A present for fiscal conservatives and anybody else

[RandomGuy]

http://mwhodges.home.att.net/

Grandfather Economic Report series

I have long known about this website. The people who run it are VERY fiscally conservative.

It is where I first really read about the coming collapse of oil production, and where I became VERY aware of our overall personal, corporate, and governmental debt load.

Anybody who really wants to call themselves a true conservative, should read through every single page on this website.

I personally don't quite buy 100% of what the website implies is good policy, but I am not a true 100% conservative. I DO trust in most of the statistics and graphs, though.

Given the financial crisis, it might be good to put some of it in perspective from this website.

All this said, they are out to make something of a point. The statistics and arguments may be backed up by data, but they don't quite give any space to opposing viewpoints or contravening data that might mitigate some of the rather alarmist things they post. Keep your critical thinking caps on.

Good website for data though, and they do support their arguments fairly well. This is old-school conservatism, and not new-school hackery.

[RandomGuy]

#1 Core Problem: INCREASED GOVERNMENT-DOMINANCE OF OUR ECONOMY

http://mwhodges.home.att.net/gov-trend.gif

[RandomGuy]

#2 Core Problem: POOR EDUCATION QUALITY PERFORMANCE:

http://mwhodges.home.att.net/educ_prod_2.gif

http://mwhodges.home.att.net/mat-sc-literacy.gif

[DarrinS]

http://mwhodges.home.att.net/gov-trend.gif



Obama's plan will definitely fix that problem.

[RandomGuy]

Obama's plan will definitely fix that problem.

Spoken (ok, typed) like a true conservative. :lol

As I said, this website is my gift to you. Read through it, it is very well put together.

[RandomGuy]

#3 Core Problem: INCREASED DEBT-DEPENDENCE

http://mwhodges.home.att.net/natdebt-vs-natincome.gif

[RandomGuy]

#4 Core Problem: EXPLODING INTERNATIONAL INDEBTEDNESS

http://mwhodges.home.att.net/curr-act-cum-deficit.gif

[RandomGuy]

#5 Core Problem: ENERGY - - LOSS OF INDEPENDENCE
FOR THE LIFE-BLOOD OF OUR STANDARD OF LIVING

http://mwhodges.home.att.net/consumption-production-small.gif

[LnGrrrR]

RG,

You know, it's sad that people feel the need to point out 1) debt is a bad thing, and 2) indebtedness is a bad thing.

I'm surprised about that 'percentage of national income' graph. Pretty amazing that nearly half of the US is on the government dole. (Of which I am one.)

I wonder why the literacy and math rates are dropping so rapidly. (An actual reason would be nice, not the usual "LIBERAL VALUES RUIN SOCIETY!" or "CONSERVATIVES ONLY TEACH GOD! stuff.)

[DarrinS]

I wonder why the literacy and math rates are dropping so rapidly. (An actual reason would be nice, not the usual "LIBERAL VALUES RUIN SOCIETY!" or "CONSERVATIVES ONLY TEACH GOD! stuff.)



Couldn't possibly be underfunding. We already spend a TON of money on education.


The irony is, as high-tech devices become more ubiquitous, fewer people know how they actually work.

[LnGrrrR]

Couldn't possibly be underfunding. We already spend a TON of money on education.

Ok, we've cut funding out of the equation.

So... what is it?

[RandomGuy]

RG,

You know, it's sad that people feel the need to point out 1) debt is a bad thing, and 2) indebtedness is a bad thing.

I'm surprised about that 'percentage of national income' graph. Pretty amazing that nearly half of the US is on the government dole. (Of which I am one.)

I wonder why the literacy and math rates are dropping so rapidly. (An actual reason would be nice, not the usual "LIBERAL VALUES RUIN SOCIETY!" or "CONSERVATIVES ONLY TEACH GOD! stuff.)

Good question. I wish I had the answer. The suck thing is that I have two boys and this problem VERY directly affects me, my boys, and MY future grandkids.

My gut says:

Science and engineering is hard. Not everybody is cracked up to do it.
We don't push this kind of stuff at the junior-high and high-school level.

