News Can America Keep Up? US News & World Report

[Astronuc]

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/biztech/articles/060327/27global.htm

Why so many smart folks fear that the United States is falling behind in the race for global economic leadership
By Richard J. Newman - 3/27/06

The next time there's a moon shot, don't expect the United States to take the prize.

Over the past century, Americans have become accustomed to winning every global battle that mattered: two world wars, the space race, the Cold War, the Internet gold rush. Along the way, Americans have enjoyed unprecedented prosperity and lived lives that were the envy of the rest of the world.

It was nice while it lasted. Today, while unemployment remains low, home values continue to surge, and fearless American consumers keep spending beyond their means, the land of the free is slowly, but unmistakably, yielding advantages earned over decades to foreigners who work harder, expect less, and, often, are better educated. Taken piecemeal, these shifts are virtually imperceptible to most Americans. But business leaders, top academics, and other experts--especially those who travel abroad frequently--increasingly see America as a nation that has pulled into the slow lane, while upstarts in a hurry outhustle Americans in the race for technological, industrial, and entrepreneurial supremacy. "Every one of the early warning signals is trending downward," frets Intel Chairman Craig Barrett. "We're all fat, dumb, and happy, which is one reason why this is so insidious."

In academics, America's mediocrity is a familiar story, one factor in President Bush's call, in this year's State of the Union address, for rigorous new training for 70,000 high school teachers. The reading literacy rate for 15-year-olds in the United States is barely above the average for western countries. American eighth graders rank ninth worldwide in science scores--and 15th in math, behind students in Estonia, Hungary, and Malaysia. And for years, U.S. students have been migrating away from hard sciences--which tend to be the source of cutting-edge new products and other innovations--toward business, law, and liberal arts degrees. "We [US] had more sports-exercise majors graduate than electrical-engineering grads last year," lamented General Electric Chief Executive Jeffrey Immelt in a January speech. "If you want to be the massage capital of the world, you're well on your way." While the United States still boasts many of the world's premier universities, world-class schools are taking root in India, China, South Korea, and other nations--often under the tutelage of academics at top American institutions.

The US still provides incredible educational opportunities, however the rest of the world is catching up and passing by - maybe.

Learning is hard work! Get used to it!

 

[Zlex]

America, with 300 million people, hands out only 5% of its undergraduate degrees in science and engineering...and half of those go to foreign nationals.

China, with a billion or so, hands out over 72% of its undergraduate degrees in science and engieering.

So, 15 years from now, who the **** do YOU want running the world? The increasingly technically illiterate, still yet imagining that they rule the skies in their ...1970s era warplanes?

Wake up and smell the polluted skies in China.

Accounting is the number one US undergraduate degrees being pumped out.

It's also the highest growth rate outsourced resource; 4X growth each year. So, (for example,) if its only 20000 jobs this year, that means ... about 5 million jobs at the end of 4 yrs. Which means, it's on a growth path for outsourced saturation before today's kids get out of college.

Salaries will be long term depressed for years. There's going to be a glut of accountants with no experience, it's easy to predict.

http://www.nysscpa.org/cpajournal/2005/605/essentials/p54.htm

Offshore Outsourcing of Tax-Return Preparation
Promising Business Opportunities and Professional Standards


JUNE 2005 - Outsourcing business processes overseas is increasingly common in the banking, financial services, retailing, insurance, and telecommunications sectors. Economists and accounting professionals expect this trend to accelerate; Deloitte Consulting LLP expects two million financial services industry jobs to relocate overseas during the next few years. Many large CPA firms have begun shifting tax-compliance work overseas, through outsourcing facilitators, to Chartered Accountants (CA) in India.

Outsourcing tax-compliance work overseas can enable CPAs to focus on higher-margin services such as tax consulting, to reduce labor costs, and to increase the speed of tax-return processing. With such potential benefits, CPA firms will likely join other segments in increasingly outsourcing tax-compliance services

The big accounting firms digitize/sanitize the bread and butter tax compliance returns, zip them to India, where experts in every US state are available to crank them out cheap.

Turns out, +,-./,X , and 'continuity' is not all that tough a barrier to entry, and the bread and butter forms come with RTFM instructions.

So, the long term accounting trend is for increasingly specialized tax avoidance...I mean, accounting specialists/"elites." (Did I get the smeer job right?)

But, not the bread and butter accounting jobs, which used to be higher paying bread and butter accounting jobs.

Kind of like what 'making bitmaps dance' used to be here not all that long ago.

What kind of virtuous workingman "Grapes of Wrath" inspired fantasy can we come up with this time while we're waiting for the lights to go out?

 

[BobG]

What kind of virtuous workingman "Grapes of Wrath" inspired fantasy can we come up with this time while we're waiting for the lights to go out?

It'll be just like the first one, except the workers in the field will have classier clothes. Instead of being a movie about Okies from Muskogee, the movie will be about ex-programmers and ex-accountants.

Hence the number of programmers and accountants that resent illegal Mexican immigrants sneaking across the border and stealing "Plan B" out from under them.

There is a big difference in attitude between those that lived through the depression and those that lived through the 80's and 90's.

During the depression, things were so bad that a lot of people said the depression proved that capitalism just wasn't a workable theory.

By the 80's and 90's, when the US was becoming the world's only superpower, a lot of people developed the idea that life should automatically be easy for Americans.

In the 50's and 60's, Americans made things - and made them better than anyone else. Now, America is good at making money - which isn't quite the same type skill as making things.

What today's outsourcing means is that the world is returning to a more normal state, where everyone has to compete to get ahead and no one is guaranteed anything - not even Americans.

 

[russ_watters]

America, with 300 million people, hands out only 5% of its undergraduate degrees in science and engineering...and half of those go to foreign nationals.

China, with a billion or so, hands out over 72% of its undergraduate degrees in science and engieering.

So, 15 years from now, who the **** do YOU want running the world? The increasingly technically illiterate, still yet imagining that they rule the skies in their ...1970s era warplanes?

Actually, that set of facts paints a picture to me that says we are still on top. Particularly, the fact that half of our science/engineering graduates are foreigners. It means that the US still turns out the best scientists and engineers (which is why foreigners get educated here if they can).

As long as the quality stays as high as it is, I don't much care that the total number of people with science engineering degrees is higher elsewhere. Those accounting majors? They get mindless office jobs at $30k - if they are lucky. Engineers? They still start at $55k+, and almost all have jobs before they graduate from college.

Anecdotal, but instructive: We did an HVAC commissioning job in Mexico last year and the field tech installing the controls had a degree from the best engineering school in Mexico. In the US, that job would not need/require a degree. At the same time, my boss broke a filling and fortunately for him, one of the women cleaning the bathrooms at the plant was also a dentist...

 

[russ_watters]

Along a similar veign, I don't want the engineering profession to become dilued. Sure, some of that is selfish (high demand equals more money for me) but just as important is that competition in engineering generally leads to a decrease in quality, and our superiority has to be based on quality, not quantity.

 

[scott1]

Along a similar veign, I don't want the engineering profession to become dilued. Sure, some of that is selfish (high demand equals more money for me) but just as important is that competition in engineering generally leads to a decrease in quality, and our superiority has to be based on quality, not quantity.

I agree.Lower qanity means higher quaility.
I think that sport majors should be froced to also do somthing elese like engineer/buisness major.Why go to collage if all you want to do is play football?You don't need to go any futher pass high school to play football.The problem is that collages seem to give scholerships to people just want football.Shouldn't they be giving schollarships to people who want learn somthing that you have to actually to collage to learn!

 

[Cyrus]

Along a similar veign, I don't want the engineering profession to become dilued. Sure, some of that is selfish (high demand equals more money for me) but just as important is that competition in engineering generally leads to a decrease in quality, and our superiority has to be based on quality, not quantity.

