to real growth.
>
> The TVA lead to real growth Ed.
But that's one example, and I'm not sure how much good it actually did in
the short run. They were still building the TVA when I was a kid, and used
to fish down there at Dale Hollow Reservoir.
I'm not saying that some projects don't lead to growth. I'm saying that, in
the short time in which it's necessary to get money moving through the
economy in a downturn, you can't find a lot of those in which to invest.
> So did the construction of the Interstate highway System, the St. Lawrence
> Seaway, and the Erie Canal. Some jobs were produced right away to build
> the
> things but they all made real long term growth possible far beyond
> anything
> that would have been possible in their absence. The Corps of Engineers
> hasn't stopped digging and dredging in NJ in your lifetime. The economy
> would collapse if they did.
I think we're talking about different things. Infrastructure investment can
be a great promoter of the economy. But I'm talking about the short-run need
to get cash moving in a recession.
'Haven't read it yet. He's been getting frisky lately.
>
>>
>> So everyone is always in favor of stimulus that directly feeds real
>> growth, but no one has ever really succeeded in directing money that
>> way in a recession.
>
> The recession is over unless we have another dip and it has been. Global
> debt and the bond market are worrisome but it's the long term future and
> the
> public's role that genuinely concerns me.
> Crappy infrastructure and yesterdays energy policy will be a real drag on
> future growth and anyone, economist or not, should be able to understand
> that - even without a computer model. The world as we all knew it doesn't
> exist.
Ok, I'm not going to try to pick nits. I think the important thing to
remember is that deficit spending in a recession has one primary objective:
to increase demand. If you can do it while building for the future, great.
But stimulus is inherently always too late, and often too little, as it was
this time. We needed over $ trillion a year ago (one estimate, based on
Japan's experiences, says $2.1 trillion was the amount needed, based on
real-world experience) last January. Politically, it's impossible.
Economically, it's the only thing that makes sense.
--
Ed Huntress
axolotl
Back to the initial premise- is there any data to support the thesis
that homeschooling is "better" for the school age population?
Kevin Gallimore
axolotl
Please forgive the bad editing- when I've had more sleep I know the
difference between data and datum.
Kevin Gallimore
F. George McDuffee
<nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote:
<snip>
>That would, however, require the American public
>to grow a pair and stop being afraid of their own shadow. That isn't
>practical with all of the hype from every possible direction so it will
>require that our politicians display a little courage, possibly by falling
>on their own swords for the greater good.
============
Even here there is no [quasi] logic applied. With the serious
problems of illegal immigration, drugs, and now narco-violence
spilling over our souther borders, why do we have troops
stationed everywhere in the world *EXCEPT* along the southern
border?
There does not need to be any abrupt change, just no more
replacements assigned out of country as the tour of duty ends for
existing personnel.
All new reassignments should be to small military posts along the
southern border to man the new border fences/barriers. Not only
would the US security increase, but very significant balance of
payments costs are avoided as the spending by military personnel
on locally provided food, housing, etc. would be domestic dollar
denominated transactions.
John R. Carroll
> On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 12:07:33 -0800, "John R. Carroll"
> <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote:
> <snip>
>> That would, however, require the American public
>> to grow a pair and stop being afraid of their own shadow. That isn't
>> practical with all of the hype from every possible direction so it
>> will require that our politicians display a little courage, possibly
>> by falling on their own swords for the greater good.
> <snip>
> ============
> Even here there is no [quasi] logic applied. With the serious
> problems of illegal immigration, drugs, and now narco-violence
> spilling over our souther borders, why do we have troops
> stationed everywhere in the world *EXCEPT* along the southern
> border?
That's easy George.
The Latin gangs terrorizing places like Phoenix aren't wearing diapers on
their heads.
4th ID would be patrolling the streets from Mexico City north to the border
today if they did.
I still think my idea to parachute 10,000 naked menopausal Irish women each
with a bottle of single malt into Iraq and Afgahanistan is a winner. They'd
give a drunken Irish ass woopin' to anyone that didn't gouge out their eyes
and that would be the end of that.
--
John R. Carroll
Frnak McKenney
> You can't design an education system, any more than a business organization,
> on the premise that you'll hire Superman.
Or a Navy. Herman Wouk talks about this in "The Caine Mutiny", but
many people get so caught up in the trial scene that they miss this.
Frank McKenney
--
"Even if you are on the right track, you'll get run over if
you just sit there." -- Will Rogers
--
Frank McKenney, McKenney Associates
Richmond, Virginia / (804) 320-4887
Munged E-mail: frank uscore mckenney ayut mined spring dawt cahm (y'all)
Frnak McKenney
Dan,
If you're curious as to why coming from a family with an above-average
education gives a kid a "leg up", the best explanation I've read so
far is described in E.D. Hirsch's writings; "The Knowledge Deficit"
is a good introduction.
Frank McKenney
--
Reading achievement will nor advance significantly until schools
recognize and act on the fact that it depends on the possession of
a broad but definable range of diverse knowledge. The effective
teaching of reading will require schools to teach the diverse,
enabling knowledge that reading requires.