The website given in the OP thinks it has the answer:

http://mwhodges.home.att.net/education.htm

Quite frankly, I suspect they are probably missing a few things, and don't fully grasp the entirety of the situation, because they view the problem through their own ideological prism.

That said:

Fuck it, we should try it their way. If it works, then great. If not, then we know what doesn't. I want SOMETHING to change.

I have occasionally said that Health Care is our most immediate crisis, and vacillate between that and education.

Long term, I think education is more important, if I really had to nail it down. This is something of a change in my thinking, but if we can't prepare our kids for things that pay a LOT of dividends down the road, we will be hurting in everything else.

[RandomGuy]

Couldn't possibly be underfunding. We already spend a TON of money on education.



http://mwhodges.home.att.net/ed-trend.gif

That assertion would seem to be the case.

I think that there are a lot of underlying social problems that all need to be dealt with on a concurrant basis as well, if we are to really improve things.

[RandomGuy]

Good question. I wish I had the answer. The suck thing is that I have two boys and this problem VERY directly affects me, my boys, and MY future grandkids.

My gut says:

Science and engineering is hard. Not everybody is cracked up to do it.
We don't push this kind of stuff at the junior-high and high-school level.

The website given in the OP thinks it has the answer:

http://mwhodges.home.att.net/education.htm

Quite frankly, I suspect they are probably missing a few things, and don't fully grasp the entirety of the situation, because they view the problem through their own ideological prism.

That said:

Fuck it, we should try it their way. If it works, then great. If not, then we know what doesn't. I want SOMETHING to change.

I have occasionally said that Health Care is our most immediate crisis, and vacillate between that and education.

Long term, I think education is more important, if I really had to nail it down. This is something of a change in my thinking, but if we can't prepare our kids for things that pay a LOT of dividends down the road, we will be hurting in everything else.

By the way, as if the link up there wasn't long and complicated enough, there is also a page 2:

http://mwhodges.home.att.net/education-b.htm

It is a VERY complicated problem, with no easy answers.

Here is the ending summary by the websites' author:


From my years of extensive research, compiled in the Education Report series - - the following recommendations are offered to produce a world-class education quality system in America - - one that can top all other nations, instead of sadly lagging most others as today's status.

Expose the public system to free-market competition and accountability with all public AND private schools.

Social Promotion & grade inflation practices must stop, and strict local-established teaching testing and class testing standards must be established by all school boards. Elimination of social promotion means no one should be passed to the next grade until clear standards have been met - - if summer school does not result in failed students making up the deficiency, the grade MUST BE REPEATED.

Each school district must annually report in writing to all parents that the district's current and past 20 year SAT scores for reading and math, its performance on all other standardized tests at each grade, plus results of international test series for math & science comparing same with all major industrialized foreign nations and the U.S. average.

Except for special needs students and those in grades lower than the 2nd grade - - teacher quality is far more important than smaller class size.
Since most textbooks for math, science and history are unacceptably error-laden, and the contents and teaching methods are also unacceptable and dangerous, as proven again by most recent studies, texts must be written by recognized authors and the contents and methods must deviate little (except by massive proof otherwise) from successful texts and methods employed prior to the 1960s.

Parents MUST be notified annually in writing where their children stand vs. clearly established math & reading standards for each grade K-12 for all standardized tests, SATs and international test score comparison, and the scores of the teachers of their children vs. clear testing standards.
Further, school boards must track percentage their graduates who require remedial courses in college and corrective action taken at the local level to eliminate such need in the future - - and, colleges and universities should charge all costs of remedial education to the high school district graduating the student.

Decommission public tax funding of schools in non-compliance. Additionally, evaluate eliminating any funding control by federal and state education departments, allowing such funds collected at these levels to flow directly to local school districts without a single restriction on their use by local school boards.

It is preferable that local school boards are both 100% elected at the local level, and that they never contract with a national union. It must remain local in full.

