patrick.net

Overwhelming debt is crushing once vibrant economies

Goddamit Ray, there's a correlation there that you're either too stupid to see or intentionally eliding. Ireland was trying to be a tax haven. Both Ireland and Iceland had immense bubble economies driven by bankers gone wild making loans to anyone.

continue to struggle to provide even basic services to people that have been accustomed to government aid and services for generations

And that's the goddamned lie that you continually spout here. Sweden, Norway, and Canada have their fiscal houses in order.

http://www.moneynews.com/StreetTalk/Norway-Investor-Haven-World/2010/11/18/id/377414

Spain and (I think) Portugal had right-wingers in power that allowed a very similar pump & dump in real estate that the Bush team allowed to happen here 2003-2006. Greece, same thing, tax-evasion and borrowing money to pay for social services.

Also, eurozone countries can't print their way out of trouble. Unlike us.

What causes fiscal train wrecks is too little taxation and too little regulation of banking, not too much of either.

The government’s efforts to help stabilize and stimulate the economy has only put us into a deeper debt hole

The hole was dug 5-10 years ago Ray.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CMDEBT

If that $14T continues to go to money heaven, it's going to have to come out of the economy somehow, like maybe $4T of draindown from banking sector, which only has around $600B of market cap right now.

Even bullets won't help you in this scenario. If we go the Austerian way, better learn a self-defense regimen that doesn't have so many consumables, like aikido or wing chun, or hire somebody who does.

Troy says

The hole was dug 5-10 years ago Ray.

One huge problem I have with people like you (amongst others of course) is that you continue to blame Bush and the GOP for the very same thing that Obama and the Dems have exacerbated. Bush and the GOP did enormous damage by spending excessively through the six years they held the House, Senate & White House. To illustrate to you how different I am than you, amongst the dinner guests on Thanksgiving was the son of the former party GOP chairman for a very large metropolitan county. His father personally knew and worked with all the GOP big wigs (including Pres. Reagan & Bush 41) up from 1970 until his death in 1990. To say his son is a dyed in the wool GOPer is putting it mildly. After dinner, the two of us engaged in a “state of the country” discussion, in which I put a lot of the blame for the mess we're in on Bush 43 and the GOP. Needless to say, he wasn’t very happy about my views. If looks could kill, I'd be a dead man. The point is, you and your ilk (and other partisan political types) are water carriers for everything concerning your particular POLITICAL party, along with its leader. You consistently point to the past while failing to see the damage that is being done in the present. Just continue to argue for your side, Troy. In the mean time, the country continues to self destruct because people like you fail to see the damage BOTH parties have done and CONTINUE to do.

Ray sees no difference between irresponsible deficit spending and tax gifts to the rich (against the future of the middle class) during relatively boom times versus Keynesian spending to prevent the mother of all economic collapses.

If we could have had the recession we needed to have back in 2002 - 2003, we would have avoided so much of this. But then Bush might not have been reelected in '04 to continue taking care of "his base."

If it ever does happen though, thank goodness for our debit and credit cards. We definitely won't be doing the wheelbarrow thing. The waste and labor and inefficiency in involved in that was rather amazing if you think about it.

RayAmerica says

He has also stated that Hitler’s enormous deficit spending programs (in building his war machine and huge public works projects like the Autobahn) was “the envy of Europe” and brought great prosperity to the German people

You should read the link he shared. A quote:

“The Nazis came to power in Germany in 1933, at a time when its economy was in total collapse, with ruinous war-reparation obligations and zero prospects for foreign investment or credit. Yet through an independent monetary policy of sovereign credit and a full-employment public-works program, the Third Reich was able to turn a bankrupt Germany, stripped of overseas colonies it could exploit, into the strongest economy in Europe within four years, even before armament spending began.”5

Actually, I guess the quote was from Economist Henry C. K. Liu.

The author goes on -

"While Hitler clearly deserves the opprobrium heaped on him for his later atrocities, he was enormously popular with his own people, at least for a time. This was evidently because he rescued Germany from the throes of a worldwide depression – and he did it through a plan of public works paid for with currency generated by the government itself. "

In case you don't get it, this was the new currency they printed after the hyperinflationary period. Read the rest. It's interesting. Not sure whether it might be oversimplified.

It is an interesting question. What if we spent trillions of printed money on public works projects instead of spending it in on a round about way paying off gambling debts of people who were trying to make an easy fast buck ?

I agree that Americans are generally clueless, and have voted to fuck themselves over.