-- E.D. Hirsch, Jr./The Knowledge Deficit
dca...@krl.org
<fr...@far.from.the.madding.crowd.com> wrote:
>
> If you're curious as to why coming from a family with an above-average
> education gives a kid a "leg up", the best explanation I've read so
> far is described in E.D. Hirsch's writings; "The Knowledge Deficit"
> is a good introduction.
>
> Frank McKenney
> -
Thanks for the book recommendation. I will see what the library
system here has of his writings. To me it is obvious to the most
casual observer why coming from a family of above average education
gives kids a leg up.
Some parents do things like encouraging their kids to read. During
the summer after I was in about the third or fourth grade, my parents
decided that they would read " A tail of Two Cities " to my sister and
me. After a day or so, it became obvious that reading aloud was too
slow, so my sister and I each read it by ourselves. But without my
parents influence, I would not gotten interested in reading that book.
Dan
dca...@krl.org
>
> Back to the initial premise- is there any data to support the thesis
> that homeschooling is "better" for the school age population?
>
> Kevin Gallimore
I think that homeschooling is better in that it lets kids progress at
their own rate.
Especially important if their rate is much different from the average
rate. Can be done in regular schools, but I do not think that is
often done. So I would say that homeschooling is better for say the
top 15% and the bottom 15%. But not a lot better for about 70% of the
students. The percentages are WAG's.
Dan
Ed Huntress
<dca...@krl.org> wrote in message
news:f25f5380-fed6-4b7b...@e21g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 2, 7:15 pm, "Ed Huntress" <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:
> Oh, come on, Dan. We aren't talking about 15 students versus 30. We're
> talking about *one on one* versus mass classes.
>
> Ed Huntress
>I do not think it makes any difference.
I do. Wanna' fight? <g>
>The reason home schooling
>gets such good results is not so much the one on one teaching. It is
>because the average home schooled student comes from a family of above
>average education who place a high value on getting a good education.
That's correct. Once you norm for educational achievement level of the
parents, all apparent advantages disappear.
In other words, it's not the home schooling, it's a matter of choosing your
parents wisely.
Meantime, based on the data, it takes 22 times as many teachers to teach a
given group of home-schooled students as to teach a given group of
publically educated students. That's pretty piss-poor productivity.
>So the kids would do better than average even if they were in public
>schools.
Right.
> Also the kids are motivated to do well because they are
>doing it for their parents.
Pure speculation on your part.
If you research the ERIC database, or the journals, you'll find hundreds of
studies and academic articles about homeschooling. Look in there. You might
find something that's studied it.
> They would not be as motivated to work as
>hard for a teacher, even if it was a one on one situation.
See above.
>
> Dan
--
Ed Huntress
John R. Carroll
"Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:4bb698f0$0$21703$607e...@cv.net...
Yes, we are.
>
> Ok, I'm not going to try to pick nits. I think the important thing to
> remember is that deficit spending in a recession has one primary
> objective: to increase demand. If you can do it while building for the
> future, great.
>
> But stimulus is inherently always too late, and often too little, as it
> was this time. We needed over $ trillion a year ago (one estimate, based
> on Japan's experiences, says $2.1 trillion was the amount needed, based on
> real-world experience) last January. Politically, it's impossible.
> Economically, it's the only thing that makes sense.
You are talking about creating jobs quickly.
I'm talking about government doing the things it does well to create the
opportunity for prosperity and growth.
Those "things" don't always require any spending at all.
Sometimes they do but rather than looking only at the spending side, it's
good to think about what you get for your money.
JC
dca...@krl.org
> > Oh, come on, Dan. We aren't talking about 15 students versus 30. We're
> > talking about *one on one* versus mass classes.
>
> > Ed Huntress
> >I do not think it makes any difference.
>
> I do. Wanna' fight? <g>
>
Whatever. But you are not likely to change my mind. So what's the
point?
>
> Meantime, based on the data, it takes 22 times as many teachers to teach a
> given group of home-schooled students as to teach a given group of
> publically educated students. That's pretty piss-poor productivity.
>
As far as I can tell public schools do not have productivity as a
goal.
> > Also the kids are motivated to do well because they are
> >doing it for their parents.
>
> Pure speculation on your part.
>
Absolutely, but certainly very likely. I doubt that most kids love
their teachers more than their parents.
John
I live on a boat in Phuket, Thailand, for much of the year and I see
quite a few kids cruising with their parents being "home-schooled".
The major difference I see, and I admit it is very possible that I
don't see it all, is that the kids learn all the answers. If Mom is
teaching and the lesson is to be able to name all the state capitals
in the U.S. then Sunny Jim doesn't get to go swimming until he can do
it.. No 90% correct, he's gotta name them all.
Now, problem solving may be a totally different story as, to be frank,
Mom and Pop may not be the most logical problem solvers and it is
probably difficult, or improbable, that they will be capable of
teaching the kids to research all of the possibilities and select the
most likely option, as they ands their friends don't do it.
