May 4 2013: It's subtle, but the emphasis on teachers, as though they're the ones responsible for *all* learning is part of the movement to dismantle some of the last of the public realm. Michelle Rhee and the "Waiting for Superman" crowd promote this meme, and the notion that merit pay, charter schools and testing will lead to better educational outcomes. No science supports this position. On the other hand, it's politically profitable to those opposing public goods and services. Better to have toll booths for all those things to pay the rentiers.
The film "Waiting for Superman" touts the Finnish schools as what to emulate. It doesn't mention that Finnish teachers are well paid, tenured and unionized. In the U.S. Rhee's organization ("Students First") even wants to dismantle the defined benefit pensions of teachers...some of the last in the U.S. since corporate looting removed DB pensions from most of the 70% of workers who had them. (FYI, these pensions are twice as remunerative as 401Ks and the like). See the book "Pension Heist" for the footnotes here.
What does science disclose actually influences educational outcomes? Childhood poverty. Only 2% of Finnish children live poverty. In the U.S., the figure is 23%. The real agenda of "Teachers Uber Alles" is to misdirect from this sad fact.
So this cruel misdirection is applauded universally as "wonderful," but the real business of ripping off the American public, privatiizing yet another piece of the commons, proceeds apace.
Shame on everyone who knows this and doesn't protest.
Feb 26 2013: Not mentioned in the lecture: The social context (which, BTW, is exactly what school "reformers" who want to privatize everything in the U.S. want) That makes every outcome the teachers' or school system's problem. But scientific correlations between merit pay, charter schools and testing (the current B.S. strategies to "improve" U.S. schools) and educational outcomes don't exist. On the other hand, childhood poverty correlates strongly with educational outcomes.
Childhood poverty in Finland: 2%. Childhood poverty in the U.S.: 23%.
Jan 7 2013: First, government "debt" is not an indication that government spends too much. That's your OPINION. Your OPINION and $2.75 will get you a latte at Starbucks. Your OPINION has been demonstrably counter-factual so often that it is discounted immediately, at least by me.
Factually speaking, what that "debt" is is an indication that government (net) spends *anything.* The Fed creates an equal amount of dollars and "debt" simultaneously. Government then spends the dollars out into the economy, and retrieves some of that spending in taxes. Dollars originate with government. OBVIOUSLY. ... unless they're counterfeit.
The "debt" is therefore EXACTLY equal to the number of government-created dollars in non-government hands (plus net exports). Reducing the debt NECESSARILY means reducing those dollars in the private economy.
Oddly enough, as the link cited demonstrates, the economic history of the U.S. shows EXACTLY this. In other words, even though it's not a theory, it's accounting, this assertion also has the benefit of being actually FACTUALLY TRUE.
As for the Fed obeying congress, you can Google to find Greenspan and Bernanke saying that (and can also find the right-wing St. Louis Fed saying exactly what I've said about the U.S. sovereign, fiat currency preventing any solvency problem in repaying debt too). I'm just taking their word for it. How long do you think a Fed mutiny would last?
As for the audit, yes, they resisted that (and I'd be for it). It showed they issued $16 - $29 trillion to cure the same financial markets whose frauds crashed the economy. Why can we issue those trillions instantly, but can't fund social safety net or revenue sharing programs. NO REASON, except the financial sector now runs public policy and feels they'd get a vulture's payday from austerity. Read all the links, please, and this time understand them.
Try this one too: http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2013/01/americas-deceptive-2012-fiscal-cliff-part-4.html
Jan 7 2013: As Mr. Cowell says "That was the worst response to factual assertions I've ever seen."...;-)"
What you assert is counterfactual. Not supported by the history, the archaeology, or the anthropology. Read "Debt: the First 5,000 Years" by David Graeber for an entertaining jaunt through all of the above. Commodity money, even in Rome, was not weighed, it was valued at the amount stamped on it. Your assertion is therefore false on all counts.
Money, at its origins, was social. It prevented feuds and paid the bride price. It was not some commodity exchanged in barter....Really.
It's true that central banks aren't necessary, however ours provides a clearing-house service.