RayAmerica says

in which I put a lot of the blame for the mess we’re in on Bush 43 and the GOP. Needless to say, he wasn’t very happy about my views. If looks could kill, I’d be a dead man. The point is, you and your ilk (and other partisan political types) are water carriers for everything concerning your particular POLITICAL party,

Obama has run a very neutral -- conservative -- course. The health care reforms were straight out of Bob Dole's playbook of 1993 -- the Lincoln Chafee proposal that was co-sponsored by conservative Senators like Orrin Hatch and Ted Stevens. Marxism it wasn't and for righties like Ray to charge that "ObamaCare" is the nose of Socialism just reveals how utterly full of shit they really are.

Obama kept Bush's financial team and military management team in place. This was not really a mistake since the great damage in both these areas had already been done by the people they -- eg. Geithner and Gates -- had already replaced.

So, like Clinton, Obama is being a center center President. Looking for liberal changes where possible, but willing to trim to the right where it either makes sense or marginalizes the radical right more.

I'm only a Democratic supporter to keep the nutball conservative right -- what used to be the Bircher wing -- out of power. I'm one of the 10% of the country who thinks Obama isn't left enough!

Troy. In the mean time, the country continues to self destruct because people like you fail to see the damage BOTH parties have done and CONTINUE to do.

This is entirely BS. The Democrats didn't damage the economy -- contrary to Republican predictions -- by raising taxes in 1991 and 1993. That actually put the country on a much more solid economic footing.

The Democrats didn't damage the country voting against the Iraq war in the House. They did damage the country failing to try to filibuster the AUMF in 2002, but thanks to DINOs like Lieberman and Zell Miller they didn't have the votes to block cloture so that would have been a symbolic stand without the possibility of actually stopping Bush. There were SIX Republican no votes on AUMF in 2002 in the House and ONE in the Senate.

The Democrats weren't in charge of the Executive or Congress when the big deregulations happened 2001-2003 and the housing bubble blew from marginal to the $10T peak:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/HHMSDODNS

that is about $3T more than is supportable.

Now, if you want to argue that the Dems are damaging the country by being insufficiently pro-Evangelical Christian, or insufficiently anti-Abortion, anti-Gay, pro-Israel, etc. have at it but economically and militarily the Democrats have very solid records, at least compared to the entirely reckless neocon adventurism and disaster capitalism that the most recent batch of Republicans -- 1995 through 2006 -- are responsible for.

marcus says

this was the new currency they printed after the hyperinflationary period

The German hyperinflationary period was a BRIEF event that largely happened in 1923 (though was building up in 1922).

The crisis point was reached when Germany started printing papiermarks to pay the workers who were striking in the Ruhr, which had been seized by France for non-payment of war reparations.

After that, the conservative Centre coalition governments of 1924-1930 did a good job of managing the economy (what was happening behind the scenes was the Americans loaning money to cover the German non-payment of debts or something like that -- I can't really keep this complicated history in my head all that well).

But the global dislocation of 1930-31 really screwed everyone, as exporters started competing with each other to lock out their import market and go for neomercantilism. Everything went to crap and this set the stage for the resurgence of Hitler -- who was a man with a plan in 1932-33.

Troy says

I’m one of the 10% of the country who thinks Obama isn’t left enough!

I'd put it closer to 30 to 35%.

Everyone acknowledges we have a "center right" government now. Obama is a radical leftie, all the way practically to what used to be the center.

RayAmerica says

Virtually everyone that has investments that are denominated in the U.S. dollar will be wiped out.

This didn't happen in the 1970s, when the dollar fell to 40c between 1971 and 1983. That's all the inflation we need now -- over this decade -- to save the current system.

The alternative is some serious shit coming down.

marcus says

If we could have had the recession we needed to have back in 2002 - 2003, we would have avoided so much of this. But then Bush might not have been reelected in ‘04 to continue taking care of “his base.”

This is entirely correct.

The orange line i added to the above is what SHOULD have happened 2001-2008, if the slowdown medicine of the early 90s had been repeated.

But what's $4T of bubblemoney among friends?

marcus says

It is an interesting question. What if we spent trillions of printed money on public works projects instead of spending it in on a round about way paying off gambling debts of people who were trying to make an easy fast buck ?

I really doubt there's that much good public works. Well, if I were King instead of paying two years unemployment to these people:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/USCONS?cid=11

I'd put them to work making reasonably quality "garden apartment"-style (for lack of a better word) "projects".

This is something similar to what Japan is doing with their "Urban Renaissance" housing agency. But there's so many mistakes of the past dogging gov't housing that this would be a very risky endeavor.