Geography? Well the kids know where all the countries bordered by the
sea, on the route that they have taken but likely very little of the
history, economics, or language and customs of the various countries.
In short, home schooling as I've seen it is adequate and likely as
good as U.S. Public schools but is certainly not outstanding nor earth
moving.
Cheers,
John D.
(jdslocombatgmail)
John
<nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote:
I suppose that begs the question of what ARE you doing in Iraq and
Afghanistan? Or perhaps Why? And even more so, what do you hope to
accomplish?
Iraq I was relatively easy to assess, but Iraq II? Afghanistan?
Cheers,
John D.
(jdslocombatgmail)
F. George McDuffee
wrote:
================
There appears to be several parallel and overlapping rationales,
none of which appear to be particularly convincing to an outside
observer (or the general public). In no particular order:
(1) These "adventures" busy the giddy minds with foreign
quarrels, diverting attention from critical agenda items such as
meaningful financial [re]regulation and immigration reform;
(2) The sunk cost fallacy [Grandma called this "sending good
money after bad"] -- we have invested so much we must see it
through;
(3) "Cheap" oil [well head price only] in the case of Iraq,
mineral wealth and right-of-way for railroads, pipe lines and
considerable mineral wealth in the case of Afghanistan;
(4) Residual "Crusader" mentality, combined in many cases with
concern for the security of Israel at the expense of long-term
best interests of the American people;
(5) Psychopathic overly aggressive personalities, only a few of
which are in the military but infest the civilian branches, e.g.
BATF;
(6) Short-term economic factors such as economic stimulation and
diversion of manpower from the [un]employment pool.
(7) War profiteering, with huge political campaign contributions
to candidates from both parties from the profiteers.
It should be noted that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the
likely future wars in Columbia, Venezuela, and Iran are all the
products of the gutless US Congress that refuses to include even
the most elementary precautions such as making the majority of
authorizations/appropriations bills non fungible, i.e. dedicated
to specific activities and acquisitions, which cannot be used for
anything else, if possible under individual criminal as well as
civil sanctions.
Another helpful step would be absolute [decreasing] limits on the
numbers of U.S. troops deployed or temporarily assigned [TDY] by
countries, which would require a Congressional Declaration of War
[NO B/S CONGRESSIONAL RESOLUTIONS] to override, e.g.
country marine military Other
embassy attaches
guards
Afghanistan 100 3* 5
Albania 50 1 3
Algeria 75 3* 5
Andorra 25 1 2
...
Zaire 50 1 5
Zambia 50 1 5
Zimbabwe 50 1 5
* representatives of the Army, Navy and Air Force
Gunner Asch
http://www.hslda.org/docs/nche/000010/200410250.asp
. Independent Evaluations of Homeschooling
1. In 1997, a study of 5,402 homeschool students from 1,657 families was
released. It was entitled, "Strengths of Their Own: Home Schoolers
Across America." The study demonstrated that homeschoolers, on the
average, out-performed their counterparts in the public schools by 30 to
37 percentile points in all subjects. A significant finding when
analyzing the data for 8th graders was the evidence that homeschoolers
who are homeschooled two or more years score substantially higher than
students who have been homeschooled one year or less. The new
homeschoolers were scoring on the average in the 59th percentile
compared to students homeschooled the last two or more years who scored
between 86th and 92nd percentile. i
This was confirmed in another study by Dr. Lawrence Rudner of 20,760
homeschooled students which found the homeschoolers who have
homeschooled all their school aged years had the highest academic
achievement. This was especially apparent in the higher grades. ii This
is a good encouragement to families catch the long-range vision and
homeschool through high school.
Another important finding of Strengths of Their Own was that the race of
the student does not make any difference. There was no significant
difference between minority and white homeschooled students. For
example, in grades K-12, both white and minority students scored, on the
average, in the 87th percentile. In math, whites scored in the 82nd
percentile while minorities scored in the 77th percentile. In the public
schools, however, there is a sharp contrast. White public school eighth
grade students, nationally scored the 58th percentile in math and the
57th percentile in reading. Black eighth grade students, on the other
hand, scored on the average at the 24th percentile in math and the 28th
percentile in reading. Hispanics scored at the 29th percentile in math
and the 28th percentile in reading. iii
These findings show that when parents, regardless of race, commit
themselves to make the necessary sacrifices and tutor their children at
home, almost all obstacles present in other school systems disappear.
Another obstacle that seems to be overcome in homeschooling is the need
to spend a great deal of money in order to have a good education. In
Strengths of Their Own, Dr. Ray found the average cost per homeschool
student is $546 while the average cost per public school student is
$5,325. Yet the homeschool children in this study averaged in 85th
percentile while the public school students averaged in the 50th
percentile on nationally standardized achievement tests.iv
Similarly, the 1998 study by Dr. Rudner of 20,760 students, found that
eighth grade students whose parents spend $199 or less on their home
education score, on the average, in the 80th percentile. Eighth grade
students whose parents spend $400 to $599 on their home education also
score on the average, in the 80th percentile! Once the parents spend
over $600, the students do slightly better, scoring in the 83rd
percentile.v
The message is loud and clear. More money does not mean a better
education. There is no positive correlation between money spent on
education and student performance. Public school advocates could refocus
their emphasis if they learned this lesson. Loving and caring parents
are what matters. Money can never replace simple, hard work.
