Rebane's Ruminations
June 2011
S M T W T F S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
2627282930  

ARCHIVES


OUR LINKS


YubaNet
White House Blog
Watts Up With That?
The Union
Sierra Thread
RL “Bob” Crabb
Barry Pruett Blog

George Rebane

Archie&Meathead Apropos to the lively discussion at ‘True Value of Work and Caring Economics’, Harvard professor of government Harvey Mansfield contributed a telling piece about the “poor choices … students made in selecting their courses and majors.”  In ‘Sociology and Other Meathead Majors’ Dr Mansfield points out the distinction between education based on facts and that based on values.  And, of course, therein lays a root cause of rot in our workforce.  Majors in ‘values based’ subject areas are hard to sell on the labor markets.  And moreover, such majors are victims of the commercially useless leftwing ideologies that are rampant in the country’s schools.  That is a double burden that no employer, save the government, wants to bear.

Mansfield opines that “Archie Bunker was right to be skeptical of his son-in-law’s opinions.”, and goes on to say –

More fundamental, however, is the division within the university today, in America and everywhere, between science and the humanities. Science deals with facts but the humanities also have to deal with values. This is where the problem of bad choices arises. We think that one can have knowledge of fact but not of values—the famous “fact/value” distinction.

Science has knowledge of fact, and this makes it rigorous and hard. The humanities have their facts bent or biased by values, and this makes them lax and soft. This fact—or is it a value?—gives confidence and reputation to scientists within the university. Everyone respects them, and though science is modest because there is always more to learn, scientists sometimes strut and often make claims for extra resources. Some of the rest of us glumly concede their superiority and try to sell our dubious wares in the street, like gypsies. We are the humanists. 

Posted in , , ,

332 responses to “‘Meathead’ Majors”

  1. Greg Goodknight Avatar
    Greg Goodknight

    Mikey, I suspect you agree the problems in California’s budget aren’t solvable by ‘performance based assessments’. I understand why the rent seekers wanted to be in the thick of that legislation; it’s what they’ll be forced to conform to in order to get fed.

    Like

  2. Greg Goodknight Avatar
    Greg Goodknight

    D. King–Hydro is not included in the renewable portfolio standard in California. You propensity to assume with out research is showing.
    Posted by: stevenfrisch | 04 June 2011 at 12:36 PM

    From the latest quarterly report from the Cal PUC on the Renewables Portfolio Standard, we get a different take:

    RPS Generation to Date
    According to the IOUs’ March 2011 Compliance Filings, the IOU RPS percentage in 2010 is 17.9%,
    a 2.5 percentage point increase from 2009. The RPS percentage in 2010 for each IOU compared to
    2009 is:
    • PG&E: 17.7%,5 a 3.6 percentage point increase
    • SCE: 19.4%, a 2.6 percentage point increase
    • SDG&E: 11.9%, a 1.7 percentage point increase
    These increases are due to a number of factors: 1) new RPS facilities achieved commercial
    operation; 2) small RPS‐eligible hydroelectric facilities generated more in 2010 than in 2007, 2008,
    and 2009; and 3) utility customers used less power in 2010 than the prior three years, which
    allowed renewable energy procurement to account for a greater percentage of retail sales.

    It appears that there is hydro, and then there is hydro. Big water, little water. Little water is mixed in with with solar, wind and the even smaller players in a lot of the claims about renewable energy mixes.
    I’m guessing the power companies are thanking their lucky stars for the heavy snowpack this year.

    Like

  3. Mike Thornton Avatar

    Gee, Mikey:
    When it comes to the various financial problem we face, perhaps the thing to do would be to go back to the Eisenhower tax rates and close all taxes loopholes and develop a program of revoking the corporate charter for any American corporation that ships American jobs overseas.
    If these business want to enrich themselves at the expense of their country. They can go live somewhere else and we’ll put so many tariffs on their goods that they’ll never sell anything in America again.
    We can stop being the world’s police force and develop a realistic “defense” budget and go to work rebuilding and modernizing our infrastructure, restructuring our health care system and our energy production and delivery systems.
    That’s just a start. And we should do everything we can to support innovative business as long as those businesses support America and the American worker.
    Like, I’ve said before, I don’t claim to be the person that has all the answers, but I do know that everything starts with a value system and I don’t think our country should be bled dry to support a bunch of global capitalists and oil sheiks, who don’t give a damn about this country.
    No if you can explain to me, why impoverishing the United States in order to make China or Saudi Arabia even wealthier than they are is “patriotic” and “good for America”, I’d love to hear it!

    Like

  4. Todd Juvinall Avatar
    Todd Juvinall

    Mikey, if we did return to the Eisenhower era tax rates we would have a teeny tiny sales tax, and hardly a fee to be found. A building permit was $25 bucks and that included the septic. There was little tax at the state level and it was all before welfare and medicare/medicaid. Maybe Thornton is on to something.