And yes, the economy can get along without government money. We could all exchange each others' IOUs. As Hyman Minsky says "Anyone can make money. The problem is in getting it accepted." The truth is that government money is enormously convenient. Like government research (drugs, silicon chips, internet) it empowers the economy.
As for the "crowding out" effect of government demand: That's true only when factories are at capacity and unemployment is zero. Otherwise it doesn't apply; more demand employs more people and resources.
I don't want to defend government spending as perfect, or always pure. It's just as susceptible as any human activity to corruption. Think Enron, Adelphia, Credit Mobilier, and Silverado Savings & Loan.
However, what you believe is utter baloney. Seriously. You can look it up. And yes, the government is the monopoly provider of dollars, and only accepts dollars in payment for taxes. You can BELIEVE anything you want, but don't try to pay your taxes with gold. Your BELIEF and $2.75 will get you a latte at Starbuck's.
For more, see neweconomicperspectives.org/2013/01/news-conference-for-a-paradigm-shift.html
Government programs and spending *obviously* create jobs. Vendors don't ask "Did this dollar come directly from the government, or from a private entity?" before they sell their stuff. That *is* the economy.
The job-creating programs include such things as the gigantic irrigation project that makes California agriculture possible, the post office (no, not even Meg Whitman could bring e-bay to Russia because their postal service was so bad), silicon chips (NASA), the internet (DARPA), etc., etc., etc. How far into your nether regions does your head have to be inserted before you can ignore all this?
Has the Stimulus worked? You're willing to take the word of "many economists" about whether Japan has reached the point of no return. Sure, bond markets continue to purchase their bonds, but what do they know?... Meanwhile, many more *real* economists say 2M jobs were the product of the stimulus. Google for yourself.
And yes, Keynesian economics from Reagan to Bush has been vindicated. Reagan abandoned Monetarism in the early '80s (read Krugman's "Peddling Prosperity" for the whole story).
You continue to believe you answer the questions I've posed, but consistently ignore them, and cite the counter-factual as "evidence." Not convincing.
There is no "debt" owed by the government. IT DOESN'T EXIST...at least not like household debt. That's the point of the link. Nothing is passed to "younger generations" in the way of an obligation because the obligation is freely repay-able with fiat money. I've already answered the inflation objection to that too.
You see, you have to understand the words, and take them to heart, not just rehearse your pleasant fairy tale. It's a fairy tale. It's not true, and obviously so.
How convincing are fairy tales? Consider that Copernicus heliocentricity was banned even after he died and Galileo spent his later years under house arrest.
Change your mind. It's not G-d. It's just a fairy tale
Jan 6 2013: First, the programs you mention are largely paid-for benefits, not "entitlements" -- that's the neo-con framing designed to create government you can drown in a bathtub.
Second, the entire premise that government "debt" is like household debt is false. Read this for the details:
Jan 6 2013: This is the famous "adult conversation" about the many trillions in "unfunded liabilities." What "adult conversation" typically means is that "if you don't agree with me, you're a child." ... to which I say "Nuh uh!!!"...;-)
The premise that government is funded by taxes or borrowing is clearly and obviously wrong. Where do the taxpayers get the dollars that they pay in taxes; where do the Chinese get the dollars that they lend?... Ultimately from government, which can make dollars out of nothing, ad infinitum.
Ok, now, if your head hasn't exploded (after all, I'm contradicting a belief more firmly held than the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin), you're probably worried about inflation.
Back here in reality, according to its recent audit, the Fed (the U.S. central bank) issued $16 - $29 trillion (in loans of up to two years duration at practically zero interest) in 2007 to cure the financial markets after their frauds crashed the economy. That was five years ago. Where's the inflation? (No, not even shadowstats says there was an inflationary surge, and CPI and bond yields confirm this).
Jan 6 2013: More magical thinking. Government is not funded by taxes or debt. Clearly and obviously the government must spend dollars (which it creates out of nothing) into the economy before taxpayers can return them in taxes. The real limit on government spending is not debt or how much it can rely on the kindness of Chinese lenders, it's what the real economy (not finance, but reality) can produce.
TEDCred score: +0.10 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.