The last significant statistic from the Strengths of Their Own study
regards the affect of government regulation on homeschooling. Dr. Brian
Ray compared the impact of government regulation on the academic
performance of homeschool students and he found no positive correlation.
In other words, whether a state had a high degree of regulation (i.e.,
curriculum approval, teacher qualifications, testing, home visits) or a
state had no regulation of homeschoolers, the homeschooled students in
both categories of states performed the same. The students all scored on
the average in the 86th percentile regardless of state regulation.vi
Homeschool freedom works. Homeschoolers have earned the right to be left
alone.
2. In a study released by the National Center for Home Education on
November 10, 1994. According to these standardized test results provided
by the Riverside Publishing Company of 16,311 homeschoolers from all 50
states K-12, the nationwide average for homeschool students is at the
77th percentile of the basic battery of the Iowa Test of Basic Skills.
In reading, the homeschoolers' nationwide grand mean is the 79th
percentile. This means, of course, that the homeschool students perform
better in reading than 79 percent of the same population on whom the
test is normed. In the area of language arts and math, the typical
homeschooler scored in the 73rd percentile.
These 16,311 homeschool students' scores were not self-selected by
parents or anyone else. They represent all the homeschoolers whose tests
were scored through the Riverside Publishing Company. It is important to
note that this summary of homeschool achievement test scores
demonstrates that 54.7% of the students in grades K-12 are achieving
individual scores in the top quarter of the population of students in
the United States. This figure is more than double the number of
conventional school students who score in the top quarter.vii
3. In 1991, a survey of standardized test scores was performed by the
Home School Legal Defense Association in cooperation with the
Psychological Corporation, which publishes the Stanford Achievement
Test. The study involved the administering of the Stanford Achievement
Test (8th Edition, Form J) to 5,124 homeschooled students. These
students represented all 50 states and their grades ranged from K-12.
This testing was administered in Spring 1991 under controlled test
conditions in accordance with the test publisher's standards. All test
administers were screened, trained, and approved pursuant to the
publisher's requirements. All tests were machine-scored by the
Psychological Corporation.
These 5,124 homeschoolers' composite scores on the basic battery of
tests in reading, math, and language arts ranked 18 to 28 percentile
points above public school averages. For instance, 692 homeschooled 4th
graders averaged in the 77th percentile in reading, the 63rd percentile
in math, and the 70th percentile in language arts. Sixth-grade
homeschoolers, of 505 tested, scored in the 76th percentile in reading,
the 65th percentile in math, and the 72nd percentile in language arts.
The homeschooled high schoolers did even better, which goes against the
trend in public schools where studies show the longer a child is in the
public schools, the lower he scores on standardized tests. One hundred
and eighteen tenth-grade homeschool students, as a group, made an
average score of the 82nd percentile in reading, the 70th percentile in
math, and the 81st percentile in language arts.
4. The Bob Jones University Testing Service of South Carolina provided
test results of Montana homeschoolers. Also a survey of homeschoolers in
Montana was conducted by the National Home Education Research Institute.
Dr. Brian Ray evaluated the survey and test results and found:
On average, the home education students in this study scored above the
national norm in all subject areas on standardized achievement tests.
These students scored, on average, at the 72nd percentile in terms of a
combination of their reading, language, and math performance. This is
well above the national average. viii
5. In North Dakota, Dr. Brian Ray conducted a survey of 205
homeschoolers throughout the state. The middle reading score was the
84th percentile, language was the 81st percentile, science was the 87th
percentile, social studies was the 86th percentile, and math was the
81st percentile.
Further, Dr. Ray found no significant statistical differences in
academic achievement between those students taught by parents with less
formal education and those students taught by parents with higher formal
education.
6. In South Carolina, the National Center for Home Education did a
survey of 65 homeschool students and found that the average scores on
the Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills were 30 percentile points higher
than national public school averages. In math, 92 percent of the
homeschool students scored above grade level, and 93 percent of the
homeschool students were at or above grade level in reading. These
scores are "being achieved in a state where public school SAT scores are
next-to-last in national rankings." ix
7. In 1990, the National Home Education Research Institute issued a
report entitled "A Nationwide Study of Home Education: Family
Characteristics, Legal Matters, and Student Achievement." This was a
study of over 2,163 homeschooling families.
The study found that the average scores of the homeschool students were
at or above the 80th percentile in all categories. The homeschoolers'
national percentile mean was 84th for reading, 80th for language, 81st
for math, 84th for science and 83rd for social studies.