    Like

  5. Mikey McD Avatar
    Mikey McD

    Thornton, we have much more in common than either of us thought!
    I could not agree more “I do know that everything starts with a value system”- Posted by: Mike Thornton | 04 June 2011 at 02:51 PM
    I agree that we need to stop policing the world (as does Ron Paul).
    “And we should do everything we can to support innovative business”- yup
    I can’t stand the concept of making China or S Arabia rich or outsourcing but our government has forced that upon our economy. We should be drilling here now while focusing MUCH more of our education curriculum towards energy alternatives.
    “Eisenhower [income] tax rates” would be suicide for the USA. Granted, we already pay more taxes than during Eisenhower’s era if you add up state taxes, gas tax, crv tax, cig tax, utility tax, phone tax, inheritance tax, gift tax, prop tax, etc.
    We want the same things (employment for fellow Americans [fellow humans], less/no reliance on oil, better health care, better infrastructure… However, I think the real debate is how to attain such goals.
    Look at the liability per employee in the USA versus China (Asia)… regulations and tort make it difficult to hire domestically (not to mention the work ethic here is not as coveted).

    Like

  6. paul emery Avatar
    paul emery

    I’m finally finding a little time to respond to legitimate questions as to why I believe that caring economics as outlined by Riane Eisler is the next evolution of capitalism and must sooner rather than later.
    Let’s look at the economic value of raising children. To begin with I know I will hear the concern about “baby farming” as a means of income and this is a question not to be taken lightly but let’s put that aside for now and ask a very basic question. What is the economic return of the investment in supporting economically the work of raising children? Please do not consider this a complete answer to that quewstion but hopefully it will spark some interest in the economic possibilities.
    Properly raised children will stand a much better chance of being independent, productive and caring citizens than those raised in poor conditions. Quite simply put it’s a full time job to raise children and right now only a small percentage of families can afford to have a stay at home parent. What this means is that our schools become baby sitting services for working families and the children are essentially raised in State sponsored institutions rather than by their parents. Mandatory education came about largely because of the industrial revolution and the requirement for child care for factory workers. This will probably upset my progressive colleges but I don’t believe education should be a function of the State, rather it should be a responsibility of our culture. I was very involved with Waldorf Education at one phase of my life and that credo as articulated by Rudolf Steiner really stuck with me.
    If all children had a stay at home parent think of the possibilities for education. First of all, home schooling would be a desired method and children could be educated in the cultural and spiritual direction dictated by the families and parents not the government. Just think of the potential for co-op education with like minded parents all sharing in the responsibilities. Just think of the communities that would create and how that would resonate throughout our country. This would be a huge boost for spiritual education of all types. Just think of the money saved by downsizing our school as they become less necessary. Just think of the money saved because of the decrease in crime, drug addiction and mental and physical illness as a result of properly raised families.
    There could be no greater investment in the future of this country than for the job of raising children to be rewarded as an occupation not just something parents do in their spare time. With the current economic situation like;y to continue indefinitely the stress on families will only increase.
    The decrease in crime and mental illness would be profound if children had a full time parent.
    In short why not think of this as the most important investment that can be made in a capitalist economy. It’s an investment in the future that will have resounding results and profit.
    I know discussion will flow towards accountability and evaluation of individual children. I think that will not be necessary because the overall results will be profound and easily demonstrated.
    I’m looking forward to your comments.

    Like

  7. Todd Juvinall Avatar
    Todd Juvinall

    Paul asks “What is the economic return of the investment in supporting economically the work of raising children?” Hmmm, I can’t say I ever eard that question or premise before. The only thing I can think of at the moment is a return to forcing children to work. The child is birthed to become a cog of the family income wheel. So, as stated by Paul, this would not fly.
    The rest of his words I have a lot of agreement with. The stay at home parent though went the way of the dodo bird in America because of a couple of things. Feminism as liked and practiced by Steinem and taxes.

    Like

  8. George Rebane Avatar

    Paul, without disagreeing with your assessment of returns on home-schooled children, and assuming for the moment that all parents are qualified to home school, could you give us your thoughts on how all that gets started with money flowing from where to where so that one parent can stay at home full time?

    Like

  9. Greg Goodknight Avatar
    Greg Goodknight

    Sorry, Paul, but the cost of government at all levels, including payroll taxes that support other people’s parents, is what has driven us away from the single earner households in the first place.
    After our son was born, we took a big financial hit by relying on one income. That was our choice. It meant a smaller house, and no new cars for some time. It didn’t help when we found the Grass Valley School District was incompetent at providing primary education in math and language, and we enrolled him at the only non Whole Math, non Whole Language elementary school we could afford to drive to twice a day and pay tuition, Mt. St. Mary’s School. Even then, I ended up stepping in when he got to Algebra when even MSM had chosen a math book that was so bad that its publisher tried to hire an associate of mine to fix its shortcomings and he declined, declaring it unfixable, so I chose a good Algebra text and taught him how to learn from a good book.
    If you want everyone to have such a chance to rely on their parents, you need to shrink the Federal, state and local governments to a sustainable size. One that imposes taxes that young working couples can afford on one income, and still afford to retire despite one career having productive years diverted to other matters.
    And no, imposing higher taxes on their employers and other producers of needed goods and services isn’t going to make it up. It all ends up being paid by the vast majority of people who do the working, living and dying in our communities.