Eh, well. The chinese did manage to send a man into space. That was no small feat. They are moving ahead technology wise quite rapidly, as is India. I think both are good examples of both quantity and quality. China and space, India and the biotech sector, nuclear. These are not second class areas of science. The quality of the engineers in India are just as good if not better than in the U.S. Not all, but some. So there is a pool of very high quality along with the substandard engineers.

 

[Astronuc]

As long as the quality stays as high as it is, I don't much care that the total number of people with science engineering degrees is higher elsewhere. Those accounting majors? They get mindless office jobs at $30k - if they are lucky. Engineers? They still start at $55k+, and almost all have jobs before they graduate from college.

I believe the concern is that the foreigners who graduate are taking that skill back to their home countries, and they will be developing technology in competition with the US.

In fact, the US has 'lost' the capability of making large steel forgings. There is only one shop in the world capable of handling large steel forgings, and that is in Japan. China, with it's desire for nuclear energy, will likely build that infrastructure themselves.

In a rush to sell plants to India and China, the US and Europeans will likely end up giving away the technology.

 

[scott1]

Eh, well. The chinese did manage to send a man into space. That was no small feat. They are moving ahead technology wise quite rapidly, as is India. I think both are good examples of both quantity and quality. China and space, India and the biotech sector, nuclear. These are not second class areas of science. The quality of the engineers in India are just as good if not better than in the U.S. Not all, but some. So there is a pool of very high quality along with the substandard engineers.

Who much of there India's and China's population have higer I.Q. to an average american citizen?The average I.Q. in India and China is probally lower then the U.S.
China only sent on man up to space our technology is still more advance.

 

[sid_galt]

As others have said before, quantity =/= quality.

Besides, most of the good foreign students who graduate tend to stay in the US. Which true lover of science and engineering would give up splendid research opportunities available in the US and go back? Sure, some good quality foreigners do go back but most stay. And those who go back, their output is very low compared to what it could have been had they stayed in the US.

And the research opportunities are a result of US capitalism and freedom. So until some other country becomes better than the US in the latter two spheres, I don't expect the US dominance to go away.

 

[Cyrus]

That, actually, is not entirely true sid galt. It costs far less to do research in, say India, than it does in the United States. This is why its attractive to do the research over there, where its on the cheap, and then manufacture and sell it over here, to maximize profits. (At least as far as biotech is concerned)

 

[sid_galt]

That, actually, is not entirely true sid galt. It costs far less to do research in, say India, than it does in the United States. This is why its attractive to do the research over there, where its on the cheap, and then manufacture and sell it over here, to maximize profits. (At least as far as biotech is concerned)

Any references you could provide to back up that claim? It is cheap to manufacture in 3rd world countries, but as far as research is concerned, from the laws of economics, research cannot be cheaper in 3rd world countries or else it would have been conducted there.
Besides the people and the atmosphere is just not there.

 

[Cyrus]

I heard it from a lady who runs a major biotech company in India on an interview. Ill dig up her name later.

Why can't research be cheaper in another country? It is being conducted there for exactly that reason. There is a transition to doing more research in India, because it's far cheaper.

Besides the people and the atmosphere is just not there.

That's not true in the case of India either. The atmosphere for change is there, and is the cause for concern. Some say this will be the century of the India/China story.

 

[Smasherman]

I have to agree with cyrus on India/China taking the #1 position as far as national power in the world goes.

A lot of people, when they find out that I'm adept at computers (I program some), tell me that programming will be a good job in the future. I highly doubt this, however, for two reasons: One, programmers are becoming more common. Two, programming is getting easier, so less programmers are needed to do more.

I'm not sure how quantity and quality affect the quality of engineering work, but I imagine that it's true that less engineers means less faults, but if there are huge numbers of engineers, projects can be double- and triple- checked before being put into play.

'Course, my biggest question in all of this is how the &*%# I'm going to survive in the upcoming world. I live in a dying world power with a large military. Joy.

 

[chroot]

Any references you could provide to back up that claim? It is cheap to manufacture in 3rd world countries, but as far as research is concerned, from the laws of economics, research cannot be cheaper in 3rd world countries or else it would have been conducted there.
Besides the people and the atmosphere is just not there.

Quite the contrary, in fact, sid. I'm afraid you're just wrong.

Many researchers from US universities are offered gleaming new laboratories overseas, generous government support without all the bureaucracy and political wrangling to get funding (one advantage non-democratic governments offer), and few or no laws which restrict what they can do with, e.g. stem cells or embryos.

It's a deal too good for many to pass up. The "atmosphere" is definitely there, in force. These governments are willing to do whatever it takes to lure and keep top-notch researchers happy.

The people, too, are there. While many of the brightest still end up in the US, many return home after making a small fortune here, effectively gouging our economy. Since China and India are simply churning out more scientists and engineers, most of those who don't have the smarts to make it to America still find plenty of opportunity at those gleaming new government-funded labs. Since living costs are much lower there, they can be employed much more cheaply than silver-spoon Americans.

We are losing the "race," partially due to stupid government policies (i.e. crippling stem cell research), partially due to stupid kids (who don't want to study science), and partially because this is simply a natural correction to a technological bubble that has persisted far longer than it really should've.

- Warren

 

[selfAdjoint]

We are losing the "race," partially due to stupid government policies (i.e. crippling stem cell research), partially due to stupid kids (who don't want to study science),

Warren, assuming all the rest of your post is accurate, those kids are not dumb. Any kid smart enough to do science is smart enought to see the grungy support that science gets in this country and plan to do something else.

Among the sources of the problem you should also include the US way of education, though. Because parents and local politicians control the school content, there is a cultural dumbing-down force constantly at work, and teachers are not well-enough prepared in science either, particularly at lower grades levels.

 

[russ_watters]

I believe the concern is that the foreigners who graduate are taking that skill back to their home countries, and they will be developing technology in competition with the US.

They are welcome to it. I'm a big fan of the American Dream and that means I am wholly in favor of anyone and everyone who can, getting ahold of it. If they come here to get it and then take it back with them, they have my blessing.

Besides, when those countries come up to our level, we'll have new trading partners akin to Canada and Europe. But they have a looooong way to go: we're only having this conversation because of their vast population - the average level of development in China and India is abysmal.

In fact, the US has 'lost' the capability of making large steel forgings.

Well, this thread is mostly about diluting of expertise - we have only "lost" that capability insofar as it is no longer economically feasible to do it here. Frankly, the steel industry was doing the US economy more harm than good and I'm glad to see it go. It would be nice if we could get new steel companies, though (even if we end up with a Toyota business model with Japanese companies making steel in the US with American workers).

 

[russ_watters]

Warren, assuming all the rest of your post is accurate, those kids are not dumb. Any kid smart enough to do science is smart enought to see the grungy support that science gets in this country and plan to do something else.

Toughie: dumb or just lazy? And "dumb" can be an all-encompassing word that doesn't necessarily imply low IQ.

Among the sources of the problem you should also include the US way of education, though. Because parents and local politicians control the school content, there is a cultural dumbing-down force constantly at work, and teachers are not well-enough prepared in science either, particularly at lower grades levels.

Agreed. To me, that's the one critical problem here: regardless of the "dumb or lazy" thing above, the current cultural forces ensure that only the most motivated people become scientists and engineers. Making science more popular would dilute the talent pool, but there are also plenty of high iq people who have the intelligence to be scientists and engineers, but simply lack the motivation.

The current distribution is ok, imo, (read: not great, but not bad), but if the downward trend continues, we will have a real shortage of scientific minds in the near future. Regardless of if it dilutes the talent pool, it would be good to have more. Besides - there are always easier science/engineering jobs that the dumber scientists and engineers can do. Like mine, for example...

 

[Zlex]

Actually, that set of facts paints a picture to me that says we are still on top. Particularly, the fact that half of our science/engineering graduates are foreigners. It means that the US still turns out the best scientists and engineers (which is why foreigners get educated here if they can).

As long as the quality stays as high as it is, I don't much care that the total number of people with science engineering degrees is higher elsewhere. Those accounting majors? They get mindless office jobs at $30k - if they are lucky. Engineers? They still start at $55k+, and almost all have jobs before they graduate from college.

