A different opinion on the apparent triumph of Republican financial strategies in Texas.
I will note that I take it with a large grain of salt: I have a job in Texas, and no jobs waithing for me in NY!I was interested in how he rated Texas education low because of low levels of funding. I did a google search on school performance and picked the first link I found that looked like it had listings of performance across all states: http://www.edweek.org/media/ew/qc/2010/QualityCounts2010_PressRelease.pdf And found that the highest grade was a B+, Texas had a C+, and the US overall had a C. So, evidently the overall performance of the Texas educational system is slightly above average (admittedly that's not stellar, given what I've seen in general on our educational state) with significantly below average funding...
That actually sounds like a win to me.
I firmly believe that America's gross educational failure has far more to with a badly broken system than a lack of funding.
|
For a start, why on earth should possession or even use of cocaine be illegal? Seriously, I thought you disliked government having power over the individual. Why on earth should a man die in prison simply for being in...I've seen plenty of lives wrecked by drugs, even without the legal troubles that often accompany addiction to illegal substances. Despite this, I'm in favor of liberalizing some of the United States' more draconian drug laws, because I believe the social and economic costs of enforcing them are higher than the problems caused by legalization. I also suspect that many drugs would not be as damaging if they were subject to FDA oversight regarding purity and dosage.
On the other hand, there are two very good reasons for cocaine to remain illegal:
1.) Its addiction can be brutally powerful, even from the first use. It's the drug of choice for criminals who want to bind others to their will. I'm willing to legalize addictive substances, but not ones that can addict their victims quicker than the victims can realize something's wrong.
2.) In my experience, cocaine and crystal methamphetamine are the two substances that turn someone from a normal human into an lying, arrogant, self-involved scumbag the fastest. Have you ever dealt with a habitual cocaine or crystal meth user? They tend to be really annoying.
Point 1: Not really. It still takes a period of habitual use to actually cause true addiction to kick in. But, I will say, good coke is good, and if you have zero tolerance and had never done it before, the "Superman meets James Bond meets Tony Manero" effect is a powerful draw for a second date with it.
Point 2: Meth is evil, coke is just annoying, for the most part. I have intimate personal experience in this arena (pretty much from all sides), and there is a difference between blow and crank. Most coke users tend to be weekend warriors, and it can be used, if not responsibly, without seriously screwing up your life. If coke were as bad as meth, life destruction-wise (and I am by no means saying coke isn't going to screw up someone's life, I'm just saying methamphetamine is farworse than coke), and user numbers from the '70s to now were constant, we'd probably have completely collapsed as a society.
Meth, well, almost everyone who messes with meth completely loses it at some point. I have yet to meet anyone who ever did speed on any kind of regular basis who didn't look holed out quickly, didn't seem to be losing their minds, and weren't completely paranoid. Coke is kid's play compared to meth. You do a $20 of coke, and you might be up a couple hours past your bed time. Do a $20 of meth, and you might be completely wide awake for five days. Wired out of your head. Thinking the bush on the front lawn conceals a cop and is inching closer to the house. Drive through any neighborhood and you can find the tweakers fast enough, just look for blinds that look like their being permanently looked through.
Most coke heads are just a~+$&~%s. Most meth heads are out of their minds.
I've known some high functioning meth users, but I've seen some God awful human train wrecks too.
Do a $20 of meth, and you might be completely wide awake for five days. Wired out of your head. Thinking the bush on the front lawn conceals a cop and is inching closer to the house.
Got any Substance D?
*Offers Kirth a little blue flower.*
?
A different opinion on the apparent triumph of Republican financial strategies in Texas.
I will note that I take it with a large grain of salt: I have a job in Texas, and no jobs waithing for me in NY!I was interested in how he rated Texas education low because of low levels of funding. I did a google search on school performance and picked the first link I found that looked like it had listings of performance across all states: http://www.edweek.org/media/ew/qc/2010/QualityCounts2010_PressRelease.pdf And found that the highest grade was a B+, Texas had a C+, and the US overall had a C. So, evidently the overall performance of the Texas educational system is slightly above average (admittedly that's not stellar, given what I've seen in general on our educational state) with significantly below average funding...
That actually sounds like a win to me.
Not quite that good at least for students performance. Note that what Texas was good at on that report (got an A in) was assessment and accountability. In other words every other district in the world from Boston to Hung-Chow will recognize that the Texas Students C was really a C. Compared to another district which might say something like "Samantha is excellent in Junior Leadership". Well when she transfers to a school in Tokyo the teachers there read that and scratch their heads wondering "what the heck does that even mean"?
Elements that rank student performance was more like a C, though even this is misleading, this report is really ranking school boards or some such not students. It would seem to say that Texas was pretty bad at graduating students (Chance for success - Texas was 39th) but those that do persevere tend to be doing well (K-12 - Texas was 13th).