    Like

  10. Paul Emery Avatar
    Paul Emery

    Well George, I know you won’t like this but the investment, and it is an investment, comes from the public much like an investment in public infrastructure. The idea is that it is an investment that more than pays for itself because of more productive and healthy adults that are properly cared for when they are children. We should also look at what are the costs of not doing this. We have the highest incarceration rate of any nation in the world. Obesity is epidemic. Our children can’t read, write or do math or use good judgment in avoiding drugs alcohol and tobacco addiction. Teenage sexuality is rampant. We rely on taxpayer money to pay for Government schools because we don’t have time or money to educate children ourselves or send them to private schools. Of course there are exceptions to this but overall the picture is pretty bleak.
    Greg, you are to be commended for the sacrifice your family made to provide for your children. Everyone does not have the capability to make that decision. Also, there are many single parents. I know his seems radical but what is more important than properly raising children?
    Also George, if parents do not have the ability to educate their children themselves then they must take the responsibility for finding another path. Imagine how much money would e saived if much of the work in public schools was done by parents who had the time to volunteer their skills. If the occupation of one family member was to raise the children full time they would at least have a chance to develop the ability to help educate, something they cannot do now if both parents have to work full time just for food and shelter.
    The essence of Ms Reisler’s theory is that this is an investment in our future that more than pays for itself in increased productivity. Again, it is not a handout it is an investment.
    Todd, I hope this helps to explain why this is sound economics and where the return is. It has nothing to do with putting children to work. It has everything to do with children growing to be healthy and productive citizens.
    Another solution is for most people not to have children but
    George, you’ve raised the alarm on that several times. If the only people that raised children were the ones who could afford the time to properly raise them population would decline in no time and for this form of Capitalism that we subscribe to, that depends on growth and credit for prosperity, the results would be grim. That’s why I contend we have no choice.
    I have no confident Greg that if were to drastically lower taxes families would suddenly be able to live on one income. Look at the cost of housing in relationship to income in the 50’s when there were still one wage earners supporting the family and do the math to see what kind of average income that would have to be and you’ll see what I mean. There would have to be a complete collapse of real estate values or massive increases in salary to make that possible.
    Thanks for considering my ideas.

    Like

  11. Greg Goodknight Avatar
    Greg Goodknight

    Let’s recap some of the words of Steven Frisch, the six figure CEO of the Sierra Business Council, a Nevada County non profit corporation:
    “What a waste of breathe (sic) you guys are. Mean, nasty short and brutish is an appropriate description.”
    “Greg it obvious that you are a frustrated A$$hole for a living. Get out in the real world and do something.”
    “Greg, my point remains, I have a first amendment right, as an individual and as a member of an organization, protected under the freedom of association clause. In America, we are all equal. I am always just a guy, whether speaking individually or on behalf of my organization. If you want me to address a specific point by the way I wold prefer it if you link to the original source material. You are trying to divert attention from the core point. I have a right to speak up, and there is NOTHING you are your bullying friends can do about that.”
    How special!
    And I’m a bully? Sorry, Steve, but I have the same rights to free speech that you do and, at the moment, I choose to write and speak my mind here, with George’s permission, and I try to do it with as many facts as I can muster, to the apparent delight of some of the other folks here. You apparently have a problem with that. Thanks for sharing. I accept your forfeit.
    George allows you to post here, and that’s fine with me. If you’d stick with what you know (general political and historical knowledge) that is actually correct, you’d be less of a target.

    Like

  12. George Rebane Avatar

    Paul, those are powerful points on the benefits of a well schooled workforce and electorate. We agree on the objective, and the general outline of the means. What I still don’t have a good feeling for is the process that permits the flow of public funds (“investment”) to enable such grassroots education to become widespread.
    I’m not saying that we’re not already spending those public monies for government education and subsequent remediations. Theoretically we could do what you suggest without raising taxes, but just shifting spending. (I have known several homeschooled kids, and they were all smart and on their way to becoming good citizens.)
    Also, as you may recall, I am a free market capitalist with an odd streak – I don’t believe that business as we used to conduct it will work like it did before. We can’t go back and apply the same template. But, I believe we can go forward and build a new paradigm of commerce and trade based on the classical principles.
    We have to do this because of globalization and technological advance. Neither Repubs nor Dems are willing to publicly face up to the fact that we may (I say, ‘we will’) have 70 million un(der)employed by 2020. Current capitalism under current tax laws and current frictional policies will guarantee this.
    I have suggested one example of a new paradigm that may help which involves the launch of non-profit public service corporations that are owned by for-profit corporations. These NPSCs appear to have the potential to productively sop up the nation’s ‘meathead majors’.
    http://rebaneruminations.typepad.com/rebanes_ruminations/2009/09/workers-and-work—the-coming-crisis.html
    The progressives on these pages have not wanted to even consider an America with NPSCs; I don’t know why. Perhaps it’s just intellectually easier to continue putting me into the ‘regressive’ category. But a careful read would reveal that there is nothing regressive about NPSCs. On the other hand, our congressman McClintock doesn’t want to consider NPSCs because he believes that a return to small government, fewer regs, and constitutionality is all that it will take to put the legions of two-digit IQ folks into competitive jobs.
    I have plenty of experience shouting into a howling gale.