Anecdotal, but instructive: We did an HVAC commissioning job in Mexico last year and the field tech installing the controls had a degree from the best engineering school in Mexico. In the US, that job would not need/require a degree. At the same time, my boss broke a filling and fortunately for him, one of the women cleaning the bathrooms at the plant was also a dentist...

In the context of this thread, it also indicates that we can 'fix' this issue by an increased reliance on foreign technologists, to wit, the ones that at least 'half' of those degrees 'produced' at American Universities have created.

Well d'uh; what do folks think we've been doing for the last 40 years? I mean, "we don't need no steenking technology to do any of this ****, all we need is good old American hard work ethic and virtual working class (when it is not out ****ing the dog) ethos" aside.

Well, OK. So...where is it?

Whatever S&E degrees that 'America' produces, a number like half of them are being taken by(not given to)foreign nationals. At grad schools like MIT even thirty years ago, this was the case, I doubt it has changed significantly. What has changed is the % of them that feel the desire to stick around after the fact.

Is China any 'good' at what it does? What has kept them down in the past has been their factual organisational implementation of where half of us think we are heading. Seriously, the Chinese are not our genetic inferiors, only our political inferiors.

So, counting on their continued self-crippling behaviour does not sound like much of a plan, especially when it is coupled with our own flirtation with self-crippling.

Literally, 'self'- crippling.

Counting/wishing that China is 'not very good' at what it does is not a plan. As in, let's loosen up our belt, take a blow, or as those long dead 19th century German philopsophers once implored mankind, 'don't try so hard.'

Technology capability does not sit on a shelf well, and by that, I don't mean the actual products of technology, but the capability to advance technology; hard earned area under the curve does not archive well. That capability is ultimately captured by living people. I've often bumped into management types who regarded that capability as something of a tap, to be turned on and off like any commodity. Many companies have their legends of 'the Golden Years' and the not so Golden Years of technological development. It seems like seasons come and go, like vintages. My rambling point is, this is not the same USA that did Apollo in under ten years. Same initials. Some of our capabilities have expanded greatly, at the same time, our reach has withered, and with it, I think, our focus and discipline. It seems to me that we are in a prolonged period of mere 'idling,' trying to keep that capability on a shelf, so to speak, until some maybe future next 'Golden Years.' But if you consider(maybe you don't agree)that the 50's and 60's were the last 'Golden Years', it has now been two full generations of 'idling.'

I don't mean to imply that outrageously good effort is not being done today; the rubber of some of that might even someday hit the road. But, consider that the B52 is still flying. Consider that, the difference between what the Wright Brothers flew and the B52 50 years later is infinitely more dramatic then the B52 and the slightly improved B52 still flying 50 years later, or any of its stealthy not even replacements.

Two full generations of relative idling, now. A spark, a national will, has been nearly extinguished.

 

[Zlex]

In fact, the US has 'lost' the capability of making large steel forgings. There is only one shop in the world capable of handling large steel forgings, and that is in Japan. China, with it's desire for nuclear energy, will likely build that infrastructure themselves.

The steel industry--a great example. Literally, folks got paid tons of money to do absolutly nothing.

In order to support that immense gradient of 'steel' created at a steel plant, there must exist other massive gradients of steel consumption. But face it, an America that put its last star on the map over 2 generations ago in the aftermath of a major gradient producing world war is not the same place it was then. Hey, Ike's Autobahn is just about finished. The rate of filling in our little local maps is not what it once was a hundred years ago. ANd, the rest of the developing world is no longer knocked flat on its ass. There is less room in the market for underproductive massive steel plants, and/or affable executives at Beth Steel phoning it in from Saucon Valley CC throwing a huge benefits and wages party on the Lehigh; the rest of the world says, "We would like a piece of that, too." Stay still, get eaten.

There once was a massive wave of transmission tower building going on in this nation, as the nations power distribution network was constructed. Well, the maintenance/slow expansion phase is not the same wave of consumption that the original development phase once was. We've seen these things; once, they were galvanized steel towers, erector sets on steroids, still plenty around, later often replaced with tubular steel tower designs that went ungalvanized and actually relied on a weathered/oxidized surface to reduce cost.

So, there used to be galvanizing plants along the east coast which 'hot dipped' the steel in molten Zinc, and as the demand lessoned, fewer and fewer. But, at one point, near the end of this phase, in the 70's, these plants started finding that they were unable to compete with foreign galvenizing plants. Imagine that; it was becoming cheaper to ship the steel overseas, have it galvanized, and then shipped back, then it was to truck it to some local plant and have it galvanized. Mind boggling. Not just one reason for this, other then under the unifying principle, gradients drive everything. The foreign plants were often newer and not encumbered by the post WWII attitude, whether by labor or management, that this gig was going to last forever no matter what and it was not necessary to compete in the world.

The flaw in the irrational wish to seek stasis in the steel market is the belief that somehow the game can be rigged so that it can all somehow be just downhill. Forget it, the Universe only rewards those who charge up its many hills with a fine view from the top.

 

[SOS2008]

They are welcome to it. I'm a big fan of the American Dream and that means I am wholly in favor of anyone and everyone who can, getting ahold of it. If they come here to get it and then take it back with them, they have my blessing.

This cracks me up...in a sad way. How can you be a real capitalist and say this? It's the same with the illegal immigrant problem. We are educating their children so they can take YOUR children's jobs. WTF!? And our children, are well, being raised by single mothers who are sinking every day--taking two jobs to stay above poverty..or a little more meth will do the trick. You really need to get out of the silver spoon sheltered life dude.

1895 Eighth Grade Final Exam:

8th GRADE FINAL EXAM

Grammar (Time, one hour)
1. Give nine rules for the use of Capital Letters.
2. Name the Parts of Speech and define those that have no Modifications.
3. Define Verse, Stanza and Paragraph.
4. What are the Principal Parts of a verb. Give Principal Parts of. lie, lay and run
5. Define Case, Illustrate each Case.
6. What is Punctuation? Give rules for principal marks of Punctuation.
7. Write a composition of about 150 words and show therein that you understand the practical use of the rules of grammar.

Arithmetic (Time, 1.25 hours)
1. Name and define the Fundamental Rules of Arithmetic.
2. A wagon box is 2 ft deep, 10 feet long, and 3 ft. wide. How many bushels of wheat will it hold?
3. If a load of wheat weighs 3942 lbs., what is it worth at
50cts/bushel, deducting 1050lbs. for tare?
4. District No. 33 has a valuation of $35,000. What is the necessary levy to carry on a school seven months at $50 per month, and have $104 for incidentals?
5. Find cost of 6720 lbs. coal at $6.00 per ton.
6. Find the interest of $512.60 for 8 months and 18 days at 7 percent.
7. What is the cost of 40 boards 12 inches wide and 16 ft. long at $20 per meter?
8 Find bank discount on $300 for! 90 days (no grace) at 10 percent.
9. What is the cost of a square farm at $15 per acre, the distance
around which is 640 rods?
10. Write a Bank Check, a Promissory Note, and a Receipt.

U. S. History (Time, 45 minutes)
1. Give the epochs into which U. S. History is divided.
2. Give an account of the discovery of ?America by Columbus.
3. Relate the causes and results of the Revolutionary War.
4. Show the territorial growth of the United States.
5. Tell what you can of the history of Kansas.
6. Describe three of the most prominent battles of the Rebellion.
7. Who were the following: Morse, Whitney, Fulton, Bell, Lincoln, ?Penn, and Howe?
8. Name events connected with the following dates: 1607, 1620, 1800, ?1849, 1865.