A closer look even at these two numbers is cause for concern. Low chance for success means a lot of students don't even make it to Grade 12 but apparently those that do tend to do well...well no surprise there. If I just neglect my students except for mandatory testing most will drop out but a few smart ones will be self motivating. They do well on the tests even without my help. In other words what this seems to be saying is that those few that run the gauntlet of the Texas school system are naturally better then your average run of the mill student in the rest of the country.
RPG Superstar 2013
|
Huh. I just want to be clear: my making statements about the version of capitalism that made us a superpower is a reference to a capitalism that never existed,Dude, there're more words in the post you're referencing. If you selectively ignore some of them, of course what's left ends up being ridiculous. :P
And that would be exactly the point of my post, sir. Note only have I written lots more than "the government can't be trusted to handle my retirement," or what not, I have never written that zero governemnt oversightof the economy is a good idea, nor that anyone is unAmerican. Fascinatingly, I am routinely called unAmerican and unChristian by those friends of mine who say in the same breath I should not be so judgemental.
If you're going to oversimplify my statements and ignore my intent when I post, then you must also allow me to glibly ovesimplify yours. That's the whole point.
?
Philip K. Dick, A Scanner Darkly. He wrote it right out of he got out of rehab for long-term amphetamine abuse.
?Philip K. Dick, A Scanner Darkly. He wrote it right out of he got out of rehab for long-term amphetamine abuse.
OK
A closer look even at these two numbers is cause for concern. Low chance for success means a lot of students don't even make it to Grade 12 but apparently those that do tend to do well...well no surprise there. If I just neglect my students except for mandatory testing most will drop out but a few smart ones will be self motivating. They do well on the tests even without my help. In other words what this seems to be saying is that those few that run the gauntlet of the Texas school system are naturally better then your average run of the mill student in the rest of the country.
You seem to be drawing some conclusions that may or may not be valid. Merely because a signification portion of the students are not successful, that doesn't automatically imply that the education system is the fault. It may be that a higher than average portion of the students come from families and cultures where they do not have the support system to be as successful. I would say that people give too much weight to how much the actual educational system effects students performances. When most of the success or failure is determined by the drive and family support system of the students.
You seem to be drawing some conclusions that may or may not be valid. Merely because a signification portion of the students are not successful, that doesn't automatically imply that the education system is the fault. It may be that a higher than average portion of the students come from families and cultures where they do not have the support system to be as successful. I would say that people give too much weight to how much the actual educational system effects students performances. When most of the success or failure is determined by the drive and family support system of the students.
Possibly but we do know that they are underfunded as well (Texas ranks 42 here getting a D+). It seems clear that they are being placed in classrooms of 45 instead of 25 and therefore are receiving a lot less attention.
So we know they are being neglected, what we don't know is if that is the reason they do poorly.
You seem to be drawing some conclusions that may or may not be valid. Merely because a signification portion of the students are not successful, that doesn't automatically imply that the education system is the fault. It may be that a higher than average portion of the students come from families and cultures where they do not have the support system to be as successful. I would say that people give too much weight to how much the actual educational system effects students performances. When most of the success or failure is determined by the drive and family support system of the students.Possibly but we do know that they are underfunded as well (Texas ranks 42 here getting a D+). It seems clear that they are being placed in classrooms of 45 instead of 25 and therefore are receiving a lot less attention.
So we know they are being neglected, what we don't know is if that is the reason they do poorly.
I wonder how class size compares to other countries that do better. It may be that larger class size does not automatically equal neglect.
|
For me the point was the guy in the article measured Texas' education success by amount of money spent. Using that as a measuring stick is very revealing about his mindset.
How would you feel if you found a sweet deal on a TV that was exactly what you'd been looking for. It's the brand name you wanted, the perfect size, has all the features you need, and you find it on sale for 20% off. Excited about your find, you start talking to a friend about your new TV when he comes over to visit. You show him the features, and tell him that the sale is still on and he can purchase one for this amazing price as well.
Your friend then tells you that he actually bought a new TV himself, and his is much better.
"Oh?" you ask, trying to be interested, though you're a little dissapointed about the distraction from your own exciting news, "What extra features does it have?"
"It's very similar to yours."
"Is it larger? Does it mount on the wall? Better speakers? Different brand name?"
"No," your friend shakes his head and them smiles. "I paid five hundred dollars more for mine."
"Right, but why is your new TV better?"
"Because I spent more for it."
What does that reveal about your friend's state of mind and thought processes?
That's like measuring whether someone makes a fair wage for the job they do by whether or not other people are jealous. If other people are jealous, they're making too much money and should have their salary slashed (or taxes raised). It's a state of mind I can barely comprehend.
?Philip K. Dick, A Scanner Darkly. He wrote it right out of he got out of rehab for long-term amphetamine abuse.
Side note: What did you make of the film version?
I wonder how class size compares to other countries that do better. It may be that larger class size does not automatically equal neglect.
You seem to be drawing some conclusions that may or may not be valid. Merely because a signification portion of the students are not successful, that doesn't automatically imply that the education system is the fault. It may be that a higher than average portion of the students come from families and cultures where they do not have the support system to be as successful. I would say that people give too much weight to how much the actual educational system effects students performances. When most of the success or failure is determined by the drive and family support system of the students.Possibly but we do know that they are underfunded as well (Texas ranks 42 here getting a D+). It seems clear that they are being placed in classrooms of 45 instead of 25 and therefore are receiving a lot less attention.