    Like

  13. Paul Emery Avatar
    Paul Emery

    The massive unemployment you refer to is exactly why we have to find a way to employ people doing the most essential work that needs to be done, which is raising healthy children, caring for the elderly and ill and insuring a healthy earth. There’s more than enough work to employ everyone and doing so is entirely consistent with maintaining a healthy economy because it increases the overall value of our culture. Just imagine if a major portion of what we spend on the military was used for these tasks?
    Obama’s economic recovery was a disaster because it was not spent on anything that has a lasting value. You may not agree with what Roosevelt did in response to the depression but at least some useful things were built that added to the value of our infrastructure. There’s a fine building that is still in use today as a community center in Fair Oaks that has inscribed in it’s retaining wall “WPA 1936”. That building to this day adds to the economy of the town every time it’s used for a wedding or gathering. Imagine the impact on the economy if funds went to the job of child rearing. That money would not only create healthier and more productive citizens but also it would be recycled through the community and returned to the treasury as a reward from a healthy economy.
    I will read your piece on NPSC’s again. I’m not sure what the relevance is to this topic but I’ll check it out.

    Like

  14. George Rebane Avatar

    Paul, yes there are all kinds of monuments to FDR’s alphabet programs of 1930s. The part that few understand is what Bastiat, Mises, and Hayek have pointed out is we don’t see the alternative benefit had the monies been spent by private initiative instead of the feds in a socialized economy.
    Re FDR’s policies we always have hearken back to Treasury Secretary henry Morgenthau’s May 1939 testimony to the Senate. Bottom line, according to their own Keynesian ‘experts’, the policies did not work.
    http://rebaneruminations.typepad.com/rebanes_ruminations/2010/01/jobs-jobs-jobs.html

    Like

  15. stevenfrisch Avatar
    stevenfrisch

    Nice cherry picking Greg, and nice job D. King not acknowledging that I corrected the hydro statement by immediately following up with a statement that micro-hydro was included in the RPS.
    IN 2009 SBC had 11 employees, thus all of Greg’s comparative figures are off.
    Any rational reader of these comments, reading through the full thread would see that Greg is a bully. He attacks me because I won’t be bullied. With that said, it really is a total waste of time to talk to you morons. Nothing ever changes–mean nasty people. I will beat you in the real world and enjoy it to my dying breathe (sic)!

    Like

  16. Greg Goodknight Avatar
    Greg Goodknight

    “Greg, you are to be commended for the sacrifice your family made to provide for your children. Everyone does not have the capability to make that decision. Also, there are many single parents. I know his seems radical but what is more important than properly raising children?”
    Raising them without state interference, or without picking the pockets of neighbors in order to pay for them?
    Sorry, but everyone has a capability and a responsibility to make their own decisions regarding raising their own children as they see fit. This is not a state function and I’d love to see how you would stretch the Constitution to cover this. Interstate commerce clause, anyone?

    Like

  17. Greg Goodknight Avatar
    Greg Goodknight

    It wasn’t “cherry picking”, Steve. I quoted an entire relevant section of a state report that had information appropriate to the discussion, and it showed you were wrong on a number of points.
    “Any rational reader of these comments, reading through the full thread would see that Greg is a bully. He attacks me because I won’t be bullied. With that said, it really is a total waste of time to talk to you morons. Nothing ever changes–mean nasty people. I will beat you in the real world and enjoy it to my dying breathe (sic)!”
    Feel better? Sometimes a tantrum like that can be cathartic, but you seem to be obsessive compulsive about coming back and talking to these supposed morons you apparently hate. Is it just unfair you keep losing arguments? Here, seemingly rational people have given me some support.
    In short, you complain because you’ve not been able to drive me off, and my shots hit the mark.
    Please note you weren’t very nice to D. King when you first dumped on him for his literally correct hydro remark by adding a zinger:
    “D. King–Hydro is not included in the renewable portfolio standard in California. You propensity to assume with out research is showing.”
    That Steve, was your bullying, made worse by being incorrect.

    Like

  18. Greg Goodknight Avatar
    Greg Goodknight

    Frisch: “D. King–we are already at about 20% renewable generated power in the State of California already”
    Cal PUC: “RPS Generation to Date: According to the IOUs’ March 2011 Compliance Filings, the IOU RPS percentage in 2010 is 17.9%”
    And some of that increase is because “utility customers used less power in 2010 than the prior three years, which allowed renewable energy procurement to account for a greater percentage of retail sales.”
    Meaning, if the California economy continues to slide, the numbers will get better on their own!

    Like

  19. Todd Juvinall Avatar
    Todd Juvinall

    Having children is a feat anyone with the proper components can do. What we have done here in America and other advanced countries is nationalize the womb then nationalize the child. “It takes a village” is what the left has achieved here. For instance, the State takes about 83% of our local property tax and the funds and the responsibility to teach our kids was taken over by nameless faceless bureaucrats in Sac and DC (Education Dept.). If we want money we have to grovel (you can’t even build a classroom without them approving). Before that we taught our own friends and neighbors. Same with the trashing over time of a woman’s role in raising kids while the hubby was working. I remember all the hub-bub from feminists that raising a kid was demeaning and only being men-like was acceptable, (glass ceiling). My mom stayed home and took care of six kids while my dad had a business building structures here in little Nevada County. I remember my school years as mostly a wonderful experience and I learned a lot from many great teachers. There was a huge leap forward of mankind during those years of my youth because people had common sense, government was much smaller and men and women knew their jobs.