It is the firm belief of this author-researcher that the more involved federal government and state government are in the funding and regulatory control of local school boards, and the larger the size of each school district, the more the total system is of a socialized-centralized and monopoly nature. Monopolies by nature always produce the worse outcome regarding world-class quality for anything - - including a higher cost to achieve same. Any centralized and monopolistic education system, considering America's culture today, produces the same result, which makes it imperative in America that we operate a decentralized education system in all aspects - - and the sooner the better for our children. Federal & state government should only be involved in assisting the no-strings funding for poor school districts - - and in publishing nationwide standardized U.S. and international test results for each school district. Where and when will the political will shall come to allow such?
(Email - you may contact Mr. Hodges)

I would tend to agree with him.

[LnGrrrR]

By the way, as if the link up there wasn't long and complicated enough, there is also a page 2:

http://mwhodges.home.att.net/education-b.htm

It is a VERY complicated problem, with no easy answers.

Here is the ending summary by the websites' author:



I would tend to agree with him.

A few questions (forgive me if they're explained on the site, as I haven't had a chance to read it yet):

One, if it's all free-market based, how would you enforce strict standards on textbooks?

Two, wouldn't this end up forcing poorer families into less-successful schools, as free-market policies would allow better schools to charge higher prices? I'm assuming he would remedy that through his idea of no-strings attached funding for poor districts, which is admirable.

Three, no way they're ever passing that idea that colleges would be able to charge high schools if students needed remedial college courses. Just not feasible.

Those are the big problems I see. Still, at least someone's trying to come up with ideas.

[DarrinS]

By the way, as if the link up there wasn't long and complicated enough, there is also a page 2:

http://mwhodges.home.att.net/education-b.htm

It is a VERY complicated problem, with no easy answers.

Here is the ending summary by the websites' author:



I would tend to agree with him.



I also agree with those recommendations, but the teachers union wouldn't have it. IMO, the public school system is, at the micro level, what the federal govt is at the macro level. They take in enormous tax revenue, have incompetents at high-level positions, and can't solve real problems.

[DarrinS]

Two, wouldn't this end up forcing poorer families into less-successful schools, as free-market policies would allow better schools to charge higher prices? I'm assuming he would remedy that through his idea of no-strings attached funding for poor districts, which is admirable.




This is already going on.

[LockBeard]

The funny thing is, Obama is trying to ram business in the ass for stacking the cheese while having shitty performance, yet Government doesn't have to run the country like a business. They can spend, get no results, have no accountability, and print more money to enjoy more fuck ups all while stuffing their pockets.

Thanks for the link RG.

[Extra Stout]

RG,

You know, it's sad that people feel the need to point out 1) debt is a bad thing, and 2) indebtedness is a bad thing.

I'm surprised about that 'percentage of national income' graph. Pretty amazing that nearly half of the US is on the government dole. (Of which I am one.)

I wonder why the literacy and math rates are dropping so rapidly. (An actual reason would be nice, not the usual "LIBERAL VALUES RUIN SOCIETY!" or "CONSERVATIVES ONLY TEACH GOD! stuff.)

1. Society works hard and becomes prosperous.
2. There is so much prosperity that it becomes possible to be comfortable without working hard.
3. The kids of these prosperous hard workers don't work as hard because they don't have to.
4. They are prosperous anyway.
5. Their kids work even less hard.
6. They are still pretty prosperous.
7. Society stops thinking there is a connection between working hard and prospering. Prosperity is taken as a given.
8. Society becomes so committed to not working hard that it finds new ways not to work, such as not committing to families, and not raising its children.
9. Children become undisciplined and stupid.
10. Society blames somebody else for its undisciplined, stupid children.
11. The undisciplined, stupid children grow to become undisciplined, stupid adults.
12. Prosperity fades.
13. Society blames someone else for the fading prosperity.
14. The undisciplined, stupid adults have children they don't raise, who become even more undisciplined and stupid.
15. Cycle repeates for several generations.
16. Prosperity disappears.
17. Society becomes feral and ceases to be society.
18. Collapse.

[Cry Havoc]

http://mwhodges.home.att.net/ed-trend.gif

That assertion would seem to be the case.

I think that there are a lot of underlying social problems that all need to be dealt with on a concurrant basis as well, if we are to really improve things.

I like this graph. I think it goes to show you that you can't just throw more money at the problem and expect students to start wanting to study. You have to change the academic culture.