So we know they are being neglected, what we don't know is if that is the reason they do poorly.
Everything i can remember seeing points to a negative corrilation between class size and performance.
Ofcause, correlation does not equate causation, but there is atleast a hypothetical causation there. It could just be coinsidence, it could be that small class sizes is also a product of what ever makes for good performance or it could be that small class sizes is a major factor in performance.
From a Canadian POV. I live in Toronto, and there are a lot of union and non union jobs, as well as fairly left wing political leanings (despite the recent election of a very right wing mayor). However, Toronto has a strong economy, and though it has its problems it is not in decline in anywhere near the way a city like Detroit or Cleveland is. In fact I don't think it's in decline at all (we just need to improve out public transit). I've visited most major Canadian cities and several American ones as well. I was shocked when I visited Detroit and Cleveland. I tried to visit the Detroit Art Institute, and I felt like I was driving through a third world country/war zone to get there. When I went to Cleveland with a friend of my mine a few years back, we decided to go check out the downtown. It was so creepy because the closer you got to downtown the quieter it got. It seemed like everyone had vanished. In Toronto if you go downtown (no matter what time) there is always lots going on and lots of people. My experience of Cleveland was very much the opposite. I also noticed that people in Cleveland are very fat. I have no really statistical evidence to support that claim, but it certainly was evident. We went to the Cleveland Zoo, and spent more time counting fat people than looking at the animals. Of course there are plenty of fat people here in TO, but it seemed like a lot more in Cleveland.
Despite my generally positive view of Toronto, I think that in the long run we are all screwed. I just don't see it possible to sustain a society/civilization based entirely upon consumption, which is what capitalism is. The freedom to do what you want, take what you want, have what you want, sounds good in theory, but when you apply it to an entire society, you are asking for trouble. Eventually, it will all come crashing down on our heads. One good pandemic in Asia would do it just fine. I hope it doesn't happen in my life time, but I won't be at all surprised if it does.
When the US collapses, we will likely be not far behind.
|
|
I just don't see it possible to sustain a society/civilization based entirely upon consumption, which is what capitalism is.
Capitalism is an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, esp. as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.
I would agree that the current economy in the US is focused on consumption instead of production, but that's not capitalism...that's simply how our economy is set up right now.
I don't know all the reasons and wherefores of our change from a production economy to a consumption economy, but one problem is the U.S. tax system is set up to actively punish production. The higher your productivity, the higher your tax rate. Once you have capital, spending it doesn't produce further taxation. Investment profits are taxed at a lower rate too. I would rather we eliminate taxes on productivity and introduce taxes on consumption (I am not in favor of taxes on consumption introduced in addition to the current taxes on production).
Yeah but with capitalism, the best way for those private individuals to earn more wealth is to produce more products that they can sell, which is only really effective if you have people consuming those products, hence the consumption part.
I'm not suggesting that other systems are necessarily better. They all have their problems. I'm just saying that how capitalism has come to function in the modern word is unsustainable in the long term.
Side note: What did you make of the film version?
Meh. The post-filming cartoonization of it was unnecessary and annoying, and the signature bizarre blend of humor and pathos from Dick's stories didn't really come through well. Plus, the story is supposed to take place in Anaheim, CA, not Austin, TX (where it was filmed)! What I missed most, though
I wonder how class size compares to other countries that do better. It may be that larger class size does not automatically equal neglect.
I'll have to dig around to see if I even still have it, but I remember a Scientific American (maybe American Scientist, not sure...) article mentioning that the average class size in Japan was a fair bit larger than ours.
|
|
Yeah but with capitalism, the best way for those private individuals to earn more wealth is to produce more products that they can sell, which is only really effective if you have people consuming those products, hence the consumption part.
I'm not suggesting that other systems are necessarily better. They all have their problems. I'm just saying that how capitalism has come to function in the modern word is unsustainable in the long term.
Not really. Everything produced must be consumed. Is it consumed by private enterprice? Citizens? Government? There is no system under which this isn't the case. The only question is who owns the businesses and products, who makes the decisions on what is produced?
As far as sustainability...stupid ol' entropy suggests that nothing is sustainable. The most efficient system in the world is unsustainable. :)
?Philip K. Dick, A Scanner Darkly. He wrote it right out of he got out of rehab for long-term amphetamine abuse.
That. Explains. So. F$%*ING. Much.
If you're going to oversimplify my statements and ignore my intent when I post, then you must also allow me to glibly ovesimplify yours. That's the whole point.
That being the case, I'd rather you just said: "I think you're being an a$%%++~, so I'm going to try to counter by being a bigger a*$%*#& and hope somehow that wins the argument."
I feel like, based solely on this thread, that you're more focused on whether you can convince yourself you won an argument than whether you're actually correct.
