On Apr 1, 3:34*am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:



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

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!


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?)

On 3/31/2010 4:03 PM, Wes wrote:
"Stormin 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

Ed Huntress wrote:
"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" 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

"RBnDFW" wrote in message
...
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

"John R. Carroll" 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...ary_c_130.html


Wes

Wes wrote:
"John R. Carroll" 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...ary_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.

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

John R. Carroll wrote:
Wes wrote:
"John R. Carroll" 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...ary_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.

John R. Carroll wrote:
Wes wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote:

Wes wrote:
"Stormin Mormon" 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.
I sure don't want to go back to the Nixon, Ford, and Carter economy.
Remember WIN, Whip Inflation Now?

What I remember was being at 1% over prime and paying 21% interest on a 90
day revolving line of credit in 1981/82.

Same here. Had a 21% note on $75K buying a business.

Ed Huntress wrote:
"RBnDFW" wrote in message
...
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" wrote:

Wes wrote:
"Stormin Mormon" 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.

I sure don't want to go back to the Nixon, Ford, and Carter economy. Remember WIN, Whip
Inflation Now?

Wes

Wes wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote:

Wes wrote:
"Stormin Mormon" 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.

I sure don't want to go back to the Nixon, Ford, and Carter economy.
Remember WIN, Whip Inflation Now?

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

On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 18:03:25 -0500, Wes wrote:
snip
I don't see us ever defaulting.
snip
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.


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).

RBnDFW wrote:
Ed Huntress wrote:
"RBnDFW" wrote in message
...
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

"RBnDFW" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"RBnDFW" wrote in message
...
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

On Apr 1, 11:59*pm, "Ed Huntress" 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.

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

wrote:
On Apr 1, 11:59 pm, "Ed Huntress" 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.

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

Since you mentioned him, he just passed away this week...


--

Richard Lamb
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb/

cavelamb wrote:
wrote:
On Apr 1, 11:59 pm, "Ed Huntress" 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.

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

Since you mentioned him, he just passed away this week...

On Caesar Chavez Day no less.


--
John R. Carroll

"John R. Carroll" 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.

Wes

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Wes wrote:
"Ed Huntress" 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

wrote in message
...
On Apr 1, 3:34 am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:



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

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 wrote:
"John R. Carroll" 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.
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 ****ed. Three hours of driving and $20.00 to park for nothing.
LOL


--
John R. Carroll

wrote in message
...
On Apr 1, 11:59 pm, "Ed Huntress" 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

On Apr 2, 7:15*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:


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

On Apr 2, 7:15*pm, "Ed Huntress" 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. 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

"John R. Carroll" wrote:

Wes wrote:
"John R. Carroll" 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 ****ed. 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

wrote in message
...
On Apr 2, 7:15 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:


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.

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

Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Wes wrote:
"Ed Huntress" 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 somethingG


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 **** 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

Wes wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote:

Wes wrote:
"John R. Carroll" 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 ****ed. 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.


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

On Fri, 2 Apr 2010 18:18:54 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
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.


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).

Ed Huntress wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Apr 2, 7:15 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:


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.

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.

Just have one of her students write a trading program Ed.
Nobody understands that stuff anyway.
LOL

--
John R. Carroll

On 4/2/2010 2:30 PM, wrote:
On Apr 1, 11:59 pm, "Ed 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.

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

Back to the initial premise- is there any data to support the thesis
that homeschooling is "better" for the school age population?

Kevin Gallimore

On 4/3/2010 10:02 AM, axolotl wrote:
On 4/2/2010 2:30 PM, wrote:
On Apr 1, 11:59 pm, "Ed 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.

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

Back to the initial premise- is there any data to support the thesis
that homeschooling is "better" for the school age population?

Kevin Gallimore


Please forgive the bad editing- when I've had more sleep I know the
difference between data and datum.

Kevin Gallimore

On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 12:07:33 -0800, "John R. Carroll"
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?

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.


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).

F. George McDuffee wrote:
On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 12:07:33 -0800, "John R. Carroll"
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

On Fri, 2 Apr 2010 19:15:17 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:

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)

On Fri, 2 Apr 2010 16:52:15 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
On Apr 2, 7:15*pm, "Ed Huntress" 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. 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

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
--
Frank McKenney, McKenney Associates
Richmond, Virginia / (804) 320-4887
Munged E-mail: frank uscore mckenney ayut mined spring dawt cahm (y'all)

On Apr 3, 5:28*pm, Frnak McKenney
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

On Apr 3, 10:02*am, axolotl wrote:


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

wrote in message
...
On Apr 2, 7:15 pm, "Ed Huntress" 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 ****-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