    Like

  20. Todd Juvinall Avatar
    Todd Juvinall

    I do get a kick out of the rent-seekers like Frisch who burn through so much taxpayers money to then tell us how many taxpayer jobs they created. Whoop-de-doo!There is a mental disconnect with reality in them. Greg calls a spade a spade and Frisch and his ilk cry a river. But, they still have their phony job forums periodically so they can pat themselves on the back. SBC is simply an example of what has made America a mess.

    Like

  21. Mikey McD Avatar
    Mikey McD

    Paul and George, I have a common sense solution to the ‘investment’ question. Approx 50% of the CA general fund is spent on Education (k-college). The state could actually save money and provide the education you have set as a goal by allowing all ‘private school’ (tuition to private school, curriculum for home school, etc) expenses to receive a credit [not a deduction) on state income taxes [with a cap of 50% credit].
    “What I still don’t have a good feeling for is the process that permits the flow of public funds (“investment”) to enable such grassroots education to become widespread. ” Posted by: George Rebane | 04 June 2011 at 07:22 PM

    Like

  22. Mikey McD Avatar
    Mikey McD

    We need more diversity in education. Instead of an all-conforming structure sent down from DC and we need to empower teachers AND PARENTS to draft relevant curriculum (at home and at school).
    If the Department of Education or The Teachers Unions want to prove their worth why don’t they focus on solving today’s glaring problems. How about focusing math and science on alternative energy studies? Imagine if they made this a focus since the 1970’s?
    We need to encourage [via tax incentives] a parent to directly participate in their child’s education either via homeschooling or otherwise. The largest obstacle to the changes needed for our students is without any doubt the teachers unions. I understand that the Teachers Union is just that, a Union for Teachers, but, the students have suffered long enough.

    Like

  23. Greg Goodknight Avatar
    Greg Goodknight

    “If the Department of Education or The Teachers Unions want to prove their worth why don’t they focus on solving today’s glaring problems. How about focusing math and science on alternative energy studies? Imagine if they made this a focus since the 1970’s?”
    That isn’t their core competency, which is supposed to be the teaching of children in K-12 grades. They are not the scientists able to discover new principles, or the engineers able to design efficient solutions using the best applicable technologies. Instead, they should be the ones who can help K-12 students gain the literacy and numeracy needed to either get a job or to continue their studies at a community college or a university.
    The problem with education is that all too often, kids are passed through the system and learn little. Some of the problem goes back to student motivation and poor parenting but much of it lay at the feet of the education biz that rewards merely showing up and chooses not to penalize mediocrity and incompetence.

    Like

  24. George Rebane Avatar

    Greg, I understood Mikey’s 9AM comment to suggest the teaching of the tools to prepare kids for ultimate success in, say, the “alternative energy” fields where they could then “discover new principles” and “design efficient solutions using the best applicable technologies.” Mikey’s point agrees with your point -“Instead, they should be the ones … .”

    Like

  25. Mikey McD Avatar
    Mikey McD

    Greg, Rebane is correct. I did type in a bit of haste. But, you and I are in agreement. I don’t expect high schoolers to solve our problems (alt energy), but be equipped to tackle such feats after graduation via a strong math/science/english foundation which they should receive in public schooling.

    Like

  26. D. King Avatar
    D. King

    Greg Goodknight
    Meaning, if the California economy continues to slide, the numbers will get better on their own!
    That’s what I was trying to say here.
    Steve,
    Your intensions are good, however, to get to 33% renewable in the stated time frame is not possible unless you pencil whip the numbers by reducing overall consumption in an economically debilitating amount.

    Like

  27. Todd Juvinall Avatar
    Todd Juvinall

    When the State created the Integrated Waste Management Board twenty years ago I said at the time their goals for a 50% recycling by 1995 or so was nuts. They had to delay year after year and they still have not met that if my info is correct. What happened though is the little department became a humungous bureaucracy and caused our citizens to pay a hundred billion bucks over time to comply. The Board became corrupt and was populated by political appointees and they received huge salaries. This is what happens and AB32 is no different.

    Like

  28. D. King Avatar
    D. King

    Todd,
    It’s already here.
    CARB
    Hien T. Tran’s fake PhD.
    Mary Nichols knew of the fraud before voting on the controversial regulation. The board members who knew, kept the information from other board members for nearly a year after the vote.
    http://www.youtube.com/user/killcarb?blend=1&ob=5#p/c/AD1F8DE4333579A3/1/z7YaTbiWxLg

    Like

  29. D. King Avatar
    D. King

    DON’T use the above link (No return path)
    USE this one.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7YaTbiWxLg

    Like

  30. Paul Emery Avatar
    Paul Emery

    We’re way off track from discussing values so I’m returning to that focus.
    George writes:
    “What I still don’t have a good feeling for is the process that permits the flow of public funds (“investment”) to enable such grassroots education to become widespread.”
    The investment is for much more then education it is in the children themselves, therefore our future. Let me challenge all of you left right and whatever with this question. What “work” is more important than the work of raising children, care of our elderly and those unfortunate physically and mentally and care for the earth so that it may to continue to provide for our essential well being? I’m curious if we can reach a consensus on this then perhaps, we can go forward. For the purpose of this question let’s not get diverted by how we pay for doing these tasks. That will be considered when we look at the “how”phase after priorities are established. Also, we can easily be diverted by asking “why” but I think we can assume we all have the same basic values in that department.