Side note: What did you make of the film version?Meh. The post-filming cartoonization of it was unnecessary and annoying, and the signature bizarre blend of humor and pathos from Dick's stories didn't really come through well. Plus, the story is supposed to take place in Anaheim, CA, not Austin, TX (where it was filmed)! What I missed most, though ** spoiler omitted **
I really liked th art style style, but i like the directors other work too(waking life), so hey, that might just be bias.
I did think it captured the paranoia relatively well, and it made me giggle with gallows humour in a few places.
For what its worth, i thought that the look of austin worked really well with the filmic version.
The film certainly wasn't perfect, but i do love it, in that of all the work that has taken from PKD's work, i get the feeling this is the only one he might have liked. It atleast tried to capture the spirits of the story.
From a Canadian POV. I live in Toronto, and there are a lot of union and non union jobs, as well as fairly left wing political leanings (despite the recent election of a very right wing mayor). However, Toronto has a strong economy, and though it has its problems it is not in decline in anywhere near the way a city like Detroit or Cleveland is. In fact I don't think it's in decline at all (we just need to improve out public transit).
Toronto is an aberration. Unless you are more then 50 years old you don't even remember a city that was not in the midst of a super boom. In 1951 the population of the Greater Toronto Area was about 1.2 million, in 1971 it was 2.6 million, by 1981 it had reached 3 million and it jumped to 4.2 million by 1991. In 2001 it was 5 million and its currently estimated (we have not had a census since 2006) to be approximently 6 million.
We are throwing up condo's and skyscrapers as fast as we can but its never enough. More then 100,000 immigrants move into this city every single year and its been like that for decades.
You talk of improving the TTC, well I was at a meeting with the head mandarin for Metrolinx last year and a concerned citizen in the audience asked that very valid question. The guy pretty much laughed at her. There will be no improvements for users of the TTC, or for drivers or any other group - everything is going to get worse and its really the job of Metrolinx to desperately try and mitigate how much worse things get. The problem is that we are trying to move 6 million people around on infrastructure that was usually designed in the 1990s to handle 4 million and even with big improvements today nothing is likely to be built fast enough to handle the fact that the Greater Toronto Area is expected to reach between 7.5 and 8 million over the next 15 years by 2025. Baring the province and the feds essentially handing the city a blank cheque there is just no way that things won't get more crowded and take longer. The best we can do for the time being is try and make it less worse.
The bottom line is the city is just growing to fast for the infrastructure to keep up.
I know the GTA is growing fast, but the Toronto District School board has been shrinking, so the people moving downtown must primarily be people without kids. I agree though that city does seem to be growing a lot faster than they can keep up with infrastructure. Some of the outlying burbs seem to be plateauing a little as well. For instance, Peel Dristrict was hiring lots of new teachers and building lots of new schools in Brampton about 5 years ago, but that has started to slow down significantly now.
I know the GTA is growing fast, but the Toronto District School board has been shrinking, so the people moving downtown must primarily be people without kids. I agree though that city does seem to be growing a lot faster than they can keep up with infrastructure. Some of the outlying burbs seem to be plateauing a little as well. For instance, Peel Dristrict was hiring lots of new teachers and building lots of new schools in Brampton about 5 years ago, but that has started to slow down significantly now.
They eliminated grade 13 some years back so that probably introduced a lot of slack into the system. In any case most of the population growth is in the outlying districts. The downtown core can't grow that much...its already full and throwing up condo's like crazy makes an area with 2.8 million go to 3 million but not much more. The real population growth is in new subdivisions. That is where most of this years 100,000 new comers will generally settle. 10 or 15 thousand might manage to settle in the downtown core but the other 85 thousand will have to settle in the suburbs or in the outskirts of the GTA.
I thought this might have some relevance.
Racketeering Indictments for Detroit's Former Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick and Others
I know the GTA is growing fast, but the Toronto District School board has been shrinking, so the people moving downtown must primarily be people without kids. I agree though that city does seem to be growing a lot faster than they can keep up with infrastructure. Some of the outlying burbs seem to be plateauing a little as well. For instance, Peel Dristrict was hiring lots of new teachers and building lots of new schools in Brampton about 5 years ago, but that has started to slow down significantly now.They eliminated grade 13 some years back so that probably introduced a lot of slack into the system. In any case most of the population growth is in the outlying districts. The downtown core can't grow that much...its already full and throwing up condo's like crazy makes an area with 2.8 million go to 3 million but not much more. The real population growth is in new subdivisions. That is where most of this years 100,000 new comers will generally settle. 10 or 15 thousand might manage to settle in the downtown core but the other 85 thousand will have to settle in the suburbs or in the outskirts of the GTA.
I remember when they did the same thing here in NY. It ended up shifting a lot of schools in terms of grades and ages. I wonder if we should bring it back.
I thought this might have some relevance.