How about this: Instead of shoving more money down the throat of schools, mandatory pay raises for all teachers making a certain salary or lower? This would cause that job to escalate in demand, and schools could become more picky about who they hire to teach.

Test results are not nearly as important as instilling a "want" to learn in students. That's what good teachers do. Good test results will not result from better facilities or more advanced computers. Good tests are the result of students who want to study and put time and effort into class.

To put it another way -- good test results are not the goal we should seek. They are the result of seeking the right goal -- which is to encourage positive, innovative learning in the classroom.

[Extra Stout]

test results are not nearly as important as instilling a "want" to learn in students. That's what good parents do. Good test results will not result from better facilities or more advanced computers. Good tests are the result of students who want to study and put time and effort into class.
fify.

[101A]

I wonder why the literacy and math rates are dropping so rapidly. (An actual reason would be nice, not the usual "LIBERAL VALUES RUIN SOCIETY!" or "CONSERVATIVES ONLY TEACH GOD! stuff.)

My wife is a Biochemistry Professor - with a capital B. Undergrad B.S. in both Chemistry AND Biology; Ph.D. from Texas A&M in Biochemistry.

When she took the sciences in school she was taught by Biologists and Chemists, who took and passed the real science classes in college. Today, the VAST majority of students are taught by Education majors with an emphasis in this or the other. They don't take the "Real" science classes - the ones the pre-med and graduate bound students take. They take a few watered down versions; but mostly education classes. I guess they can "teach", but they aren't passionate, or even particularly good at the subject they are teaching; probably don't even recognize the students coming through their classes who might be predisposed to a career in the sciences; much less are they able to inspire and nurture them.

Finally, when the students get through high school, and enter college and go to take that Chem 101 class; they are, for the most part, disiterested, and WORSE convinced that it is simply TOOO hard; they accept their inability to NOT learn the subject matter, and move on. She just graded the 2nd test of the semester for 102 (2nd semester Chem 1) class; the average was a 47! I took the test (I was a liberal arts major; and took the "baby" classes myself 20 years ago) - I made a 66! She teaches a medium sized state school up here in PA - roughly equivalent to UTSA in admittance standard.

Oh, and don't forget computers. LOTS of those science led - geeky minds have gone that direction.

[101A]

How about this: Instead of shoving more money down the throat of schools, mandatory pay raises for all teachers making a certain salary or lower? This would cause that job to escalate in demand, and schools could become more picky about who they hire to teach.



In the school district my kids are in; next year's starting salary for teachers is over 50K; with 20 years service, they make nearly 6 figures - all teachers, all levels, regardless of subject; k-12.

That's for 9 months work. I think you are on to something; when people realize HOW much teachers are actually getting paid now (after all 2 of them married; 20 years in are "rich" by Obama standards) - competition might actually increase.

[LnGrrrR]

This is already going on.

DarrinS, it may be. I don't have children yet, so I'm not familiar with the way education functions. I know that there are private schools, but it seems like this plan would make public schools more like them.

[LnGrrrR]

1. Society works hard and becomes prosperous.
2. There is so much prosperity that it becomes possible to be comfortable without working hard.
3. The kids of these prosperous hard workers don't work as hard because they don't have to.
4. They are prosperous anyway.
5. Their kids work even less hard.
6. They are still pretty prosperous.
7. Society stops thinking there is a connection between working hard and prospering. Prosperity is taken as a given.
8. Society becomes so committed to not working hard that it finds new ways not to work, such as not committing to families, and not raising its children.
9. Children become undisciplined and stupid.
10. Society blames somebody else for its undisciplined, stupid children.
11. The undisciplined, stupid children grow to become undisciplined, stupid adults.
12. Prosperity fades.
13. Society blames someone else for the fading prosperity.
14. The undisciplined, stupid adults have children they don't raise, who become even more undisciplined and stupid.
15. Cycle repeates for several generations.
16. Prosperity disappears.
17. Society becomes feral and ceases to be society.
18. Collapse.

Thanks for putting such a positive spin on it :D

[LnGrrrR]

My wife is a Biochemistry Professor - with a capital B. Undergrad B.S. in both Chemistry AND Biology; Ph.D. from Texas A&M in Biochemistry.