The research revealed that there was no positive correlation between
state regulation of homeschools and the home-schooled students'
performance. The study compared homeschoolers in three groups of states
representing various levels of regulation. Group 1 represented the most
restrictive states such as Michigan; Group 2 represented slightly less
restrictive states including North Dakota; and Group 3 represented
unregulated states such as Texas and California. The Institute
concluded:
...no difference was found in the achievement scores of students
between the three groups which represent various degrees of state
regulation of home education.... It was found that students in all three
regulation groups scored on the average at or above the 76th percentile
in the three areas examined: total reading, total math, and total
language. These findings in conjunction with others described in this
section, do not support the idea that state regulation and compliance on
the part of home education families assures successful student
achievement. x
Furthermore, this same study demonstrated that only 13.9 percent of the
mothers (who are the primary teachers) had ever been certified teachers.
The study found that there was no difference in the students' total
reading, total math and total language scores based on the teacher
certification status of their parents:
The findings of this study do not support the idea that parents need to
be trained and certified teachers to assure successful academic
achievement of their children. xi
8. In Pennsylvania, 171 homeschooled students took the CTBS standardized
achievement test. The tests were all administered in group settings by
Pennsylvania certified teachers. The middle reading score was the 89th
percentile and the middle math score was the 72nd percentile. The middle
science score was the 87th percentile and the middle social studies
score was the 81st percentile. A survey conducted of all these
homeschool families who participated in this testing found that the
average student spent only 16 hours per week in formal schooling (i.e.,
structured lessons that were preplanned by either the parent or a
provider of educational materials). xii
9. In West Virginia, over 400 hundred homeschool students, grades K-12,
were tested with the Stanford Achievement test at the end of the 1989-90
school year. The Psychological Corporation scored the children together
as one school. The results found that the typical homeschooled students
in eight of these grade levels scored in the "somewhat above average"
range (61st to 73rd average percentile), compared to the performance of
students in the same grade from across the country. Two grade levels
scored in the "above average" range (80th to 85th average percentile)
and three grade levels scored in the "about average range" (54th to 59th
average percentile). xiii
10. In Washington state, a survey of the standardized test results of
2,018 homeschooled students over a period of three years found that the
median cell each year varied from the 65th percentile to the 68th
percentile on national norms. The Washington Home School Research
Project concluded that "as a group, these homeschoolers are doing well."
xiv
11. Dr. Brian Ray, president of the Home Education Research Institute,
reviewed over 65 studies concerning home education. He found that
homeschoolers were performing at average or above average on test
levels. xv
12. In 1986, researcher Lauri Scogin surveyed 591 homeschooled children
and discovered that 72.61% of the homeschooled children scored one year
or more above their grade level in reading. 49.79% scored one year or
more above their grade level in math. xvi
1. In 1982, Dr. Raymond Moore studied several thousand
homeschooled children throughout the United States. His research found
that these children have been performing, on the average, in the 75th to
the 95th percentile on Stanford and Iowa Achievement Tests.
Additionally, Dr. Moore did a study of homeschooled children whose
parents were being criminally charged for exercising their right to
teach their own children. He found that the children scored on the
average in the 80th percentile. xvii
13. Statistics also demonstrate that homeschoolers tend to score above
the national average on both their SAT and ACT scores.
For example, the 2,219 students reporting their homeschool status on the
SAT in 1999 scored an average of 1083 (verbal 548, math 535), 67 points
above the national average of 1016. In 2004 the 7,858 homeschool
students taking the ACT scored an average of 22.6, compared to the
national average of 20.9.
According to the 1998 ACT High School Profile Report, 2,610 graduating
homeschoolers took the ACT and scored an average of 22.8 out of a
possible 36 points. This score is slightly higher that the 1997 report
released on the results of 1,926 homeschool graduates and founding
homeschoolers maintained the average of 22.5. This is higher than the
national average, which was 21.0 in both 1997 and 1998. xviii
II. State Department of Education Statistics on Homeschoolers
Several state departments of education or local school districts have
also gathered statistics on the academic progress of homeschooled
children.
Tennessee
In the spring of 1987, the Tennessee Department of Education found that
homeschooled children in 2nd grade, on the average, scored in the 93rd
percentile while their public school counterparts, on the average,
scored in the 62nd percentile on the Stanford Achievement Test.
Homeschool children in third grade scored, on the average, in the 90th
percentile in reading on another standardized test, and the public
school students scored in the 78 percentile. In math, the third grade
homeschooled children scored, on the average, in the 87th percentile,
while their public school counterparts scored in the 80th percentile. In
eighth grade, the homeschooled students scored, on the average, in the
87th percentile in reading and in 71st percentile in math while their
public school counterparts scored in the 75th percentile in reading and
the 69th percentile in math. xix
Alaska and Oregon
Similarly, in 1986, the State Department of Education in Alaska which
had surveyed homeschooled children's test results every other year since
1981, found homeschooled children to be scoring approximately 16
percentage points higher, on the average, than the children of the same
grades in conventional schools. In Oregon, the State Department of
Education compiled test score statistics for 1,658 homeschooled children
in 1988 and found that 51 percent of the children scored above the 71st
percentile and 73 percent scored above the 51st percentile.