Racketeering Indictments for Detroit's Former Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick and Others
It sure added to the long-standing tradition of corruption in our regional politics. The degree to which these guys carried was a bit of a surprise tho. Yet, the guy's mom still got re-elected in a 3-way race. But I'm sure she knew nothing about any of that. Just like John Conyers didn't, or doesn't, or never will. His wife actually wants to retract her guilty plea, months after the fact. ACK!
Plus, it's sickening when these crooks play the victim whilst living in expensive houses and driving expensive cars.
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
If you're going to oversimplify my statements and ignore my intent when I post, then you must also allow me to glibly ovesimplify yours. That's the whole point.That being the case, I'd rather you just said: "I think you're being an a%~!#@!, so I'm going to try to counter by being a bigger a%~!#@! and hope somehow that wins the argument."
I feel like, based solely on this thread, that you're more focused on whether you can convince yourself you won an argument than whether you're actually correct.
With respect, that is flatly not true. And in fact, I've no interest in just showing someone how to be a bigger jerk (you'll note I am not calling anyone a jerk, just refusing your strategy above).
My point is that in civil conversation you have tio listen for what someone is actually saying, rather than render poor caricatures of them so you can score debate points. If I say the government can't be trusted with retirement because SSI is dishonest and doomed, in a civil discourse, you can ask me why I think that way. It is not productive to just say "All Steve thinks is that government sucks and he wishes we didn't have any".
When a long conversation like this one gains context, you also don't have to resort to that tactic. People who know me know better than to dismiss me as a bigot or anarchist. People who do not ought to ask what I think instead of insert words in my mouth. We're typing conversation over days and weeks. Giving one another the benefit of the doubt seems like the only reasonable course.
And presumably, we're here to share opinions or influence hearts and minds. Anyone who's here just to score meaningless debate points, well, I hope it's worth what they pay for it in opportunity cost. :b
I think when the value of the dollar collapses we will begin to see terrible and real loss, and we will see it in a brutally regressive way. Major inflation will do the most damage to those who can cope with it the least.
Not sure about this. Usually in places with hyperinflation there is some mechanism that raises your wages constantly as well. Thus the working poor are, roughly speaking, about the same place as they ever where. A lot of the lower end of the middle class actually do well in this circumstance as they save as debtors - their debts fall dramatically as the value of what they owe is worth less and less.
Its those that actually have major savings that really pay - the real vulnerable people here would be the elderly who's savings rapidly become worthless.
I think when the value of the dollar collapses we will begin to see terrible and real loss, and we will see it in a brutally regressive way. Major inflation will do the most damage to those who can cope with it the least.Not sure about this. Usually in places with hyperinflation there is some mechanism that raises your wages constantly as well. Thus the working poor are, roughly speaking, about the same place as they ever where. A lot of the lower end of the middle class actually do well in this circumstance as they save as debtors - their debts fall dramatically as the value of what they owe is worth less and less.
Its those that actually have major savings that really pay - the real vulnerable people here would be the elderly who's savings rapidly become worthless.
I deliberately avoided the term hyperinflation, but I'm not certain what number I would assign to "major" for inflation. I also believe that the US department of labor has been manipulating the different CPIs, and I think unemployment is basically under reported. I believe the real unemployment/underemployment rate is about double the official number in the US. When government and the media talk about the "rate of inflation" they tend to talk about it like it's a single magic number without stating which CPI they are using and what variables are included or left out of formulating the metric they are using.
I don't think I have the technical acumen to quantify metrics with any real specificity, so please forgive my use some broad generalities in my opinion about the US situation in general.
That said, I think the impact of inflation is statistically understated regarding the working poor, those dependent on government benefits particularly (as you mentioned) retirees largely dependent on Social Security. People who are living paycheck to paycheck have little or no "wiggle room" when the cost of necessities go up. Millions of people have already cut back their discretionary spending about as much as they can in the past decade so when fuel, food, transportation, housing and utilities creep up they are quickly running out of ways to economize further. They might be able to dip into savings or work more overtime, but I think it's more likely that they have already tapped these options out during their last layoff or other financial stressor. I know a lot of people personally who are in this very situation.
As you mentioned, people on a fixed income are especially vulnerable too. If their fixed income is from a government their COLA increases are probable indexed to inflation as measured by one of the CPIs which the government has a vested interest in manipulating to control the huge cost of entitlements as well as spinning the situation to reflect better on whomever is in power.
Here is a brief opinion piece on the impact of inflation on different wealth levels. I'll try to find something better later.
Here is a brief opinion piece on the impact of inflation on different wealth levels. I'll try to find something better later.
How Inflation Screws the Poor the Most
That is a good article. Indeed, when Germany suffered through the hyperinflation in 1922/23, those folks who owned real estate came out ahead, whereas the middle class lost all its savings and struggled to survive, and the poor starved to death - literally. Incidentally, real estate owners had their property easily debt-free because of the inflation and started earning real money again as soon as the inflation was over. Germany invented a special "Hauszinssteuer" (house interest tax) to get some money back from those real estate owners to finance more residential construction, which was sorely needed.
Hyperinflation is said to happen if you have a rate of more than 50% a month, coming down to about 13000 % a year. So, a hyperinflation is far away in the US or Europe.