    Like

  31. George Rebane Avatar

    Paul, IMHO your asking us to first go through priority settings isn’t going to happen. All of us, most certainly all of us with with multiple future generations already alive, will agree that raising the newest generation is up there among the most important tasks a society promotes and, perhaps, collectively undertakes. (It may be a priority setting exercise with an uncertain outcome for those not so blessed with kids.)
    So let’s just posit that properly raising kids to maintain the species and, specifically, the culture into which they are born is job one. Given that, how is society to ‘best1’ fund that enterprise so as to turn out the ‘best2’ product?
    You want to analyze something? try to define best1 and best2 in such a way that we can use them to evaluate alternative funding schemes. Not agreeing on best1 and best2 is where the whole thing will stop, and re/turn to the dysfunctional political solutions we now have. That’s what got us there, and that’s what will keep us there.

    Like

  32. Todd Juvinall Avatar
    Todd Juvinall

    There is a conundrum here reagrding the raising of the kids in America. Paul is concerned about them an their value as an investment and we are simply saying the policies the left has enacted regarding the culture and taxes have made the place a mess. When the wife has to also work just to pay the tax burden of the family so the tax money can be redistributed to others children or their parents, you can see the problem. The family raising the kid and making the tax payments has been asked to forsake the nuclear family so their lives can be made more comfortable. Of course that is thru to force of the middle man, the government. Yep, Paul, solve that and we’ll nominate you for a Nobel Peace Prize for family values/tax policy.

    Like

  33. Greg Goodknight Avatar
    Greg Goodknight

    Paul E, there really isn’t any answer besides NO. After a century of progressive ‘professionalization’ of education under government purview kids in the US are at record levels of illiteracy and innumeracy, at least in California. They can’t even teach the basics in California despite being given about HALF the state budget.
    The government can’t give a dollar to a parent to raise their kids without taking a dollar from someone else. And, there’s nothing in the Constitution to justify taking a dollar from person A to give to parent B to raise their kids. Or is there? Do you see something I don’t?
    As a single, widowed Dad with an elementary student, I was happy never to have gotten a visit (announced or not) from some government entity wondering what I was doing to raise my son. I was steeled to not let them in the door if it ever came to pass. Somehow, if I would have taken money from the government to do what I was doing, I suspect there would have been a bureau tasked with making sure I was following their marching orders, and that visit might have happened over and over. There is no such thing as free money with no strings attacheed.
    Paul, it’s time to be less coy. Say what you want to say. Out with it. You probably won’t get much agreement from me, but then, I doubt that will be a big surprise. 🙂

    Like

  34. D. King Avatar
    D. King

    Where are you leading us Paul?
    I’m waiting for a logic stream.

    Like

  35. Greg Goodknight Avatar
    Greg Goodknight

    Regarding ‘teaching the kids to be prepared to advance the state of the art’ for energy production, or anything else for that matter, the state Education bureaucracy is not competent to do so.
    [rant about the incompetence of the GVSD deleted before posting – GG]
    The latest K-12 BS to be aware of is STEM. NSF categories: Science, Technology, Engineering, Math. On the surface, great. Preparing kids for careers in these is a fine target:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STEM_fields
    However, how it seems to have been run up the flagpole in the high schools is not making sure kids have the ability to choose any of those paths, but rather, they’re STEM ready if there are any paths to at least one of them. “Of course we do STEM!”
    For example, when my son was choosing his sequence of math classes at the local high school (Nevada Union HS) he was assured by his counselor he needed to finish up with AP Statistics his senior year, the natural endpoint. It’s STEM you know; health care needs Stats. However, he had all the required prerequisites entering into the 10th grade, and I assured him that while Stats is good, it’s a dead end. If he wanted to study a math or math intensive field in college, Calculus would best be fresh. Fortunately, it was an easy sell.
    Should I blame the counselor? Probably not, they most likely just knew what they were told and had no clue what a hard core collegiate STEM program expected of a frosh walking in the door.
    Nothing wrong with the meathead majors, but I would not want them to have the final say in anything regarding my son, and they’re the ones running K-12.