When she took the sciences in school she was taught by Biologists and Chemists, who took and passed the real science classes in college. Today, the VAST majority of students are taught by Education majors with an emphasis in this or the other. They don't take the "Real" science classes - the ones the pre-med and graduate bound students take. They take a few watered down versions; but mostly education classes. I guess they can "teach", but they aren't passionate, or even particularly good at the subject they are teaching; probably don't even recognize the students coming through their classes who might be predisposed to a career in the sciences; much less are they able to inspire and nurture them.

Finally, when the students get through high school, and enter college and go to take that Chem 101 class; they are, for the most part, disiterested, and WORSE convinced that it is simply TOOO hard; they accept their inability to NOT learn the subject matter, and move on. She just graded the 2nd test of the semester for 102 (2nd semester Chem 1) class; the average was a 47! I took the test (I was a liberal arts major; and took the "baby" classes myself 20 years ago) - I made a 66! She teaches a medium sized state school up here in PA - roughly equivalent to UTSA in admittance standard.

Oh, and don't forget computers. LOTS of those science led - geeky minds have gone that direction.

Right, but what factor(s) are leading to a changing in the teaching profession, in this case?

Why would schools, who would formerly hire biologists and chemists to teach those courses, to cut corners? Is it money? If so, why are they worried about money now and not in the past?

I guess I'd just like clear policies/points in time to look to that would show a marked decrease... even if they don't exist.

[RandomGuy]

In the school district my kids are in; next year's starting salary for teachers is over 50K; with 20 years service, they make nearly 6 figures - all teachers, all levels, regardless of subject; k-12.

That's for 9 months work. I think you are on to something; when people realize HOW much teachers are actually getting paid now (after all 2 of them married; 20 years in are "rich" by Obama standards) - competition might actually increase.

There are some indications that is actually happening.

Personally, I think a lot of science and engineering degrees should be free to anybody who makes the grades. Maybe throw in a teaching requirement that says you have to teach for 4 years after getting the degree.

Hell, I have a job/degree, and that kind of deal would tempt me...

My wife is studying biology to be a science teacher (don't get her started on the evolution/creation threads), and they are giving her some incentives already. Hope she stays on the deans list, so we can soak up some extra grants or scholarships. :lol

[RandomGuy]

The funny thing is, Obama is trying to ram business in the ass for stacking the cheese while having shitty performance, yet Government doesn't have to run the country like a business. They can spend, get no results, have no accountability, and print more money to enjoy more fuck ups all while stuffing their pockets.

Thanks for the link RG.

You're welcome.

I don't quite agree with everything in the website, most notably they favor a lot of coal production/usage, and seem to discount heavy usage of renewables.

Personally, I don't think they read much about how fast the technology is moving in that area (renewables) to bring costs down. That is the danger of true conservatism, i.e. things may actually fundamentally change on you occasionally.

[101A]

Right, but what factor(s) are leading to a changing in the teaching profession, in this case?

Why would schools, who would formerly hire biologists and chemists to teach those courses, to cut corners? Is it money? If so, why are they worried about money now and not in the past?

I guess I'd just like clear policies/points in time to look to that would show a marked decrease... even if they don't exist.

The education degrees didn't use to exist as they do now; you were a biology major first; then got a teaching certificate. Then "education" became a science in and of itself. I don't know why, frankly - might be related to the strength of teacher's unions - certain disciplines got paid at a higher clip than others; now they are all equalized. Don't know how the cycle started, or when.

Might have something to do with women's rights - and I'm not criticizing, just pointing out a possible consequence. Used to be that the best and brightest women were restricted in the jobs they held (in practice if not in policy); so the teachers produced in the 50's and 60's were very, very bright people; those people in the 80's, with barriers coming down, were able to gain acceptance in medical schools, graduate schools, etc (my wife a case in point) - so the gap was filled underneath by people of less ability....

complete B.S. off the top of my head; just discussing.

[101A]

...

