Archive for category: Filosophy

The latest iteration of the nonsense is the labor strife in Chicago. Imagine the highest teacher wages in the country at $75,000/year, about $20,000 higher than the average in the country, with a high school graduation rate of 50%. No wonder there is a desire for teacher performance in the new agreement.

This morning on CNBC the discussion was on the toolbox provided by the teaching profession (sic) to the graduating students for their entry to the work force. What about the empty tool box of the students who don’t graduate? Who will speak for them, the failures of the education system?

Isn’t it time for the parents and the teachers to take control of the education system and eliminate the overheads of the school boards and the teacher unions. I suspect the results would be much better. The time is now.

To continue the discussion on education I want to explore curricula and start from elementary school and move up to the end of high school. The last time I looked the tax payers provide the money for the school system at the state level. I am not sure that the educators have a clear grasp on what it is that is expected from them. What is the objective of the education of school age children?

Is the ultimate aim to provide employable people? If that is the case why does the curricula discussion not include employers? The ability to have electives is fine as long as the individuals pay for those electives if they are not considered core requirements of an employable individual.

Similarly why has physical education been dropped from many school systems where there is substantial research that shows physical activity enhances the ability to learn and perform academically?

What do you think on this subject? Should business get involved in developing curricula? Should pre-technical school and pre-college education provide work ready people? The time is now.

“Long-term Treasury bond yields are an excellent barometer of economic activity. If business conditions are better than normal and improving, exerting upward pressure on inflation, long-term interest rates will be high and rising. In contrary situations, long yields are likely to be low and falling. Also, if debt is elevated relative to GDP, and a rising portion of this debt is utilized for either counterproductive or unproductive investments, then long-term Treasury bond yields should be depressed since an environment of poor aggregate demand would exist. Importantly, both low long rates and the stagnant economic growth are symptoms of the excessive indebtedness and/or low quality debt usage.

This line of reasoning also provides an important corollary. If the effects of excessive indebtedness (low growth and low interest rates) are addressed by additional debt, or by debt utilized for investments that cannot produce an income stream to repay the obligations, then this even higher level of debt will serve to perpetuate the period of slow economic growth and unusually low bond yields.”

This is a short abstract from and investment company Hoisington letter for the 2nd quarter of 2012. The arguments presented are from academic studies. The real problem it is clearly too much debt caused by government officials. There is a lot of evidence to this end yet the media does not share it with the public for whatever reason. Curiosity is rewarded with knowledge. Become more curious. The time is now.

It starts quietly, the defense of the Keynesian failures.  Published Wednesday in Global Post – Northwestern economist Robert Gordon opines that “We’ve had a lot of inherent advantages: abundant natural resources, favorable demographic trends, relative political stability supported by the protective benefit of two oceans, to name a few. But from colonial times to the present, our happy economy has also been powered by three separate industrial revolutions:

1. the introduction of steam engines and railroads
2. the inception and widespread use of electricity and the combustion engine
3. the invention of computers, the web and mobile communications.”

“Gordon writes that future growth in consumption per capita — the main engine of the consumer-based US economy — could fall below 0.5 percent a year for what he calls “an extended period of decades.” Yes, that would be a big deal. For some context, between 1860 and 2007 that annual growth rate was 1.9 percent. What’s driving this structural economic slowdown, according to Gordon? He argues that six “headwinds” are buffeting the US economy, and that these factors were in place even before the Great Recession of 2008.

Count ’em:

1. changing and unfavorable demographics,
2. rising education costs and poor secondary school performance,
3. growing economic inequality,
4. increased competition due to globalization,
5. energy and environmental costs and challenges, and
6. high levels of consumer and government debt.

Taken together, these headwinds will slow growth dramatically into the foreseeable future.

Here’s the money quote of Gordon’s paper, which is titled “Is U.S. Economic Growth Over? Faltering Innovation Confronts the Six Headwinds, doubling the standard of living took five centuries between 1300 and 1800. Doubling accelerated to one century between 1800 and 1900. Doubling peaked at a mere 28 years between 1929 and 1957 and 31 years between 1957 and 1988. But then doubling is predicted to slow back to a century again between 2007 and 2100.”

This slowdown is happening because the productivity gains associated with computers and mobility have been far less dramatic — at least so far — than the two previous industrial revolutions, all of which leads Gordon to his depressing theme: “Economic growth may not be a continuous long-run process that lasts forever.”

As Milton Friedman would say – we need to have the freedom to choose for ourselves. Government at times becomes the beneficent uncle and everyone becomes inured to poor performance.  The adults are arriving in the room with the convention underway. Choose wisely. The time is now.