A comment on Talk: Rita Pierson: Every kid needs a champion
The film "Waiting for Superman" touts the Finnish schools as what to emulate. It doesn't mention that Finnish teachers are well paid, tenured and unionized. In the U.S. Rhee's organization ("Students First") even wants to dismantle the defined benefit pensions of teachers...some of the last in the U.S. since corporate looting removed DB pensions from most of the 70% of workers who had them. (FYI, these pensions are twice as remunerative as 401Ks and the like). See the book "Pension Heist" for the footnotes here.
What does science disclose actually influences educational outcomes? Childhood poverty. Only 2% of Finnish children live poverty. In the U.S., the figure is 23%. The real agenda of "Teachers Uber Alles" is to misdirect from this sad fact.
So this cruel misdirection is applauded universally as "wonderful," but the real business of ripping off the American public, privatiizing yet another piece of the commons, proceeds apace.
Shame on everyone who knows this and doesn't protest.
A reply on Talk: Andreas Schleicher: Use data to build better schools
Childhood poverty in Finland: 2%. Childhood poverty in the U.S.: 23%.
See any connection?
A reply on Talk: Adam Davidson: What we learned from teetering on the fiscal cliff
Factually speaking, what that "debt" is is an indication that government (net) spends *anything.* The Fed creates an equal amount of dollars and "debt" simultaneously. Government then spends the dollars out into the economy, and retrieves some of that spending in taxes. Dollars originate with government. OBVIOUSLY. ... unless they're counterfeit.
The "debt" is therefore EXACTLY equal to the number of government-created dollars in non-government hands (plus net exports). Reducing the debt NECESSARILY means reducing those dollars in the private economy.
Oddly enough, as the link cited demonstrates, the economic history of the U.S. shows EXACTLY this. In other words, even though it's not a theory, it's accounting, this assertion also has the benefit of being actually FACTUALLY TRUE.
As for the Fed obeying congress, you can Google to find Greenspan and Bernanke saying that (and can also find the right-wing St. Louis Fed saying exactly what I've said about the U.S. sovereign, fiat currency preventing any solvency problem in repaying debt too). I'm just taking their word for it. How long do you think a Fed mutiny would last?
As for the audit, yes, they resisted that (and I'd be for it). It showed they issued $16 - $29 trillion to cure the same financial markets whose frauds crashed the economy. Why can we issue those trillions instantly, but can't fund social safety net or revenue sharing programs. NO REASON, except the financial sector now runs public policy and feels they'd get a vulture's payday from austerity. Read all the links, please, and this time understand them.
Try this one too: http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2013/01/americas-deceptive-2012-fiscal-cliff-part-4.html
A reply on Talk: Adam Davidson: What we learned from teetering on the fiscal cliff
What you assert is counterfactual. Not supported by the history, the archaeology, or the anthropology. Read "Debt: the First 5,000 Years" by David Graeber for an entertaining jaunt through all of the above. Commodity money, even in Rome, was not weighed, it was valued at the amount stamped on it. Your assertion is therefore false on all counts.
Money, at its origins, was social. It prevented feuds and paid the bride price. It was not some commodity exchanged in barter....Really.
It's true that central banks aren't necessary, however ours provides a clearing-house service.
And yes, the economy can get along without government money. We could all exchange each others' IOUs. As Hyman Minsky says "Anyone can make money. The problem is in getting it accepted." The truth is that government money is enormously convenient. Like government research (drugs, silicon chips, internet) it empowers the economy.
As for the "crowding out" effect of government demand: That's true only when factories are at capacity and unemployment is zero. Otherwise it doesn't apply; more demand employs more people and resources.
I don't want to defend government spending as perfect, or always pure. It's just as susceptible as any human activity to corruption. Think Enron, Adelphia, Credit Mobilier, and Silverado Savings & Loan.
However, what you believe is utter baloney. Seriously. You can look it up. And yes, the government is the monopoly provider of dollars, and only accepts dollars in payment for taxes. You can BELIEVE anything you want, but don't try to pay your taxes with gold. Your BELIEF and $2.75 will get you a latte at Starbuck's.