I'd move every bus in the nation to natural gas/hydrogen and institute the new infrastructure to supply this fleet. I'd also double or triple service to make buses in the top 300 cities entirely superior to cars for most people -- ie service every 10 minutes instead of 30+ that it is now. 30 minute service intervals is just bullshit. That's an hour or two of personal time that busriders are losing.

After that, dunno tho.

marcus says

I’d put it closer to 30 to 35%.

Approve: 48%
Disapprove, too liberal: 38%
Disapprove, not liberal enough: 9%
Disapprove, unsure: 3%

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/11/15/rel16a.pdf

larrypatrickmaloney says

Finally, the American debt is about $14 Trillion now, not $12 Trillion. We are essentially at 95% debt to GDP.

The debt was deflated down quite handily in the 1970s with no serious harm. Carter left with less debt than he entered, in real terms.

We think of it as a time of unemployment, but the participation rate skyrocketed in the 70s:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CIVPART

as the front half of the baby boom was aged 22 through 31 in 1977.

Troy says

Approve: 48%
Disapprove, too liberal: 38%
Disapprove, not liberal enough: 9%
Disapprove, unsure: 3%

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/11/15/rel16a.pdf

Okay, but we all know the connotation that word (liberal) has. But okay. Hard to believe.

Maybe it's because of his legislative focus, the first couple of years.

Troy says

3) an educational sector that is turning out shitty product and also Costs Too Much for what we’re getting.

I'm a teacher, with a bias, but I disagree with this one. There is a big propaganda movement right now toward privatization and toward destroying teachers unions. Not surprised that even you are buying it.

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2010/09/27/100927taco_talk_lemann

Also, to learn more, read what Dianne Ravitch says. She has been on both sides of recent reform issues. She speaks the truth.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/nov/11/myth-charter-schools/

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/03/education/03ravitch.html

http://www.examiner.com/education-reform-in-houston/in-houston-diane-ravitch-challenges-school-reformers-face-to-face

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704869304575109443305343962.html

marcus says

Not surprised that even you are buying it.

I forget which Nordic country I read this, but there's one relatively socialist country that does vouchers for schools. When I was reading this, my first reaction was 'OMG, they're going to destroy what they've got!' But then I continued reading and saw that if a school takes vouchers THAT'S ALL they can charge the student.

I think I like that model, I was lucky to grow up in pre-Prop 13 schools but was largely bored to tears by it, even on the MGM/GATE track. If I had kids I'd want to home school them to avoid the colossal waste of time that is public education.

But we're spending $9000+ per pupil. For a class size of 20, that's $180,000 per classroom. For 30, that's $270,000 per classroom.

My elementary schools in the 70s had 12 classes going, ~300 kids for a $2.7M annual budget. $2.7M by 20 programs (12 classrooms + 8 extracurricular) is $135,000 per program.

Granted, California now has 6.3 million kids, half of them hispanic and also half under the poverty line. But I think the private sector could do some good stuff with this level of funding.

Not that I think the free market would necessarily do a good thing, and I do respect the "mixing" nature of the current catchment educational system, but if the goal is to develop minds to the best we can I think things really need to change.

Read.

You sound like Bush. Shooting from your hip. "I have a gut feeling."

Just learn a little, then form your opinion, or are you like all the other dumbass Americans you always talk about. I gave you some good links.

If you can only read one, read this one.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/nov/11/myth-charter-schools/

Yes, I know, of course I'm biased. Can't help it, I'm on the front lines.

But they aren't spending enough now. You know California's situation. My average class size is about 40 now, because of cuts.

Introducing the profit motive is not the key. Vouchers, charters, breaking everything apart is not the answer. It would introduce corruption. Who get's the best the kids ? Who get's stuck with all of the disabled, the English learners and the extremely poor. Hey, maybe we should just send all of those last three categories off to concentration camps.

Which of these different types of schools, some for the brightest, some for disabled, poor, or immigrant, needs the most talented teachers ? Which gets the most talented teachers ? Which pays the teachers the best ?

This movement is ultimately from the crowd who sends their kids to private schools and doesn't think the government should be paying for education of all the other kids (oh but they want to outlaw abortion too). So let's see, you have to have the kid, but if you can't afford to educate him or her you are just out of luck.

At least as it is now, a savvy poor single mom hopefully can rent an apartment in the neighborhood of a good public school.

I disagree about vouchers, but it would probably be preferable to what is coming.

marcus says

At least as it is now, a savvy poor single mom hopefully can rent an apartment in the neighborhood of a good public school.