Orthography (Time, one hour)
1. What is meant by the following: Alphabet, phonetic, orthography, ?etymology, syllabication?
2. What are elementary sounds? How classified?
3. What are the following, and give examples of each: Trigraph, sub vocals, diphthong, cognate letters, linguals?
4. Give four substitutes for caret 'u'.
5. Give two rules for spelling words with final 'e.' Name two
exceptions under each rule.
6. Give two uses of silent letters in spelling. Illustrate each.
7. Define the following prefixes and use in connection with a word: ?bi, dis, mis, pre, semi, post, non, inter, mono, sup
8. Mark diacritically and divide into syllables the following, and name the sign that indicates the sound: card, ball, mercy, sir, odd, cell, rise, blood, fare, last.
9. Use the following correctly in sentences: cite, si te, sight, fane,
fain, feign, vane, vain, vein, raze, raise, rays.
10. Write 10 words frequently mispronounced and indicate pronunciation by use of diacritical marks and by syllabication.

Geography (Time, one hour)
1. What is climate? Upon what does climate depend?
2. How do you account for the extremes of climate in Kansas?
3. Of what use are rivers? Of what use is the ocean?
4. Describe the mountains of North America.
5. Name and describe the following: Monrovia, Odessa, Denver,
Manitoba, Hecla, Yukon, St. Helena, Juan Fernandez, Aspinwall &Orinoco.
6. Name and locate the principal trade centers of the U.S.
7. Name all the republic s of Europe and give the capital of each.
8. Why is the Atlantic Coast colder than the Pacific in the same latitude?
9. Describe the process by which the water of the ocean returns to the sources of rivers.
10. Describe the movements of the earth. Give the inclination of the earth.

Also notice that the exam took five hours to complete.
Gives the saying "she/he only had an 8th grade education" a whole new meaning, doesn't it?

What happened to us!? It is kind of humbling, isn't it? No, we need to focus on our own and compete.

 

[BobG]

1895 Eighth Grade Final Exam:

8th GRADE FINAL EXAM

Grammar (Time, one hour)
...

...Also notice that the exam took five hours to complete.
Gives the saying "she/he only had an 8th grade education" a whole new meaning, doesn't it?

What happened to us!? It is kind of humbling, isn't it? No, we need to focus on our own and compete.

So, I guess you'd interpret this job posting as an indication that our standards are decreasing:

We are more interested in looking at candidates with real teaching experience than in newly minted Ph.D's, who might have unrealistic expectations about the possibilities for academic growth at an institution such as ours. Southeast Missouri State University is a regional university which serves students in the southeast portion of the state including St. Louis. Our students tend to be poorly prepared for college level work, intellectually passive, interested primarily in partying, and culturally provincial in the extreme. We offer a major in philosophy. but do not usually have more than two students officially declared as majors at any given time.

1986 SE Missouri State job posting story

It's actually kind of a funny story. The job posting was just a first draft by a frustrated college administrator and was never intended to actually be posted, but it received quite a few applicants, anyway (what are you going to do if you're a Philosophy major, anyway?). The guy that got the job evidently did a pretty good job of improving the college's philosophy department.

 

[Amp1]

WOW SOS,
Thats a real 8^th grade exam from 1895, I didn't even learn what:Trigraph, sub vocals, diphthongs and linguals where until I took a course in linguistics in college. BTW, I didn't learn about cognate letters, what are they - phomemes, consonants?

 

[russ_watters]

This cracks me up...in a sad way. How can you be a real capitalist and say this?

I guess I'm just not what people like to think I am here. I keep telling people that here and no one believes me. [shrug]

It's the same with the illegal immigrant problem. We are educating their children so they can take YOUR children's jobs. WTF!?

Well, my views on illegal immigration are that it should be illegal (kinda by definition ), but regardless, my children will do much, much better than those illegal immigrants in school, so they will most certainly not be competing for the same jobs.

Democrats put too much emphasis on the word "we". "We" will not ensuring my kids get an education. I will be ensuring that my kids get an education. If you do not ensure that your kids get an education, don't expect me to do it for you. If some immigrant who cares more about the American Dream than you do ensures that his kids are well educated, then you can assume that his kids will get better jobs than yours. And that will be your fault.

And what's with this "your children's jobs" crap? Children don't have jobs and they aren't entitled to jobs when they grow up. A job only becomes "yours" after you earn it.

And our children, are well, being raised by single mothers who are sinking every day--taking two jobs to stay above poverty..or a little more meth will do the trick. You really need to get out of the silver spoon sheltered life dude.

You really don't get it. This has nothing to do with having a priveledged life. Its all about how hard you try. If a legal immigrant comes here and forces his kids to learn English and study hard in school, and that kid ends up taking a job from a kid who'se mother was dumb enough to get pregnant at age 15, then so be it. That's competition, and that's as capitalistic as it gets.

I realize that it doesn't matter how many times I say it, people won't listen, but the overriding forces behind my political views are personal responsibility and freedom. Virtually everything, including my views on this topic, can be easily derived from these two worldviews.

Put quite simply, personal responsibility combined with freedom means: if I screw up, I won't expect you to support me and if you screw up, you shouldn't expect me to support you.

1895 Eighth Grade Final Exam:

Wasn't that already proven to be a hoax?

What happened to us!? It is kind of humbling, isn't it? No, we need to focus on our own and compete.

I agree, but there is only one way to do that that actually works: parents need to force their kids to learn. It is as simple as that.

 

[Astronuc]

parents need to force their kids to learn.

Parents can encourage, inspire, or assist their children to learn, but parents cannot force their children to learn.

My wife and I read every night to our children for years, and I still read to my son, even though he is 14. It's time we spend together, and we talk about the story, as well as other things.

My kids have always read above grade level.

On the other hand, I know many children whose parents don't lift a book, and those kids seem to have missed an opportunity. On top of that, I know several kids from 'broken' or abusive homes. The social and educational system does precious little for the most part for these kids.

The educational system is more or less like an assembly line, and if one does not keep up, one gets left behind.

Equal opportunity in the US is a myth.

 

[russ_watters]

Ugh, this is what irritates me so much about the liberal ideology. Regardless of the accuracy of that 8th grade test link, I agree that childhood education has suffered in the US in the last century. But if you look at what else changed in this country last century, the cause should be obvious. Quite simply, the liberal ideology killed off the concept of personal responsibility(*con't below) and as a result, people stopped saying I will make sure my kids get an education and started saying we will do it. And, of course, "we" really means "you", because that's the benefit of "we" - I don't have to do it myself.

Columbine is a perfect example: Michael Moore says its "our" fault, but how reasonable is that really? What could I have done to prevent it? Then consider what could the parents themselves have done - are we that far gone that a parent shouldn't be held responsible for not knowing that his/her kid is building pipe-bombs and sawing-off shotguns in their own garage?

*The liberal killing off of personal responsibility can be seen easily by simply looking at how the US government changed last century. What were the biggest changes? Simple and obvious: Social Security was the biggest change to the structure of the US government last century. That's when we started the transition to a socialist failure (see: the current situation in France) that is just now starting to see opposition today. And it's mostly FDR's fault: Social Security was the birth of the idea the I shouldn't have to provide for my retirement, but we (you - or worse, our children) should. The TVA was the birth of the concept that I shouldn't need to find myself a job, you (the government) should provide one for me.

Today, the Democratic party has pretty much fully embraced the concept of the welfare state. Fortunately, enough Americans still believe in the American Dream. That's why we have a Republican President: it doesn't matter that he's a jacka$$, he's still better than the alternative - a continued slide into the welfare-state abyss. That's why the democratic party is floundering today - why the last Demcratic President was more of a Republican than the current Republican president. Clinton may have been a jacka$$ too, but he's the direction the Democratic party must go if they want to become relevant again.

 

[russ_watters]

Parents can encourage, inspire, or assist their children to learn, but parents cannot force their children to learn.

Yeah, they can. You should meet my parents...

 

[Monique]

I agree with Russ that a welfare state takes away personal responsibility, that's probably why China and India are doing so well. Students are willing to work hard to make it, because they know if they don't that they will have a much harder life.