For more, see neweconomicperspectives.org/2013/01/news-conference-for-a-paradigm-shift.html
A reply on Talk: Adam Davidson: What we learned from teetering on the fiscal cliff
Government programs and spending *obviously* create jobs. Vendors don't ask "Did this dollar come directly from the government, or from a private entity?" before they sell their stuff. That *is* the economy.
The job-creating programs include such things as the gigantic irrigation project that makes California agriculture possible, the post office (no, not even Meg Whitman could bring e-bay to Russia because their postal service was so bad), silicon chips (NASA), the internet (DARPA), etc., etc., etc. How far into your nether regions does your head have to be inserted before you can ignore all this?
Has the Stimulus worked? You're willing to take the word of "many economists" about whether Japan has reached the point of no return. Sure, bond markets continue to purchase their bonds, but what do they know?... Meanwhile, many more *real* economists say 2M jobs were the product of the stimulus. Google for yourself.
And yes, Keynesian economics from Reagan to Bush has been vindicated. Reagan abandoned Monetarism in the early '80s (read Krugman's "Peddling Prosperity" for the whole story).
You continue to believe you answer the questions I've posed, but consistently ignore them, and cite the counter-factual as "evidence." Not convincing.
There is no "debt" owed by the government. IT DOESN'T EXIST...at least not like household debt. That's the point of the link. Nothing is passed to "younger generations" in the way of an obligation because the obligation is freely repay-able with fiat money. I've already answered the inflation objection to that too.
You see, you have to understand the words, and take them to heart, not just rehearse your pleasant fairy tale. It's a fairy tale. It's not true, and obviously so.
How convincing are fairy tales? Consider that Copernicus heliocentricity was banned even after he died and Galileo spent his later years under house arrest.
Change your mind. It's not G-d. It's just a fairy tale
A reply on Talk: Adam Davidson: What we learned from teetering on the fiscal cliff
1. All the inflation that occurred when we were *on* the gold standard.
2. Whether the cure for the inflation is worse than the "disease."
Yes, numbers got bigger. Did people's economic lives get worse too?
Incidentally, the inflation of the '70s came primarily from petroleum, not gold.
For more, see these:
http://www.rooseveltinstitute.org/new-roosevelt/federal-budget-not-household-budget-here-s-why
http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2013/01/americas-deceptive-2012-fiscal-cliff-part-4.html.
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/04/what-are-the-preconditions-for-hyperinflation.html
A reply on Talk: Adam Davidson: What we learned from teetering on the fiscal cliff
Second, the entire premise that government "debt" is like household debt is false. Read this for the details:
http://www.rooseveltinstitute.org/new-roosevelt/federal-budget-not-household-budget-here-s-why
http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2013/01/americas-deceptive-2012-fiscal-cliff-part-4.html.
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/04/what-are-the-preconditions-for-hyperinflation.html
A reply on Talk: Adam Davidson: What we learned from teetering on the fiscal cliff
The premise that government is funded by taxes or borrowing is clearly and obviously wrong. Where do the taxpayers get the dollars that they pay in taxes; where do the Chinese get the dollars that they lend?... Ultimately from government, which can make dollars out of nothing, ad infinitum.
Ok, now, if your head hasn't exploded (after all, I'm contradicting a belief more firmly held than the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin), you're probably worried about inflation.
Back here in reality, according to its recent audit, the Fed (the U.S. central bank) issued $16 - $29 trillion (in loans of up to two years duration at practically zero interest) in 2007 to cure the financial markets after their frauds crashed the economy. That was five years ago. Where's the inflation? (No, not even shadowstats says there was an inflationary surge, and CPI and bond yields confirm this).
Please read my comment and these links:
http://www.rooseveltinstitute.org/new-roosevelt/federal-budget-not-household-budget-here-s-why
http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2013/01/americas-deceptive-2012-fiscal-cliff-part-4.html.
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/04/what-are-the-preconditions-for-hyperinflation.html
A reply on Talk: Adam Davidson: What we learned from teetering on the fiscal cliff
Read this: http://www.rooseveltinstitute.org/new-roosevelt/federal-budget-not-household-budget-here-s-why
Read my comment that's more recent, too.
A reply on Talk: Adam Davidson: What we learned from teetering on the fiscal cliff
...Also take a look at my comment above.