Stefan
Here is a brief opinion piece on the impact of inflation on different wealth levels. I'll try to find something better later.
How Inflation Screws the Poor the Most
That is a good article. Indeed, when Germany suffered through the hyperinflation in 1922/23, those folks who owned real estate came out ahead, whereas the middle class lost all its savings and struggled to survive, and the poor starved to death - literally. Incidentally, real estate owners had their property easily debt-free because of the inflation and started earning real money again as soon as the inflation was over. Germany invented a special "Hauszinssteuer" (house interest tax) to get some money back from those real estate owners to finance more residential construction, which was sorely needed.
Hyperinflation is said to happen if you have a rate of more than 50% a month, coming down to about 13000 % a year. So, a hyperinflation is far away in the US or Europe.
Stefan
Germany did not just have inflation however. They had no means to buy food from the outside world because all their foreign reserves where going to debt payment and where a net food importer. People where going to die one way or another without very strict rationing.
Brazil, on the other hand, lived with hyper inflation for decades. Not exactly a great thing but a country can adjust. Presuming a food surplus the same economic pressures that are pushing inflation up and making food cost more are also pushing up wages. Those that produce things in the economy still want to sell those things.
In any case my point really was that I felt that saying inflation hurt the poor the most was overly simplistic. Different groups benefit or suffer from high inflation. Students with high student loans or new home owners benefit - they save as debtors. The rich that have their money invested in things that are meant to give them interest often suffer as the value of their investment tanks. Other groups do very poorly - the elderly who have saved for retirement being the prime example.
None of this is to say that I think high inflation is a good thing, a moderate amount is probably a good thing but here extremes are not much of a benefit.
In any case my point really was that I felt that saying inflation hurt the poor the most was overly simplistic. Different groups benefit or suffer from high inflation. Students with high student loans or new home owners benefit - they save as debtors. The rich that have their money invested in things that are meant to give them interest often suffer as the value of their investment tanks. Other groups do very poorly - the elderly who have saved for retirement being the prime example.
Yes, I guess that anybody with a monetary debt can benefit from inflation, and anybody with monetary savings is screwed. If you own valuables like real estate, noble metal or perhaps company shares (unless that company tanks due to the inflation), you will probably be better off as well. A society where money is more or less worthless reverts to some kind of barter trade, simply put. Housing is almost always a valuable commodity, as it caters to a basic need.
Stefan
Doesn't the high tax and high service model eventually collapse under its own weight like the USSR? (I wouldn't say the soviets provided high services, but I think you know what I mean.)Hell the europeans think we're crazy the way we treat our own people.Maybe the European masses think this, but their leaders understand their social programs are unsustainable. And, judging from the riots over the last year in Spain, Belgium, Britain, France, Portugal and Greece (as all of those nations took steps to right fix budgets), the people aren't too fond of reality...I notice you don't include Ireland - possibly the most screwed of the lot. With Greece, if you take some high profile people and throw them in jail for tax evasion and make sure that its all over the media they might well convince the plebeians to pay their taxes. Do that and they could just manage to dig themselves out of this hole.
Ireland's situation is one where a low tax business friendly society's only option is going to be drastically cut services while jacking taxes up like mad. I'm sure the people are going to love that, services where already less then most of western Europe and now they are going to get a lot smaller while taxes go through the roof.
On the other hand a number of the left leaning states are really doing rather well. All the Nordic countries are pretty much fine. Social programs are perfectly sustainable as long as you have high enough taxes. Its low taxes and high services that is unsustainable. Either low services and low taxes or high services and high taxes are perfectly viable models.
The real problem is with nation states that convince their populations that they can have their cake and eat it too. That's not possible and nations that try that eventually have to face the music.
A) There is no real comparison between The Soviet Union and anything in the West's Liberal Capitalist system.
and
B) If small bureaucracy is the barometer for government efficiency then the Soviet Union should have blown the west away with its 'lean mean bureaucracy'. By the mid '80's the 37 members of the OEDC had a mean bureaucracy of about 10% of their population. The sixteen members of the Eastern Bloc had bureaucracies representing about 3.8% of their total population. In effect Reagan's America had about 2.5 bureaucrats for every bureaucrat that the Soviet Union was deploying. In fact one of the complaints one would hear from Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union was, after the dismantling of the old Soviet Departments, was the rapid explosion of the much disliked bureaucracy. Even during the lean times in the 1990's Russia's bureaucracy nearly doubled in size compared to the old Soviet one and Putin's strong self confident Russia experienced very significant growth in the size of the Bureaucracy putting it in line, roughly, with his western counterparts.
There is in fact a correlation between per capita size of the bureaucracy and wealth of a state though its unclear if its just that wealthy states can afford big bureaucracies or if big bureaucracies some how promote wealthy states and there are exceptions - Japan's bureaucracy is quite small at around 4% of the population. Note however that the smaller a bureaucracy is the more rule bound it tends to be. Small bureaucracies have a very hard time being dynamic and few resources available for reviewing unusual or exceptional circumstances or even for self analysis to see if a policy is or is not working properly. Hence Japan is world famous for being a land of red tape.