North Carolina
In North Carolina, the Division of Non-Public Education compiled test
results of 2,144 homeschool students in grades K-12. Of the 1,061
homeschool students taking the California Achievement Test, they scored,
on the average, at the 73rd percentile on the total battery of tests:
80th percentile in reading, 72nd percentile in language, and the 71st
percentile in math.
The 755 homeschool students who took the Iowa Test of Basic Skills
scored at the 80th percentile in the total battery of tests: 81st
percentile in reading, 77th percentile in language, and 77th percentile
in math. The remaining students who took the Stanford scored, on the
average, in the 73rd percentile in the whole battery. xx
Arkansas
In Arkansas, for the 1987-88 school term, homeschool children, on the
average, scored in 75% on the Metropolitan Achievement Test 6. They
out-scored public school children in every subject (Reading, Math,
Language, Science, and Social Studies) and at every grade level. For
example, at the 10th grade level public school children scored an
average of 53rd percentile in social studies, while homeschool children
scored at the 73rd percentile. In science, an area in which
homeschoolers are often criticized for lack of facilities, the
homeschoolers scored, on the average, 85th percentile in fourth grade,
73rd percentile in seventh grade, and 65th percentile in tenth grade.
The public school students, on the other hand, scored much lower in
science: 66th percentile in fourth grade, 62nd percentile in seventh,
and 53rd percentile in tenth. xxi
Arizona
According to the Arizona State Department of Education, 1,123
homeschooled children in grades 1-9, on the average, scored above grade
level in reading, language arts, and math on standardized tests for the
1988-89 school year. Four grades tested were a full grade level ahead.
xxii
Nebraska
In Nebraska, out of 259 homeschooled children who returned to public or
non-public schools, 134 of them were automatically placed in their grade
level according to their age without testing. Of the remaining who were
given entrance tests, 33 were above grade level, 43 were at grade level,
and 29 were below grade level. Approximately 88 percent of the returning
students were at or above grade level after being homeschooled for a
period of time. This survey was the result of the responses of 429
accredited schools. xxiii
III. Local School District Statistics on Homeschooling
1. In 1988, 30 homeschooled children in Albuquerque, New Mexico,
participated in the state-mandated testing program (Comprehensive Test
of Basic Skills) and scored on the average in the 83rd percentile for
3rd grade, the 85th percentile for 5th grade, and the 89th percentile
for 8th grade. This group of homeschoolers scored 20 to 25 percentile
points higher than the local public school students taking the CTBS in
1987. xxiv
2. In a 1980 study in Los Angeles, homeschooled students scored higher
on standardized tests than children in the Los Angeles public schools.
xxv
3. In South Carolina, the Greenville County School District stated,
"Kids taught at home last year outscored those in public schools on
basic skills tests." In that county, 57 out of 61 homeschooled students
"met or exceeded the state's minimum performance standard on the reading
test" of the Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills. The homeschool
students' passing rate was 93.4 while the public school counterparts
passing rate was 83.9 percent. Furthermore, in math, the homeschooled
students passing rate was 87.9 percent compared to the public school
students' passing rate of 82.1 percent. xxvi
4. In Nevada, according to Washoe County School District's data,
homeschooled students scored higher than their public school
counterparts in first through seventh grade. All children were tested
with the Stanford Achievement Test, and homeschoolers consistently
scored higher in reading, vocabulary, reading comprehension, math
concepts, math comprehension, math and math concepts and application.
The most extreme gap between the public school children and the
homeschooled children was in the area of vocabulary. For example, fourth
graders in public school scored in the 49th percentile while the
homeschooled fourth graders scored in the 80th percentile.
Conclusion
These statistics point to one conclusion: homeschooling works. Even many
of the State Departments of Education, which are generally biased toward
the public school system, cannot argue with these facts. Not only does
homeschooling work, but it works without the myriad of state controls
and accreditation standards imposed on the public schools.
"First Law of Leftist Debate
The more you present a leftist with factual evidence
that is counter to his preconceived world view and the
more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without
losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot,
homophobe approaches infinity.
This is despite the thread you are in having not mentioned
race or sexual preference in any way that is relevant to
the subject." Grey Ghost
cavelamb
heavy snippage of good stuff to get to the point...
>
> It should be noted that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the
> likely future wars in Columbia, Venezuela, and Iran are all the
> products of the gutless US Congress that refuses to include even
> the most elementary precautions such as making the majority of
> authorizations/appropriations bills non fungible, i.e. dedicated
> to specific activities and acquisitions, which cannot be used for
> anything else, if possible under individual criminal as well as
> civil sanctions.
>
So, George, what do you think the US Congress feels about the
28th Amendment proposition?
If it were tied to an economic stimulus package, would they
pass it without noticing???