The US still has the edge that it has some great research facilities and funding, there still is a brain drain in countries where top-students move to the US to join prestigious institutions.

Americans do need to be aware of changing economics, where the US won't be the biggest player anymore. When will come the time that the dollar won't be the standard currency anymore? With the debt that the US is in it is not unimaginable that one day the dollar dramatically can lose its value.

Too bad you guys can't watch this documentary: http://www.vpro.nl/programma/tegenlicht/afleveringen/24877874/ it plays out the scenario where a trader in Singapore receives the order to sell a large quantity of dollars, this sets a dramatic fall of the dollar in progress that sweeps around the globe until it hits the US. At the end of the day the dollar has lost all its value, because of how other traders over-reacted to the initial drop in value (due to lack of trust).

 

[Zlex]

Ugh, this is what irritates me so much about the liberal ideology. Regardless of the accuracy of that 8th grade test link, I agree that childhood education has suffered in the US in the last century. But if you look at what else changed in this country last century, the cause should be obvious. Quite simply, the liberal ideology killed off the concept of personal responsibility(*con't below) and as a result, people stopped saying I will make sure my kids get an education and started saying we will do it. And, of course, "we" really means "you", because that's the benefit of "we" - I don't have to do it myself.

Columbine is a perfect example: Michael Moore says its "our" fault, but how reasonable is that really? What could I have done to prevent it? Then consider what could the parents themselves have done - are we that far gone that a parent shouldn't be held responsible for not knowing that his/her kid is building pipe-bombs and sawing-off shotguns in their own garage?

*The liberal killing off of personal responsibility can be seen easily by simply looking at how the US government changed last century. What were the biggest changes? Simple and obvious: Social Security was the biggest change to the structure of the US government last century. That's when we started the transition to a socialist failure (see: the current situation in France) that is just now starting to see opposition today. And it's mostly FDR's fault: Social Security was the birth of the idea the I shouldn't have to provide for my retirement, but we (you - or worse, our children) should. The TVA was the birth of the concept that I shouldn't need to find myself a job, you (the government) should provide one for me.

Today, the Democratic party has pretty much fully embraced the concept of the welfare state. Fortunately, enough Americans still believe in the American Dream. That's why we have a Republican President: it doesn't matter that he's a jacka$$, he's still better than the alternative - a continued slide into the welfare-state abyss. That's why the democratic party is floundering today - why the last Demcratic President was more of a Republican than the current Republican president. Clinton may have been a jacka$$ too, but he's the direction the Democratic party must go if they want to become relevant again.

russ,

100% agreed.

We could complell our children to work hard in school. But..

Let's not do THAT. Instead, ...

Let's demonize business, capitalism, industry.

Let's support, tolerate a culture that calls kids who give a rats ass about their effort in school, 'nerds.'

Let's glamorize and idolize gangstas.

Let's foist endless fantasies about the nefarious business of business and industry, the plot of every third movie coming out of Hollywood.

Let's turn the gain up to '10' on every anecdote of a naked sweaty ape businessman turning to crime.

Let's snicker about the daily phrase "****ing the dog" heard on every shop floor/industrial plant in America. If you never heard that phrase, and don't know exactly what fine sentiment that is supposed to convey, they I seriously doubt you ever sweated out any virtuous doing amd making sweat on any 'heavy industry' shop floor. Gee, no set 'em up and knock 'em down propaganda films coming out of Hollywood detailing THAT heard every day phrase.

What do you want to do when you grow up, little boy?

"I want to get a job where I can say "I'm ****ing the dog" on a daily basis."


Let's encourage our kids to believe, truly believe, that education is given, not taken. We will do this by way of a constant public campaign aimed at the deficiencies of our systems of education giving.

...instead of teaching them the exact opposite.

Hey, no compulsion in all of that. AFter all, those are the only two choices possible:

a] Keep doing all of the above, like we've been for decades.
b] compulsion.

I propose that we keep doing some or all of the above, see how it goes, in terms of generating "high paying" jobs in America.

Then, we can hire "S"ocial soft-scientists to softly push paper around and tell us why those 19th Century German philosophers are still right, explicitely, that we must continue to actively encourage the masses to not try so hard, as part of our instructed robot little political agenda.

 

[Art]

I'm surprised that some folk believe that governments having a responsibility for the welfare of it's citizens is a bad thing. Here's an article to debunk some of the myths being bandied about in regard to the effects of operating welfare states.

Ironically, the idea of a welfare state receives the most criticism in the country with the least amount of welfare services in the developed world - namely the United States. Most of this American criticism revolves around the idea that a welfare state would make citizens lazy and less inclined to work. That is unsupported by the economic evidence; there is no association between economic performance and welfare expenditure in developed countries. (See A. B. Atkinson, Incomes and the Welfare State, Cambridge University Press 1995) Similarly, there is no evidence for the contention that welfare state impedes progressive social development. R. Goodin et al, in The Real Worlds of Welfare Capitalism (Cambridge University Press, 2000), show that on major economic and social indicators, the USA performs worse than the Netherlands, which has a high commitment to welfare provision.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_state

Without the concept of the welfare state people would still be living in a feudalist society born with the sole purpose in life of serving their masters, with no education and thus no opportunity to better themselves and without health services to allow them quality in their lives.

Simplistic slogans like 'I don't ask for anything so don't you ask me for anything' show a total lack of depth in understanding what society is. A better slogan is 'the sum of the parts is greater than the whole'

Ultimately it is in one's own selfish interest to look after ALL of the parts to maximise the whole.

 

[Gokul43201]

This cracks me up...in a sad way. How can you [Russ] be a real capitalist and say this?

I don't see the contradiction. Doesn't Capitalism go hand in hand with a free market philosophy ?

 

[Astronuc]

Doesn't Capitalism go hand in hand with a free market philosophy?

Perhaps hypothetically, but in practicality or reality - No.

Look at the monopolies in steel (Carnegie), oil (Rockefeller), meat and food processing (Armour) in the US of the late 1800's and early 1900's.

 

[X-43D]

Capitalism is more like corporatism. A completely free market is a gift economy. Capitalism is not a free market because it puts various restrictions on exchange such as state monopoly on money supply, interest/rent/profit and other regulatory mechanisms.

 

[SOS2008]

I don't see the contradiction. Doesn't Capitalism go hand in hand with a free market philosophy ?

I see your point, so I'll try to clarify a little more.

There is the macro level and micro level. Within our country we want business to compete to keep quality high and costs low. But you don't compete against your own company, at least one would think not. On the global level we want our governments to represent us, the people of their country. To negotiate good trade agreements, to help grow the economy and jobs in our country, to help us prepare future generations to compete and prosper in our country. As a country, you would think we would behave as if we were on the same team.

 

[Bystander]

I see your point, so I'll try to clarify a little more.

There is the macro level and micro level. Within our country we want business to compete to keep quality high and costs low. But you don't compete against your own company, at least one would think not. On the global level we want our governments to represent us, the people of their country. To negotiate good trade agreements, to help grow the economy and jobs in our country, to help us prepare future generations to compete and prosper in our country. As a country, you would think we would behave as if we were on the same team.

What "team" would that be? Buncha white supremacists? The "Great White Fathers?" If there isn't an exchange of information, training, and technology, there isn't any global market in which to compete, or from which to derive economic benefits.

 

[Zlex]

I'm surprised that some folk believe that governments having a responsibility for the welfare of it's citizens is a bad thing. Here's an article to debunk some of the myths being bandied about in regard to the effects of operating welfare states.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_state

Without the concept of the welfare state people would still be living in a feudalist society born with the sole purpose in life of serving their masters, with no education and thus no opportunity to better themselves and without health services to allow them quality in their lives.

Simplistic slogans like 'I don't ask for anything so don't you ask me for anything' show a total lack of depth in understanding what society is. A better slogan is 'the sum of the parts is greater than the whole'

Ultimately it is in one's own selfish interest to look after ALL of the parts to maximise the whole.