    Like

  36. Paul Emery Avatar
    Paul Emery

    I was the opposite of coy and very direct when I stated my belief on the most important work that needs to be done and pointed out the wisdom of investing in the infrastructure of raising children, compassion and care for the aged and disabled and a healthy earth. How much more direct do I need to be?
    By the way, here’s the latest crack in the Republican facade
    During a Fox News panel Sunday, conservative contributor Bill Kristol admitted that “corporations have a ton of cash” and the Republican Party’s desire to slash corporate tax rates was a mistake.
    “Republicans are making a mistake if they focus on big businesses and corporate tax rates,” he said. “Corporations have a ton of cash. The corporate tax rate is not killing big business in America.”
    From Raw Story
    http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/06/bill-kristol-admits-gop-making-a-mistake-by-slashing-corporate-taxes/

    Like

  37. Greg Goodknight Avatar
    Greg Goodknight

    “I was the opposite of coy and very direct when I stated my belief on the most important work that needs to be done and pointed out the wisdom of investing in the infrastructure of raising children, compassion and care for the aged and disabled and a healthy earth. How much more direct do I need to be?”
    Wisdom of investing in the infrastructure of raising children? Paul, you aren’t being direct, because it’s the nature of the ‘infrastructure’ you are hinting of that is the crux of the issue. You seem to be withholding what you want to be done, and what governmental entity should be the one to do it.
    That infrastructure used to be called the “family”. If you want families to have more assets with which to better raise their children, tax them less.

    Like

  38. Greg Goodknight Avatar
    Greg Goodknight

    ??? a bunch of comments are, at the moment, not there anymore…

    Like

  39. wmartin Avatar
    wmartin

    “Paul, you aren’t being direct, because it’s the nature of the ‘infrastructure’ you are hinting of that is the crux of the issue.
    Posted by: Greg Goodknight”
    Probably because there is no there there. I suspect what’s being presented is not a plan, but a general emotional appeal to how things oughta be.

    Like

  40. George Rebane Avatar

    GregG – No comments removed by me. It seems that a whole day either disappeared, or no one commented on this stream. Do you have a specific example that’s gone?

    Like

  41. Paul Emery Avatar
    Paul Emery

    Sure Greg, I hope this helps.
    First of all we have to place economic value in the work activities that lie beyond the marketplace. The title of Riane Eisler’s book that I gather most of these ideas from, is the “Real Wealth of Nations”, obviously taken from Adam Smith’s “Wealth of Nations” but questioning Smiths devaluation of activities that fall beyond the markets parameters of buying and selling. The contention of caring economics is that the market place many times gives economic value to activities that harm of health and the environment but does not necessarily reward practices that are nurturing to the earth and to the lives of people. That is the essence of caring economics.
    When I say invest in the infrastructure I mean investment like when we build highways, bridges, airports and dams. The money would come from the general fund pool that we all pay into but in short order would more than be returned by less dependence on public education, social welfare systems, law enforcement and medical services and general taxpayer support for social services.
    Probably the closest models we have to this are from the Nordic countries.

    Like

  42. George Rebane Avatar

    Paul, what I see ignored in your promotion of Eisler is any response to the critical workings of price in the marketplace. The values you/Eisler speak of will be set through diktats issued by some remote committee of the collective, otherwise known as the power of the bayonet wielded by an authoritarian state. This has never worked.
    The socialists’ arguments for such Eisler-type solutions that involve central control always omit any recognition of the role of price and those who bring this notion into the debate. Your response so far has been typical of this.
    I copy here my comment on price posted under ‘True Value of Work …’ where you introduced Eisler to us.
    Eisler does not appear to understand the function of Price in an economy.
    Price is what the Buyer pays the Seller for a good or service. Except for barter economies, it is always in the form of recognized money. In an open market, an agreed upon price between buyer and seller communicates many important attributes about what is being sold to other members in the market.
    To begin, in price lies the ability to draw compensation/reward for taking the risk to bring the product/service to market (to the customer). Others can then gauge from price how they may or not be able to use their resources to also supply such product/service and receive such reward.
    To suppliers the current price can be compared with former price(s) in order to communicate any change in demand, since prices in a free market are sensitive to supply relative to demand. Therefore price will induce timely increase or decrease in supply thereby allowing capital to flow to its most productive uses.
    From these we see that price also provides the information of how to allocate scarce resources, thereby causing an economy to respond in the most timely and effective manner to provide the so-called Pareto optimal (the best for the most) quality of life in a society.
    And finally, price has been found to be the most ‘fair’ method of allocating scarce products/services.
    Price is a natural artifact of human behavior within the realities of the real world. It has its own level and can only be manipulated for a while through force or the secreting of information. If the government mandated prices are wrong in an economy, black and gray markets will immediately arise wherein the correct prices prevail to serve the above described functions.
    Whenever prices have been manipulated by the government’s gun, shortages and wasteful excesses have been the result and people have suffered. Extended periods of enforced price controls have always ruined economies and even brought down empires.
    As an historical aside, all communist governments have controlled prices. And all such governments – e.g. USSR, Red China, Cuba, … – have enslaved their populations and ruined their economies as a result, while still allowing various forms of black and gray markets to exist in order to keep the peace and prolong the nominal public order. As a counter, all nation-states that have eased government control of markets and economies have enjoyed the blessings brought by individual freedoms and freer markets in which prices again are allowed to communicate the realities in order to increase the quality of people’s lives.
    Posted by: George Rebane | 01 June 2011 at 10:05 AM

    Like

  43. Paul Emery Avatar
    Paul Emery

    This would of could only happen with the consent of the governed so you can put your bayonets away. I doubt if you would deny the will of the majority if this were to come to pass. It’s much like your longing for a Free Trade dictate that is not likely to pass majority muster. The only examples of modern advocates you were able to gather were a couple of Asian City States.