This idea of a rule bound bureaucracy was a problem that the Soviet Union had in spades. Its an American cliche but one of the roles of a good bureaucrat in the west is "To speak truth to power" and this was something that simply did not, in any meaningful way, exist in the Soviet Union. The plans where developed at the top and meant to be implemented pretty much identically regardless of local conditions and there was very little that the lower echelons of the bureaucracy could do to modify these plans to fit their conditions - nor the time or manpower to come up with alternatives even if they could clearly see the problem.
There is in fact a correlation between per capita size of the bureaucracy and wealth of a state though its unclear if its just that wealthy states can afford big bureaucracies or if big bureaucracies some how promote wealthy states and there are exceptions - Japan's bureaucracy is quite small at around 4% of the population. Note however that the smaller a bureaucracy is the more rule bound it tends to be. Small bureaucracies have a very hard time being dynamic and few resources available for reviewing unusual or exceptional circumstances or even for self analysis to see if a policy is or is not working properly. Hence Japan is world famous for being a land of red tape.
That is interesting, I did not know that. Do you have the sources on that statement? Perhaps one correlation could be thus: any country needs rules to govern its society (I know that some folks would argue that, but in the end, there are always rules - anarchy is as much an utopian idea as communism is IMO). The higher the complexity of a society (and perhaps the bigger the population density, but I´m not sure), the higher the amount and complexity of the rules, and the bigger the government. If the size of the government does not correlate to the complexity of the society (as in Japan), the less flexibility in reacting to things outside the rules is there. The communism example goes in a similar direction, only that flexible reactions were not even wanted in centralistic government. For if the government is not able to react with flexibility to unusual circumstances, but progress and in extension, wealth needs some flexibility to develop properly. Just some thoughts.
Stefan
A) There is no real comparison between The Soviet Union and anything in the West's Liberal Capitalist system.
and
B) If small bureaucracy is the barometer for government efficiency then the Soviet Union should have blown the west away with its 'lean mean bureaucracy'. By the mid '80's the 37 members of the OEDC had a mean bureaucracy of about 10% of their population. The sixteen members of the Eastern Bloc had bureaucracies representing about 3.8% of their total population. In effect Reagan's America had about 2.5 bureaucrats for every bureaucrat that the Soviet Union was deploying. In fact one of the complaints one would hear from Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union was, after the dismantling of the old Soviet Departments, was the rapid explosion of the much disliked bureaucracy. Even during the lean times in the 1990's Russia's bureaucracy nearly doubled in size compared to the old Soviet one and Putin's strong self confident Russia experienced very significant growth in the size of the Bureaucracy putting it in line, roughly, with his western counterparts.
There is in fact a correlation between per capita size of the bureaucracy and wealth of a state though its unclear if its just that wealthy states can afford big bureaucracies or if big bureaucracies some how promote wealthy states and there are exceptions - Japan's bureaucracy is quite small at around 4% of the population. Note however that the smaller a bureaucracy is the more rule bound it tends to be. Small bureaucracies have a very hard time being dynamic and few resources available for reviewing unusual or exceptional circumstances or even for self analysis to see if a policy is or is not working properly. Hence Japan is world famous for being a land of red tape.
This idea of a rule bound bureaucracy was a problem that the Soviet Union had in spades. Its an American cliche but one of the roles of a good bureaucrat in the west is "To speak truth to power" and this was something that simply did not, in any meaningful way, exist in the Soviet Union. The plans where developed at the top and meant to be implemented pretty much identically regardless of local conditions and there was very little that the lower echelons of the bureaucracy could do to modify these plans to fit their conditions - nor the time or manpower to come up with alternatives even if they could clearly see the problem.
I don't think the number of bureaucrats is a very good metric for the impact that bureaucracy has on what it controls. I tend to think a better indicator is how much power and control that bureaucracy has, and I don't think that necessarily correlates one way or the other with what percent of the population it is. I'm not sure how one would quantify how much power a bureaucracy has for comparative purposes though. I also think corruption plays a big role, but again how does one quantify corruption meaningfully?
Germany did not just have inflation however. They had no means to buy food from the outside world because all their foreign reserves where going to debt payment and where a net food importer. People where going to die one way or another without very strict rationing.
Brazil, on the other hand, lived with hyper inflation for decades. Not exactly a great thing but a country can adjust. Presuming a food surplus the same economic pressures that are pushing inflation up and making food cost more are also pushing up wages. Those that produce things in the economy still want to sell those things.
In any case my point really was that I felt that saying inflation hurt the poor the most was overly simplistic. Different groups benefit or suffer from high inflation. Students with high student loans or new home owners benefit - they save as debtors. The rich that have their money invested in things that are meant to give them interest often suffer as the value of their investment tanks. Other groups do very poorly - the elderly who have saved for retirement being the prime example.