My wife is studying biology to be a science teacher (don't get her started on the evolution/creation threads), and they are giving her some incentives already. Hope she stays on the deans list, so we can soak up some extra grants or scholarships. :lol

If she can get into medical school DO IT....regardless of cost and time; pays for itself thousands of times over. Even the most basic docs are well into the 6 figure incomes; specialists routinely break 7.

[RandomGuy]

If she can get into medical school DO IT....regardless of cost and time; pays for itself thousands of times over. Even the most basic docs are well into the 6 figure incomes; specialists routinely break 7.

I raised the possibility with her. She wasn't at all interested.

She isn't really all that interested in teaching either, she just wants a steady job that will let us finally bank some $$$.

She is smart, and capable in math and science, but still doesn't quite know what to do with that.

[DarrinS]

I raised the possibility with her. She wasn't at all interested.

She isn't really all that interested in teaching either, she just wants a steady job that will let us finally bank some $$$.

She is smart, and capable in math and science, but still doesn't quite know what to do with that.



I wish I had considered med school before I had a family. My sister is a ophthalmologist and she does quite well for herself. Doesn't hurt that her husband is a podiatrist. There are plenty of specialties that are relatively low-stress and don't require 60-hour work weeks. Can't say there's no stress involved in actually going through med school and the internship. I can only imagine that it's a HUGE commitment.

[spurster]

Some random points:

1. Education is being subject to increasing standards because work is continuing to shift from physical work to knowledge work. People who dropped out 100 years ago could get work, but now people who drop out can't get work, and show the "failure" of our system.

2. I think programs like No Child Left Behind put too much emphasis on the lower 25% or so and not enough on the upper 25%.

3. I think there is not enough emphasis on the basics: reading, writing, and arithmetic.

4. When I went to high school, taking 4 to 5 subjects was typical, now students need to take 6 to 7 subjects to satisfy state requirements. The result is that none/few of the classes can make the students work their tail off. Students often don't have a real class until college and maybe not even then depending on the major and college.

5. A culture that shuns intelligence is not helpful.

6. Businesses doing their best to move knowledge work offshore is not helpful, especially when they then complain about the quality of our education.

[101A]

I raised the possibility with her. She wasn't at all interested.

She isn't really all that interested in teaching either, she just wants a steady job that will let us finally bank some $$$.

She is smart, and capable in math and science, but still doesn't quite know what to do with that.

Nursing School. R.N. is 60K minimum these days; and LOTS AND LOTS of available jobs; low stress, high stress; it's all there. Hospitals, nursing homes, med clinics, insurance companies (case management/call center); lots of opportunities; and more every day with the baby boomers aging; recession proof, as well.

Also, lab tech - at the medical center; but LOTS of competition from masters, and even Ph.D. level Asians on work visas; really drives the price down for those positions. When my wife was there right after graduate school, she was pulling in all of 26K.

[DarrinS]

Nursing School. R.N. is 60K minimum these days; and LOTS AND LOTS of available jobs; low stress, high stress; it's all there. Hospitals, nursing homes, med clinics, insurance companies (case management/call center); lots of opportunities; and more every day with the baby boomers aging; recession proof, as well.

Also, lab tech - at the medical center; but LOTS of competition from masters, and even Ph.D. level Asians on work visas; really drives the price down for those positions. When my wife was there right after graduate school, she was pulling in all of 26K.



A nurse will never be out of a job.


EDIT> A "good" nurse.

[RandomGuy]

Nursing School. R.N. is 60K minimum these days; and LOTS AND LOTS of available jobs; low stress, high stress; it's all there. Hospitals, nursing homes, med clinics, insurance companies (case management/call center); lots of opportunities; and more every day with the baby boomers aging; recession proof, as well.

Also, lab tech - at the medical center; but LOTS of competition from masters, and even Ph.D. level Asians on work visas; really drives the price down for those positions. When my wife was there right after graduate school, she was pulling in all of 26K.


She was actually shooting for nursing school at UT a decade or so back, and that is where she got the majority of her credits.

She wasn't accepted because she had a bad semester where she just lost interest in college for whatever reason, and stopped going to classes. That lost semester or two from when she was 18 or 19 haunts her still.

She has since decided NOT to become a nurse in any event, even if she could get into a program.