:)
Richard Lamb
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb/
John R. Carroll
Hemoraging people and money, at least as a nation.
>Or perhaps Why?
Because some things are easier to begin than to end.
>And even more so, what do you hope to
> accomplish?
The stated goals have shifted like the sands but none of them show any
understanding of history.
>
> Iraq I was relatively easy to assess, but Iraq II? Afghanistan?
At this point I think we are looking for a way out that doesn't look like
just walking away from our mess.
--
John R. Carroll
F. George McDuffee
earthlink.net"> wrote:
<snip>
>So, George, what do you think the US Congress feels about the
>28th Amendment proposition?
>
>If it were tied to an economic stimulus package, would they
>pass it without noticing???
>
>http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb/
==========
If this is the one you are talking about I don't see how it would
affect anything we have been discussing.
http://www.redstate.com/theancientmariner/2010/03/29/proposed-28th-amendment-to-end-congressional-double-standards/
<snip>
Congress shall make no law exempting its members or their staff
in whole or in part from any other law, federal, state, or
municipal. All such exemptions are hereby declared null and void.
I’ve also had passed on to me another version that someone else
came up with, thus:
Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the
United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or
Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to
the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally
to the citizens of the United States.
<snip>
-----------
More rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic...
Ed Huntress
"Gunner Asch" <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ja2ir5961msvvo3hm...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 04 Apr 2010 22:02:13 +0700, John <jdsl...@invalid.com> wrote:
<snip>
>
> http://www.hslda.org/docs/nche/000010/200410250.asp
>
>
> . Independent Evaluations of Homeschooling
>
> 1. In 1997, a study of 5,402 homeschool students from 1,657 families was
> released. It was entitled, "Strengths of Their Own: Home Schoolers
> Across America." The study demonstrated that homeschoolers, on the
> average, out-performed their counterparts in the public schools by 30 to
> 37 percentile points in all subjects.
There are dozens of such studies. The average is around 8 to 12 percentile
point advantage. All of the advantage disappears when you norm for parents'
education, race, and income.
All of it.
<snip>
> Conclusion
>
> These statistics point to one conclusion: homeschooling works. Even many
> of the State Departments of Education, which are generally biased toward
> the public school system, cannot argue with these facts. Not only does
> homeschooling work, but it works without the myriad of state controls
> and accreditation standards imposed on the public schools.
It works because it costs the economy something like $30,000 in lost
productivity for every capable worker who spends his or her time teaching
one or two kids. That works out to something like an extra $700,000 for each
average classroom. Again, normed for demographics, the result is roughly the
same each way.
The percentage of families with kids who have only one parent working is
approximately 30%. Among those who home-school, it's 60%.
In other words, home-schooling may be the stupidest economic move anyone
ever made in education.
--
Ed Huntress
clarkm...@gmail.com
The huge amount of cash out there would cause inflation if it were in
circulation.
The bailed out banks are hanging on to the cash, and buying treasury
bonds.
Those would be bankrupt banks are being bailed out with the difference
between the interest they are charged and the treasury bond rate.
We the taxpayers are paying the difference.
What does it all mean?
Ed Huntress does a great job of intelligently spinning the liberal
point of view.
We could look at life from the mosquito's and the rat's point of view
too, but I would rather just kill them.
Ned Simmons
>
>Those would be bankrupt banks are being bailed out with the difference
>between the interest they are charged and the treasury bond rate.
>
>We the taxpayers are paying the difference.
>
>What does it all mean?
>Ed Huntress does a great job of intelligently spinning the liberal
>point of view.
When did bailing out banks become a liberal cause?
--
Ned Simmons
F. George McDuffee
This looks like a good thread to post this.
In case you haven't seen this... (follow up on the vampire
squids)
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/32906678/looting_main_street
Looting Main Street
How the nation's biggest banks are ripping off American cities
with the same predatory deals that brought down Greece
MATT TAIBBIPosted Mar 31, 2010 8:15 AM
<snip>
If you want to know what life in the Third World is like, just
ask Lisa Pack, an administrative assistant who works in the roads
and transportation department in Jefferson County, Alabama. Pack
got rudely introduced to life in post-crisis America last August,
when word came down that she and 1,000 of her fellow public
employees would have to take a little unpaid vacation for a
while. The county, it turned out, was more than $5 billion in
debt — meaning that courthouses, jails and sheriff's precincts
had to be closed so that Wall Street banks could be paid.
<snip>
clarkm...@gmail.com
>
> When did bailing out banks become a liberal cause?
>
> --
> Ned Simmons
Government financial intervention is the first order definition of
liberal behavior.
cavelamb
>
> In other words, home-schooling may be the stupidest economic move anyone
> ever made in education.
>
Is that all that matters, Ed?
The economics of it?
If so, what they get for their money may be things you overlooked.
Safe environment.
no knives, guns, rape, beatings, disease.
Individual instruction.
self paced - not having to wait for the slow learners.
More satisfactory control of the subject matter.
and more responsive to the student's interests and aptitude.
Not a clock driven day.