A yes, the great Society; something that is bigger than us all. Aka, the modern version of God. 'It is for the Good Of Society/God That I get to Drive your Skin..."

America is already at the point where the poorest of our poor live nothing like the average person in places like Bangladesh. And now, we want to propose schemes that by design, snare our entire Middle Class into depending on 'the safety net.' It's not a 'safety net' if the Middle Class is being shepherded into it; it's just a 'net.'

The question is 'why the net?', and the answer is because sick little men like Durkheim et. al. and their modern day worshippers had/have an almost maniacal, irrational fear of strangers unseen and were/are convinced that the world and its dangerous individuals living in their freedom need to be controlled at the point of a gun at all costs. They never got over their childhood realization that they were individuals awash in a sea of other individuals, and were moved to do something constrictivistly violent/forceful about that to handle all the uncertainty, the noise, and the freedom, which was, essentially, to convince individuals that there was something greater that they should surrender to, through the Durkheims as divine spokepersons, to render the mob into a self-policing mob, literally, on the guard against the 'self.' Still a mob, but a mob that was leadable around by the nose. The fearful Durkheims and the other mystic speakers for the Great Unseen Magic Spirit in the Sky (aka Society) just want to make sure it is their grubby little hands holding the gun, plain and simple, and in control of the mob.

Tell you what, let's get all the people in the world. Everyone who is not an individual, raise your hand.

Take away everyone who is an individual, and what are you left with?

Whatever that is, that is what Durkheim and his even unaware worshippers claim has wants and needs and desires that must be met, that some yet mere individuals claim to speak for, while leg lifting themselves over other mere individuals.

'S'ociety is a political/religious scam; the world is nothing but individuals as far as the eye can see, and even in their many plural and varied political subdivisions, their joint efforts, both voluntary and forced, are many and varied and variously motivated.

When belittling the 'sanctity of the individual,' you are belittling mankind, and implying that you, my individual friend, are speaking for some higher entity, above and beyond mere local and individual contingencies.

IOW, the same leglifting scam that the other mystics try to pull on the unsuspecting.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

1895 Eighth Grade Final Exam

http://www.snopes.com/language/document/1895exam.htm

Consider: To pass this test, no knowledge of the arts is necessary (not even a nodding familiarity with a few of the greatest works of English literature), no demonstration of mathematical learning other than plain arithmetic is required (forget algebra, geometry, or trigonometry), nothing beyond a familiarity with the highlights of American history is needed (never mind the fundamentals of world history, as this exam scarcely acknowledges that any country other than the USA even exists), no questions about the history, structure, or function of the United States government are asked (not even the standard "Name the three branches of our federal government"), science is given a pass except for a few questions about geography and the rudiments of human anatomy, and no competence in any foreign language (living or dead) is necessary. An exam for today's high school graduates that omitted even one of these subjects would be loudly condemned by parents and educators alike, subjects about which the Salina, Kansas, students of 1895 needed know nothing at all. Would it be fair to say that the average Salina student was woefully undereducated because he failed to learn many of the things that we consider important today, but which were of little importance in his time and place? If not, then why do people keep asserting that the reverse is true? Why do journalists continue to base their gleeful articles about how much more was expected of the students of yesteryear on flawed assumptions? Perhaps some people are too intent upon making a point to bother considering the proper questions.

Other things not mentioned there are things like the number of children that actually completed and graduated school...

As a result, high school enrollment grew slowly in those years, with only 6 percent of young people graduating from high school in 1900.
http://info.ag.uidaho.edu/magazine/fall2001a/fastforward.html

 

[Anttech]

Tell you what, let's get all the people in the world. Everyone who is not an individual, raise your hand.

Take away everyone who is an individual, and what are you left with?

Whatever that is, that is what Durkheim and his even unaware worshippers claim has wants and needs and desires that must be met, that some yet mere individuals claim to speak for, while leg lifting themselves over other mere individuals.

'S'ociety is a political/religious scam; the world is nothing but individuals as far as the eye can see, and even in their many plural and varied political subdivisions, their joint efforts, both voluntary and forced, are many and varied and variously motivated.

When belittling the 'sanctity of the individual,' you are belittling mankind, and implying that you, my individual friend, are speaking for some higher entity, above and beyond mere local and individual contingencies.

IOW, the same leglifting scam that the other mystics try to pull on the unsuspecting.

So if we are all indivuals, and with purely selfish ideals, why have school? Why bother learning about mankinds history from the people who observed it? Why bother learning science from other people discoveries? Why did Mankind evolve into "political animals?" Why do we have babies that have to be cared for, for such a long time (I think the longest in the animal kingdom). Why is the "Family" unit so strong in humanity?

EVERYWHERE you look you will see that we are based on social interaction, its the reason why we evolved to the top of the food chain, and now far far beyond! Just because we are all "Different" does not debunk Art's arguement. If we didnt work together there is absolutley no way on Earth we would have been so successful! Mankind.

the sum of the parts is greater than the whole

Is the absolute reason that we have progressed so far!

 

[X-43D]

Society exists because we are not completely selfish and competitive. Pure competition would be a Hobbesian war of all against all (totalitarianism). The fact is that there are also good altruistic traits in humans.

 

[russ_watters]

Too bad you guys can't watch this documentary: http://www.vpro.nl/programma/tegenlicht/afleveringen/24877874/ it plays out the scenario where a trader in Singapore receives the order to sell a large quantity of dollars, this sets a dramatic fall of the dollar in progress that sweeps around the globe until it hits the US. At the end of the day the dollar has lost all its value, because of how other traders over-reacted to the initial drop in value (due to lack of trust).

I believe that's the scenario for Tom Clancy's "Executive Orders" (been a while since I read it). I agree that that is a concern, but I tend to think it will (is already) happen gradually enough that it won't suddenly chop us off at the knee.

 

[russ_watters]

I'm surprised that some folk believe that governments having a responsibility for the welfare of it's citizens is a bad thing.

You shouldn't be - the political philosophy on which the concept of democracy is based is utterly devoid of the concept, and for good reason. It is only since Marx's failed experiment that people have latched on to the concept - despite the fact that the Marxist utopia proved a failure. Now, that isn't to say that certain aspects of it can be successfully integrated into a modern society, but great care needs to be taken that these aspects don't undermine the very improvements they are attempting to make.

[from the article] Ironically, the idea of a welfare state receives the most criticism in the country with the least amount of welfare services in the developed world - namely the United States.

Indeed it is ironic. It must be a cultural thing, probably a result of us being on top so long, people have started to expect that entitlement is a right. Certainly it is an easy sell by liberal politicians to a greedy populous.

Most of this American criticism revolves around the idea that a welfare state would make citizens lazy and less inclined to work. That is unsupported by the economic evidence; there is no association between economic performance and welfare expenditure in developed countries.

I'd like to see the particulars of those studies. For some things, the association is obvious: ie, unemployment. And one has to be careful trying to draw conclusions from a homogenous sample - you can't see the difference by comparing European countries to each other.

It is also important to remember that most countries today have hybrid economies. While the welfare state makes unemployment in France high, a total welfare state like the USSR "enjoyed" an unemployment rate of zero. This was, of course, artificial, but the worst effect of the welfare state - mediocrity - comes through crystal clear. That some of the more socialist countries in Europe are able to avoid a culture of mediocrity is a credit to their cultural maturity. That the US is falling into the trap that killed the USSR is an ironic and sad testament to the general immaturity of the American populous.

Without the concept of the welfare state people would still be living in a feudalist society born with the sole purpose in life of serving their masters, with no education and thus no opportunity to better themselves and without health services to allow them quality in their lives.

That's a tough one to support, seeing as how the welfare state is relatively new - Feudalism was gone before the welfare state started to grow. But feel fry to try to support it...

Ultimately it is in one's own selfish interest to look after ALL of the parts to maximise the whole.