None of this is to say that I think high inflation is a good thing, a moderate amount is probably a good thing but here extremes are not much of a benefit.
I'll grant that my statement was simplistic, but I believe my generalization about the regressive nature of inflation (particularly in the US context that I'm speaking to) is a sound one. I believe it is particularly applicable to the current US economy. A high unemployment/underemployment rate puts downward pressure on wages while the cost of basic necessities inflates harder and faster that the official government inflation rate suggests. The more of ones income is dedicated to necessities the more vulnerable one is. The more non necessity/discretionary income one has the more flexibility one has in responding to inflation. Therefore I maintain that the current situation of very high unemployment/underemployment in the US combined with inflationary pressures is going to cause a lot of pain for a great many Americans. Policies have consequences obviously, and the consequences of many years of US policies are going to bring tremendous harm to many millions of Americans.
Sooner or later something's going to give. I just recently heard a stat that claimed that the state of Michigan was spending $3 for every $2 of tax revenue it brought in, and from what I hear that is fairly typical of many other states. A country can't sustain itself on credit forever. It seems like the US is in denial. They know there is a problem, but the politicians don't want to make extreme changes because they know it will piss off the public. However, extreme changes are what is needed. I think that problems that the US economy has been going through in the past couple of years are just the tip of the iceberg, and that out of control federal and state debts are going to lead to much more extreme consequences in the not too distant future.
I don't know exactly how this has come to get as bad as it has, but I feel like the big corporate lobby groups are much to blame. They have pressured/bullied the policy makers into making bad spending decisions that have made their companies rich at the government's expense, and in the end it's Joe public who is going to pay the price for it.
Sooner or later something's going to give. I just recently heard a stat that claimed that the state of Michigan was spending $3 for every $2 of tax revenue it brought in, and from what I hear that is fairly typical of many other states. A country can't sustain itself on credit forever. It seems like the US is in denial. They know there is a problem, but the politicians don't want to make extreme changes because they know it will piss off the public. However, extreme changes are what is needed. I think that problems that the US economy has been going through in the past couple of years are just the tip of the iceberg, and that out of control federal and state debts are going to lead to much more extreme consequences in the not too distant future.
I don't know exactly how this has come to get as bad as it has, but I feel like the big corporate lobby groups are much to blame. They have pressured/bullied the policy makers into making bad spending decisions that have made their companies rich at the government's expense, and in the end it's Joe public who is going to pay the price for it.
I would agree that an economy and a government that is built on credit is a house of cards waiting to fall down. I think that policies that incentivize debt and consumption and punish savings and investment are a huge part of the problem. I also think that if we don't take austerity measures now we will simply face much harsher austerity as social spending becomes near imposable is the face of financial collapse.
|
|
None of these measures will be easy. If we'd tackled them 20-30 years ago, things wouldn't be nearly so bad, but already then the fallout from hitting people in the face with cold hard reality was so unpleasant politicians weren't willing to face it.
The only way we'll get a politician willing to deal with it is if we elect someone with a large amount of initial popularity willing to spend it implementing unpopular but necessary measures - much like Obama, except they want to implement austerity measures and voluntarily weaken the federal government in favor of state and individual empowerment, rather than pull even more power and freedoms from the people and states into the federal bureaucracy.
None of these measures will be easy. If we'd tackled them 20-30 years ago, things wouldn't be nearly so bad, but already then the fallout from hitting people in the face with cold hard reality was so unpleasant politicians weren't willing to face it.
The only way we'll get a politician willing to deal with it is if we elect someone with a large amount of initial popularity willing to spend it implementing unpopular but necessary measures - much like Obama, except they want to implement austerity measures and voluntarily weaken the federal government in favor of state and individual empowerment, rather than pull even more power and freedoms from the people and states into the federal bureaucracy.
I concur.
I concur.None of these measures will be easy. If we'd tackled them 20-30 years ago, things wouldn't be nearly so bad, but already then the fallout from hitting people in the face with cold hard reality was so unpleasant politicians weren't willing to face it.
The only way we'll get a politician willing to deal with it is if we elect someone with a large amount of initial popularity willing to spend it implementing unpopular but necessary measures - much like Obama, except they want to implement austerity measures and voluntarily weaken the federal government in favor of state and individual empowerment, rather than pull even more power and freedoms from the people and states into the federal bureaucracy.
Austerity Measures + Weakening of the Federal Government =(potentially) runaway local governments that decide to define austerity using their own slide rule(if at all).
I'm sure it will be ignored for as long as possible, but the thing about reality is that if it is ignored too long it eventually kicks your ass, and the longer you've ignored it, the harder a whooping you get.
It's like cancer. If you get it diagnosed early and take steps to deal with it right away, you might make it. If you don't you're f+++ed.
I'm sure it will be ignored for as long as possible, but the thing about reality is that if it is ignored too long it eventually kicks your ass, and the longer you've ignored it, the harder a whooping you get.
It's like cancer. If you get it diagnosed early and take steps to deal with it right away, you might make it. If you don't you're f&&*ed.
That's a brutally accurate analogy.