That's what my parents did, when they were transferred to Salinas they found a rental house in the best school district. Not a single Mexican-Ameican in that school then, oddly enough, that school district had a very small catchment. Now it's a bit bigger apparently as their rating has fallen to 3 according to Great Schools.

http://www.redfin.com/school/24653/CA/Salinas/Monterey-Park-Elementary-School

Privatizing elementary education is a bit pointless I guess. K-5 should take students as they are in the neighborhood catchment. 6-7 should be preparatory for 8-10 which should be preparatory for 11-12 (which should be 25-75% community-college quality, depending on the track). That's my 10 minute rearchitecting of the system at least.

I did read your links and agree that for-profit corps moving in will just silo-ize and dumb-down things.

What we need is some sort of non-profit coordination. I guess that's what the gummint is, LOL.

Some of the current pressure for reform is good, and most schools are constantly trying different models to improve, such as the whole small learning community concept (sort of schools within a school). A lot of intervention is done for students that are behind, and there really are great opportunities for students who are driven to succeed.

Smaller class sizes and more resources are what would make the biggest difference. But of course good hiring, and the ability to fire bad teachers would help, but it's not the issue that some make it out to be. At least not at good schools such as the one I'm at.

I teach both types of classes. That is some to advanced students, and some at the other extreme, that is semi-remedial classes for students who have failed Math classes in the past. Not teaching any in between classes this year, well one actually. You can probably guess which types of classes are the most challenging to teach.

There aren't any simple solutions, and the truth is that we do better than the generalizations in the media suggest.

By the way, the Mexican-American factor is not a negative in the way that you imply. There are middle class neighborhoods that are majority Mexican American second gen and later, where the culture is pretty much up to speed on the importance of education. Maybe not enough, but as much as a similar economic level white neighborhood.

That is the correlation of worse schools is to poverty not ethnicity per se.

Troy says

Our main economic problems are 1) The Rent’s Too Damn High

Anonymity has taken a hike. Troy’s real identity is hereby revealed, he is none other than the former candidate for New York Governor Jimmy McMillan. A formal welcome to this overtly ostentatious forum is hereby extended to the Hon. Jimmy McMillan. Welcome sir.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4o-TeMHys0

One final thought about education reform. The biggest place for improvement is in inner city schools with populations of poor kids. The public schools in these areas already get more resources but this should be even more so. Dealing with this population is really difficult. Many of these kids are in gangs or are from severely dysfunctional families and many are undernourished in multiple ways.

I would say spend even more in these schools (it would be way cheaper than prison - don't forget someone in prison costs more than what you think, because they aren't paying taxes).

So spend more, especially on teachers at these schools.

marcus says

Which of these different types of schools, some for the brightest, some for disabled, poor, or immigrant, needs the most talented teachers ? Which gets the most talented teachers ? Which pays the teachers the best ?

I suggested this is a problem if things are privatized, but it is somewhat of a problem now. Teaching at the toughest schools is so difficult and stressful, that many of the best teachers just can't handle it. They would rather teach at schools where much more learning is going on. (see chicken and egg). Pay at these tough schools should be significantly higher, but also with good administrative support and effective performance evaluations. It would be tricky to staff, that is to find teachers that don't just want the higher pay at these schools, but who can also be effective.

But targeting these schools, with a rigorous application and hiring process, and teacher pay that is say 20 to 40% higher, depending on subject and grade level, would go a long way toward solving the biggest education problems, although it would put a dent in the prison business, which is increasingly privatized.

This should be done without huge administrative overhead, and keeping it in the public schools. If it has to be done with private contracts and charters, then it should be limited to these toughest areas, not as an overhaul of all public schools. But the problem there is that many private charters cheat. They kick their worst students out at test time, and play countless other games to make it appear they are more successful than they are.

marcus says

Ray sees no difference between irresponsible deficit spending and tax gifts to the rich

I'm one of the few in here that consistently criticizes BOTH parties for their deficit spending. By the way, please define what exactly you mean by "the rich." Your statement is rather vague, at best. Be specific, how do you define "rich."

In my original above I was thinking of the K-16 system, not just public education.

I think we need to focus more on thinking skills and less on "science & math".

Almost nobody needs to know what the pythagorean theorem is.

People need to know the decimal system and how to add & subtract, and basic numeracy instincts to be able to ballpark calculations w/o a calculator.

The problem with schools is that we have a conveyor belt to nowhere. I think we need to plug in the output into careers and then articulate the feeders all the way back to the latter part of elementary school.

Parents would check the boxes of careers they wanted to have open for their kids, kids would be counseled by advisors at school to ensure those with promise weren't abandoned by shitty parents, and commitments would be made and instructional tracks would be established.