Work on it until it's done.
Better selection (in parent's opinion) of subject matter.
Things like that
--
Richard Lamb
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb/
Ed Huntress
"cavelamb" <""cavelamb\"@ X earthlink.net"> wrote in message
news:r8SdnXE8DoY0vSfW...@earthlink.com...
> On 4/5/2010 10:36 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>
>> In other words, home-schooling may be the stupidest economic move anyone
>> ever made in education.
>>
>
>
> Is that all that matters, Ed?
>
> The economics of it?
If the results are the same, then yes.
>
> If so, what they get for their money may be things you overlooked.
>
> Safe environment.
> no knives, guns, rape, beatings, disease.
Then move to a better neighborhood. If you live in a place like that, you're
abusing your children. Furthermore, if you live in a place like that, the
chance that you're equipped academically to teach children is very slim.
>
> Individual instruction.
> self paced - not having to wait for the slow learners.
For slow learners, it can be great -- if the parent knows how to deal with
slow learners. It's something in which my wife has a master's degree, so
don't get me started on the ability of untrained parents to teach.
In general, parents can teach well up to middle elementary school. If they
make a real effort, or if they're trained teachers themselves, they can go
beyond that. But not very far beyond, because it requires a number of
specialties to teach beyond 6th grade.
I don't know how much experience you have with home-schooled kids, Richard,
so I'm not sure what your basing your conclusions upon. There's good, and
there's not so good about it.
>
> More satisfactory control of the subject matter.
> and more responsive to the student's interests and aptitude.
"Satisfactory control of subject matter"? Satisfactory to whom?
>
> Not a clock driven day.
> Work on it until it's done.
>
>
> Better selection (in parent's opinion) of subject matter.
What parents do you know who can make a "better selection" of subject
matter?
--
Ed Huntress
cavelamb
>
> What parents do you know who can make a "better selection" of subject
> matter?
>
Last time it was, "Parents should be responsible for their kids education."
But now "What do parent's know?".
Typical...
RBnDFW
> "cavelamb" <""cavelamb\"@ X earthlink.net"> wrote in message
> news:r8SdnXE8DoY0vSfW...@earthlink.com...
>> On 4/5/2010 10:36 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>> In other words, home-schooling may be the stupidest economic move anyone
>>> ever made in education.
>>>
>>
>> Is that all that matters, Ed?
>>
>> The economics of it?
>
> If the results are the same, then yes.
>
>> If so, what they get for their money may be things you overlooked.
>>
>> Safe environment.
>> no knives, guns, rape, beatings, disease.
>
> Then move to a better neighborhood. If you live in a place like that, you're
> abusing your children. Furthermore, if you live in a place like that, the
> chance that you're equipped academically to teach children is very slim.
There are plenty of families who lack the ability to relocate.
And where to? Even the most affluent suburbs have gang problems.
I just thank god my kids are grown. If they were in school today, I'd
probably send them to a private school, or let my wife - or MIL - teach
them.
>> Individual instruction.
>> self paced - not having to wait for the slow learners.
>
> For slow learners, it can be great -- if the parent knows how to deal with
> slow learners. It's something in which my wife has a master's degree, so
> don't get me started on the ability of untrained parents to teach.
>
> In general, parents can teach well up to middle elementary school. If they
> make a real effort, or if they're trained teachers themselves, they can go
> beyond that. But not very far beyond, because it requires a number of
> specialties to teach beyond 6th grade.
>
> I don't know how much experience you have with home-schooled kids, Richard,
> so I'm not sure what your basing your conclusions upon. There's good, and
> there's not so good about it.
>
>> More satisfactory control of the subject matter.
>> and more responsive to the student's interests and aptitude.
>
> "Satisfactory control of subject matter"? Satisfactory to whom?
>
>> Not a clock driven day.
>> Work on it until it's done.
>>
>>
>> Better selection (in parent's opinion) of subject matter.
>
> What parents do you know who can make a "better selection" of subject
> matter?
The amount of resources available to home-schoolers rivals that
available to the best public schools. You can cookbook the whole thing
from online resources. I know people who are doing it. Any of the
parents who are home-schooling could get a state teaching certificate
easily, if they wanted to.
The kids get tested periodically against state standards, and they
excel.
Don't underestimate the ability and resolve of a motivated parent.
Ed Huntress
> On 4/5/2010 1:20 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>
>> What parents do you know who can make a "better selection" of subject
>> matter?
>>
>
> Last time it was, "Parents should be responsible for their kids
> education."
> But now "What do parent's know?".
>
> Typical...
What do you mean "last time"? Are you referring to something I said? And if
so, what was the full statement?
Parents are indeed responsible to see that their kids get a good education.
If they live in a pesthole where education stinks and they have to worry
about guns in school, they should get the hell out.
And the abililty of typical parents to make a "better selection" of subject
matter than the curricula devised by the whole heirarchy of experts in
education is between nil and zero.
If you know of an exception, I'd love to hear it.
--
Ed Huntress