    Like

  44. George Rebane Avatar

    Paul, I also cited the historical era of a US market. But your argument has little relevance since the citing of only ONE such marketplace would be sufficient in such a debate.
    [This hearkens to a famous Einstein episode. The scientist was approached by a colleague who greatly disagreed with Einstein’s theories. He cited the number of similarly persuaded scientists as being the clincher. Einstein replied that such a numerous horde is unnecessary, just send one with the definitive refutation and his theories would be no more.]
    Paul, I have no “bayonets”. And people of my persuasion would are not given to governance by the will of the majority on public policy questions like this. We are not a democracy for the reasons taught by the Founders, we are a democratic republic in which the volatility of the ignorant and/or uninformed are tempered through representative bodies duly constituted. This seminal difference between us is a powerful force moving the country toward a Great Divide.

    Like

  45. Paul Emery Avatar
    Paul Emery

    Okay George let me amend my statement.
    I fundamentally disagree with your limited essay about the meaning of “price”. Nowhere does that include the value of care giving, stewardship of the land and raising children. It works well in valuing commodities and services but ignores the most important work that needs to be done. It’s so 20th century (19th). We are approaching a time when there won’t be jobs for significant numbers of our population yet the essential work I described carry on. This will happen, there is no choice. Marketplace capitalism will soon run out of customers and you know what that means.
    Since you don’t believe in the rule of the majority let me say “This will only come to pass through legislation passed by both houses of congress and signed by the President.” Then, I assume, you would respect the rule of law established by the governance of the land.
    By bayonets I was referring, not to clearly, to your predictable reactionary rhetoric against the idea that an expansion of capitalistic values is necessary and should include support for ideas proposed by Reisler.

    Like

  46. George Rebane Avatar

    Paul, the ‘essay’ on price is completely general, it does not exclude any interactions whatsoever between people in an economy. The free movement of prices strongly includes and communicates all the ‘values’ that are important to you and Eisler. I fear your concern is that such ‘values’ will not be valued enough by a free public as reflected by what they are willing to pay, and therefore the public must be coerced to perform and pay as the government dictates (Cass Sunstein’s “nudging”).
    I agree about the massive under and unemployment that will now become systemic, and have proposed a specific approach (NPSC) to address that and fulfill any of the functions you outline. What we don’t know is what price people are willing to pay for those functions.
    Finally, I reiterate: price is not something relegated to the 19th or 20th century, it is a fundamental aspect of human behavior that has been in effect since we crawled out of caves (even before?). The hubris of man has been to subvert and/or ignore this natural phenomenon, and it has always failed. The rejection of this truth is what separates us.

    Like

  47. Paul Emery Avatar
    Paul Emery

    George
    There are many other examples of economic systems that do not employ the system of price that you advocate. That’s a whole separate topic but I will grant you that position for the sake of this discussion so I can concentrate on the practical value of caring economics in our current climate.
    My contention is that essential work needs to be valued. Caring work (I’ll use caring as a simplification) is not valued economically in our current system so the essential work is neglected and causing us to pay later, so to speak, when the true costs of our neglect become apparent (crime, chronic illness, preventable destruction to the environment, neglect of seniors and the disabled, dependency on government mandated education ……on and on. These costs are paid by taxpayers after the fact.
    It is much cheaper and cost effective to tend to these matters up front through government funded workers
    It can probably be calculated though it’s beyond my ability, the cost comparison between home care giving and institutional care for the aged and infirm. Since much of that cost is paid by medicare and medicaid and therefore paid by the common treasury it is perfectly reasonable to consider how paying a family member to provide this aid would compare. This is discussed in her writings. There are no credible examples of free enterprise solutions for senior care. We do not let our old folks die in the street so why not train and fund family members to take care of loved ones? In many cases it’s a full time occupation so family supporters can’t afford to lose their paying jobs to provide the needed care.

    Like

  48. wmartin Avatar
    wmartin

    “My contention is that essential work needs to be valued. ”
    OK,OK. Fine.
    Please lay out a plan where this is accomplished. Include how it is funded and who gets the $$$$ and why.
    It’s always a lot harder to cook up an idea than to tear it down, so it’s probably time to ante up.
    I admit that one funny side effect of paying people the amount they are really worth, is that you’d start seeing 10:1 differences in salaries between people who work right next to each other.

    Like

  49. Todd Juvinall Avatar
    Todd Juvinall

    Paul, if you want an example of what people are paid and what they are paid for, go to the County HR and look at the 250 different job descriptions and payrolls for same. That would be translated to every job on the planet under your thinking I guess.

    Like

  50. Paul Emery Avatar
    Paul Emery

    wmartin
    It would be a shift in government support over a period of years using the savings in health, education and law enforcement that would result. I can’t answer all the questions but let’s imagine something like care giver salaries from basic to administrative and whatever. Again, keep in mind that while this may be an added expense early on it would soon balance out when savings become apparent in other areas. It’s not realistic for me to know all the answers but I hope you get the idea.
    It would be funded as an investment for the future justified by the confidence that in time that it would do a better job for less money than current systems. We fund the military for national security. I believe this is an equal necessity.

    Like

Leave a comment