Indeed. But that doesn't mean that people's selfish-interest-vision extends beyond their own nose. Few people actually act on the concept of delayed gratification today. Heck, Art, if people really embraced that idea, why would we need Social Security!??!? That we do is clear and obvious evidence that people do not think even in their own long-term selfish-interest.

 

[russ_watters]

I see your point, so I'll try to clarify a little more.

There is the macro level and micro level. Within our country we want business to compete to keep quality high and costs low. But you don't compete against your own company, at least one would think not. On the global level we want our governments to represent us, the people of their country. To negotiate good trade agreements, to help grow the economy and jobs in our country, to help us prepare future generations to compete and prosper in our country. As a country, you would think we would behave as if we were on the same team.

Don't you see the irony in that, SOS? It's the greedy American capitalists who supposedly have the F-the-rest-of-the-world attitude. Yet there it is from you!

Further proof, to me, that liberals are looking at the world upside-down and backwards.

Heck, maybe its the contradictions themselves that are damaging the cultural strength of the US.

 

[Zlex]

So if we are all indivuals, and with purely selfish ideals, why have school? Why bother learning about mankinds history from the people who observed it? Why bother learning science from other people discoveries? Why did Mankind evolve into "political animals?" Why do we have babies that have to be cared for, for such a long time (I think the longest in the animal kingdom). Why is the "Family" unit so strong in humanity?

EVERYWHERE you look you will see that we are based on social interaction, its the reason why we evolved to the top of the food chain, and now far far beyond! Just because we are all "Different" does not debunk Art's arguement. If we didnt work together there is absolutley no way on Earth we would have been so successful! Mankind. Is the absolute reason that we have progressed so far!

You're exactly right we work best when we work together. However, IMV a welfare state is not about working together, not all it. It is about the guns of government pointing at everybody and telling them, 'You must care about every living human being on the planet, sans judgement or choice or (your) personal worldview of morality, but instead, per the judgement and choice and worldview of a select/elite few cronies who were supposed to be fairly painting double yellow lines down the middle of the road but who instead got it into their fat heads that they were elected Christ proxies...

I don't expect human beings on average, to be any better than average. So, if we set up a scheme that requires human beings to be better than average, we're in for not just dissapointment, but failure.

On average, human beings will seek to exchange lessor value for greater value, as opposed to the moral alternative, equal value for equal value. So, if we set up a demand system based on the claim "here is my need" as all that is required to demand value from somebody else, and "there is your ability" as all that is required to exact payment, then on average, we will create a clawing mess where "needs" propagate unbounded, like weeds, and ability to meet them is suppressed, hidden, and denied.

A civilization based on such a pudding headed idea will soon enough find itself unable to support even the most basic 'safety net,' much less some grand, pudding headed scheme where every need is met without effort, 'somehow' because we wished it were so.

In fact, the inevitable end result of such a scheme is easy to predict: two guys in a hovel fighting to the death, arguing over who has the greatest sores, and thus, rightfully the owner of the not so maggoty piece of rotted meat. How many times we need to see this in action before we get it?

In a perfect world, peopled by perfect humans, this would not happen. Folks would offer value for value, would not lie, would not cheat, would not steal. Folks would not seek subsidy (offering lessor value for greator value) except as a last resort, in times of temporary dire circumstance, and would work/struggle/behave in such a fashion to remove themselves from those temporary dire circumstances just as fast as they were able to...as opposed to, in an imperfect world, court those circumstances, embrace those circumstances, parade those circumstances as a Magic Shield/Get Out Of Reality Free Card, be told endlessly as part of a cheap political stunt that those circumstances are all the result of some other 3rd party, far away, and unseen; "Vote for us, we'll get that guy for you," the implicit promise, never paid off. Vote selling on the cheap, to the max, practiced by charlatans.

In a perfect world, this nation would not be teetering on considering the entire Middle Class as candidates for "in times of dire straights requiring welfare/subsidy." In an imperfect world, if they have been actively courted to think of themselves in those terms in order to rule them, it would be.

If it a welfare state was about working together then there would be no need for guns and chains. Are you claiming that this welfare state plan does not require _enforcement_?

Or, is that just wishing that the plan does not require _enforcement_?

Getting the mob together and 'passing a law' does not obviate the need for the guns and chains; it just provides cover to allow the mob to sleep at night, thinking that what it just pulled off was a great and virtuous thing.

As long as your argument is based on appealing to our better angels, then preach away, and in fact, you will have great success, because working together, is as you pointed out part of human nature. As soon as you lurch into a political argument that says, "In my opinion, the nation does not have enough better angels and needs just a little coercion to make this fly," you will find the available pool of 'better angels' shrinks considerably, and that is part of human nature, too. No amount of increasing coercion will ever restore the output of the former, given the conditions of the latter.

Better angels are not better angels when there are guns aimed at their heads.

Any 90% can have all the one man, one vote meetings it wants, but if what it wants is to coerce the 10% against it's will to live of and serve the endless/boundless wants, needs, and desries of the 90%, with the moral justification being "because the 10% can and the 90% can't," then there is nothing Holy, sacred, or moral about the proceedings; it is what has gone on in front of barbarian tribal alters for centuries, because it can.

"Let's implement my pet grad school Soc thesis at the point of the tribe's gun because I'm afraid that not enough folks of ability will implement my worldview for me" is the very definition of compulsion, not working together. "There are not enough better angels in the world; I and a mob of like minded friends who are unable to realize the same results will compel the same results at the point of a gun" is not a moral stance, it is the stance of a moral looter.

Of course we live in a mix of these; freedom/compulsion. That is a given, not by an intelligent design, but simply by the brute fact of numbers, the ultimate Law of the Jungle, the biggest beast (The Mob)can and will ultimately always get its little way...even if it is for the 15 minutes that a surgeon might actually toil away, chained to an operating table, before a] pulling the plug or b]oooops, sorry, I tried, but my best wasn't good enough today.

I, and certainly none of the folks I admire, like F. A. Hayek, are advocates of either anarchy nor a 'safety-net' less nation, but rather, "fettered" government. That is no more "anarchy" than a gov't that exacts income taxes is "totalitarian."

The government is an armed beast. It is the one beast loose in the tribe that demands the strictist fettering, because it is not only defacto 'armed' as the biggest beast in the Jungle, but is in in fact "armed." It can and often will steamroller over anyone or more of us, and is held back by nothing less flimsy then a set of wishes written down on paper coupled with our joint dedication to the very American idea of protecting each of us from the overwhelming and irresistable weight of each other

So, government/statute is a reasonable place to consider maintenance of the much needed state plumbing, such as , fairly painting the double yellow lines down the middle of the road, inhibiting the first use of violence, funding cops, courts, and jails.

But, it is not a reasonable place to launch flights of irrational fancy, especially those based on the flawed modern ideal that reality is actually shaped by desires. "Desire" may be the prologue to focused thought and action, but ultimately, it is focused thought and action that has the ability to shape reality, not mere desire. To an emperor sitting on a throne, backed by an army aiming its spears at a sea of slaves, it might seem like 'desire' shapes reality, but that is the only kind of world where that is possible, and only for the 'desires' of those holding the whip. With or without freedom/the lack of coercion, results are realized by the focused thoughts and actions of actual individuals, living human beings. Only in freedom are whatever results they are able to achieve, jointly or individually, realizable in a moral fashion.

This is true no matter how blinded we are by the 'morality' of what 'their' outcomes directed by the whip in 'our' hands can achieve.

We should take great care when unfettering the biggest beast in the jungle; any scheme based solely on "I have less/have greater need" "You have more/greater ability to fulfill that need" without regards(judgmentalism is the only public sin)to the underlying values which brought about that condition is not a place to tread lightly, no matter how blinded we are by the utopia we imagine beyond.

 

[Art]

You shouldn't be - the political philosophy on which the concept of democracy is based is utterly devoid of the concept, and for good reason. It is only since Marx's failed experiment that people have latched on to the concept - despite the fact that the Marxist utopia proved a failure. Now, that isn't to say that certain aspects of it can be successfully integrated into a modern society, but great care needs to be taken that these aspects don't undermine the very improvements they are attempting to make.

I think you will find the Elizabethen Poor Law of 1601 preceded Marx by a few hundred years so to suggest the concept of the state having a responsibility for the welfare of it's people only arrived with Marx is nonsense. Britain's middleages welfare state worked quite well until it was dismantled by people of your mind in the 19th century who embraced the new laissez-faire ideology where the poor were stigmatized as 'morally flawed' (sound familiar?) With I might add catastrophic consequences for the poor, the old and the sick. In my own country it led directly to the deaths of 20% of the population in just a few years.

Indeed it is ironic. It must be a cultural thing, probably a result of us being on top so long, people have started to expect that entitlement is a right. Certainly it is an easy sell by liberal politicians to a greedy populous.

Unfortunately this epitomises the attitude of those who resent contributing to the weaker members of society. Where others see needy people you see greedy people. More accurately portrayed as 'You can ring the bell Jack, I'm on the bus'

I'd like to see the particulars of those studies. For some things, the association is obvious: ie, unemployment. And one has to be careful trying to draw conclusions from a homogenous sample - you can't see the difference by comparing European countries to each other.

So why don't you research the subject before trying to dismiss well researched studies in favour of your own handwaving arguments?

It is also important to remember that most countries today have hybrid economies. While the welfare state makes unemployment in France high, a total welfare state like the USSR "enjoyed" an unemployment rate of zero. This was, of course, artificial, but the worst effect of the welfare state - mediocrity - comes through crystal clear. That some of the more socialist countries in Europe are able to avoid a culture of mediocrity is a credit to their cultural maturity. That the US is falling into the trap that killed the USSR is an ironic and sad testament to the general immaturity of the American populous.

You are confusing the concept of a welfare state with a command economy. Britain and Ireland both have welfare states. Neither country is Marxist or any other form of communist.

Both are wealthy, both have low unemployment, both have very high levels of productivity (In 2003 Ireland generated over $116,000 in manufacturing value added (MVA)- representing one of the highest labour productivity rates in the world.)

All this despite having free education, free health care, subsidised public transport, maternity allowances, family allowances, state pensions, unemployment benefit and a wealth of other welfare services. Sort of blows away your contention that people would be happy to sit on their butts and do nothing if not starved out to work!

That's a tough one to support, seeing as how the welfare state is relatively new - Feudalism was gone before the welfare state started to grow. But feel fry to try to support it...

As already explained above the concept of the welfare state was around for hundreds of years before William Temple coined the phrase.

Indeed. But that doesn't mean that people's selfish-interest-vision extends beyond their own nose. Few people actually act on the concept of delayed gratification today. Heck, Art, if people really embraced that idea, why would we need Social Security!??!? That we do is clear and obvious evidence that people do not think even in their own long-term selfish-interest.

You have a very low opinion of your fellow members of society. It's quite sad really to go through life jealously guarding what you have because you think your compatriots are trying to steal it from you. I wouldn't imagine it makes for a very enjoyable or fulfilling life. See A Christmas Carol http://www.fidnet.com/~dap1955/dickens/carol.html

 

[X-43D]

'S'ociety is a political/religious scam; the world is nothing but individuals as far as the eye can see, and even in their many plural and varied political subdivisions, their joint efforts, both voluntary and forced, are many and varied and variously motivated.

When belittling the 'sanctity of the individual,' you are belittling mankind, and implying that you, my individual friend, are speaking for some higher entity, above and beyond mere local and individual contingencies.

If all individuals are of equal worth, there is a need for directly democratic organizations to maximize the freedom of every individual, not just of the rich minority.

 

[Astronuc]

May I respectfully request that people please refrain from personalizing the discussion with "you . . ." statements.

As an individual in a community/society - I must respect the individuality of each and everyone, even those with whom I might disagree. I prefer a cooperative society - and in that vein - I am a communitarian.

 

[Astronuc]

Something to add to one's reading list.

I heard an interview today with Derek Bok regarding his perspective on university education. He basically believes that the educational system both pre-college and college/university is failing today's students in the US, and that US students are becoming less competitive in the world!

Anyway his book is:

Our Underachieving Colleges:
A Candid Look at How Much Students Learn and Why They Should Be Learning More

http://www.pupress.princeton.edu/titles/8125.html

Other reviews:

http://www.eddigest.com/html/DBok.html

http://www.dartreview.com/archives/2006/03/03/our_underachieving_colleges.php

http://www.popecenter.org/recommended_reading/article.html?id=1672

 

[SOS2008]

Don't you see the irony in that, SOS? It's the greedy American capitalists who supposedly have the F-the-rest-of-the-world attitude. Yet there it is from you!

Further proof, to me, that liberals are looking at the world upside-down and backwards.

Heck, maybe its the contradictions themselves that are damaging the cultural strength of the US.

I have stated elsewhere my belief in a hybrid system. One in which basic needs are provided at cost. Everything else should be a fair market scenario to maintain the highest quality goods/services at the lowest price. I say "fair market" because if unregulated, the world would be run by one monopoly.

To the specific point, do you undercut your own company for personal profit? If everyone did that, the company would go under. Likewise, do you feel countries should have no borders or laws, and allow people to move freely, for example the current problem with massive numbers of people entering illegally from Mexico? What we need to do is fight for the rights of labor throughout the world, not lower our own standards to meet theirs.

Back to the topic of how poorly future generations will compete, we have a "path of least resistance" culture including enjoying the good life at home with parents later and later in life. The problem is a lot of parents are not involved in the education of their children, but more importantly the "responsibility/expectation bar" goes lower and lower with each generation. Oh the day when kids had chores on the farm. Today's youth mature faster in some ways, such as sex education, but are very immature in all the ways needed to succeed in the work force.

 

[Astronuc]

MARK HERTSGAARD: Denial can get expensive. Just think back to the oil shock of 1973. Despite soaring gas prices, auto executives insisted that American consumers would never drive smaller cars. So, the Japanese got busy and eventually grabbed half of the US market.

Today, it's denial of global warming that's threatening US jobs and profits. Toyota and Honda are far ahead in hybrid car sales. And US firms are losing out in other sectors too. Our solar and wind power manufacturers once led the world. Now, we trail the Germans, Danes and even the Spanish.

In February, the EU, not the US, signed a memorandum of understanding with China that could lead to billions of dollars in trade deals for a new generation of carbon-neutral power plants.

Most American business leaders still don't get what's hit them. But it's not entirely their fault.

For 15 years, Exxon Mobil and other companies spent millions to promote scientific uncertainty about global warming. They did it by funding contrarian scientists, lobbyists and PR outfits. Media outlets like the Wall Street Journal did the rest.

The deniers borrowed their tactics, and even their scientists, from the tobacco industry. In the 1980s former National Academy of Sciences president Frederick Seitz directed a $45 million research program for R.J. Reynolds that deliberately ignored the health effects of smoking. Then in the '90s, Seitz became a leading global warming denier, a stance he says reflected his scientific judgment.

from www.marketplace.org -
http://marketplace.publicradio.org/shows/2006/05/04/PM200605047.html

According to http://www.environmentaldefense.org/article.cfm?contentid=3804&CFID=10852279&CFTOKEN=83103066

Seitz is Chairman Emeritus, The George C. Marshall Institute

The George C. Marshall Institute received $185,000 from ExxonMobil for "Climate Change Public Information and Policy Research" in 2002-2003.

Research Fellow, The Independent Institute

In 2003, the Independent Institute received $10,000 from ExxonMobil Foundation.

Not exactly independent.

 

[franznietzsche]

Back to the topic of how poorly future generations will compete, we have a "path of least resistance" culture including enjoying the good life at home with parents later and later in life.

I believe you are mistaken here. Its my understanding the American families push children out the door faster than most European nations (with 22 being a very late time to still be living with parents in the US as opposed to 25/26 in some European countries). However, I may have been misinformed.