It'd be cool if a 12 yo kid could be designated a "future hire" by Microsoft or GM or at least know what career path he was on when he emerged from the system at age 22.

So much of school is just apparent make-work, kinda Cargo Cult thinking that if we do X and Y we'll get rocket scientists.

As you say, the actual problems of this society go deeper than schools.

5000 yuan a month is a very generous -- upper middle class -- Chinese salary. That's $750/mo, what 20hrs a week at WalMart pays. Perhaps we should just outsource wealth-creation and shoot for a welfare society with free xboxes and food. I'm not sure this is inferior to the future of usd-yuan parity, where the 300 million non-peon Chinese slaughter us economically.

There are 6 million kids in California schools. That's bigger than the population of any Nordic country save Sweden.

Troy says

Almost nobody needs to know what the pythagorean theorem is.

You must be kidding. Of course they don't. But it's illogical to assume that before someone has enriched themselves, with a wide variety of knowledge, and yes practice in a variety of different types of thinking, that they would be able to choose their path, and choose too early all of the things that they will not learn.

You want to throw away the enrichment part of education ?

I personally am somewhat visually oriented, as I know you are as well. Geometry was when I really got turned on to Math, much more than I previously was in Algebra. Since ancient Greece, Geometry has been a part of a classical education, because of the practice one gets in logic and in thinking, not because very many people are actually going to need the Pythagorean Theorem. Supposedly, being in Plato's little philosophy group, had as a minimal required facility with Geometry. They say the inscription above Plato's academy said, "Let no one ignorant of geometry enter here."

I believe the problem is one of having a culture that doesn't trust in the value of education. Even a very intelligent guy such as yourself doesn't buy it.

Troy says

The problem with schools is that we have a conveyor belt to nowhere

This is exactly what many of the poor, with uneducated parents think. They dont trust that the hard work, discipline and persistence required to be academically successful will pay off. And if they didn't achieve much academically themselves, they might be insecure about whether their kids can succeed in school. (they sometimes wish to protect their kids from risk of failure).

This lack of trust in education for education sake is implied in what you say as well.

If we had a culture that believed universally in the value of education, and who insisted on it for their kids, and even who based mating decisions on how well educated their future spouse is (that's right I'm even bringing sex in to it - what you don't think smart could be sexy ?). This is a deep belief that does not exist in our culture.

In bad neighborhoods it's the ultimate in being uncool and unattractive to be a "school boy" or "school girl." Even having a back pack or carrying books at some schools might get a guy beaten up. How fucked up is that? I don't know the answer. Turning those beliefs around can't happen immediately, and I think the corporate powers that be are probably conflicted about it.

Cheap labor ? Uninformed easy to manipulate (dumbass) electorate ? Is the right wing really interested in changing that ?

marcus says

In bad neighborhoods it’s the ultimate in being uncool and unattractive to be a “school boy” or “school girl.” Even having a back pack or carrying books at some schools might get a guy beaten up.

I think urban people can point to more examples of community success in pro sports than technology or otherwise productive enterprise.

I believe in education for education's sake but that's not going to pay the rent.

Geometry was useful as brain exercises, in being able to follow and construct proofs from axioms. But as an activity it's not far removed from sudoku in terms of imparting useful knowledge.

A year of probability and statistics would have been much more useful. That was one of my favorite classes in college, but it had to wait until my senior year(s).

Math is great if you want to teach math or have one of the few jobs that requires rigorous mathematical backing. Otherwise the waste of classroom hours is rather significant I think.

Perhaps the end of the escalator should be a two-year Army stint like it was in the 50s. That's one way to get the right wing behind investing in our human capital.

Troy says

Math is great if you want to teach math or have one of the few jobs that requires rigorous mathematical backing. Otherwise the waste of classroom hours is rather significant I think.

Well, I'm not going to argue with you much on this, but I strongly disagree. It shows your bias. My guess is you were much more successful in school in history than you were in Math. I was the opposite.

I'll just add this as food for thought, one of the things I try to explain to kids who question, "what is this good for?" Math is like a language, without being fluent in it, you can't fully appreciate it's value. Where kids are with Math in high school is analogous to where they were in reading, in about 3rd grade. Then they were almost ready to put their reading skills to use, reading literature, history or whatever. In Math you don't get to where you can really put Math to use (I'm not talking elementary arithmetic here or balancing your checkbook), until after high school Math.

TO quit Math before finishing high school Math would be sort of like quiting reading at age six.

That's partly what is hard about Math. One is old enough (and with some support from some uneducated adults) to question the value of higher level Math, before comprehending what it is. Besides, Math is essential to so many fields, why limit oneself ? But that bring us back to the question of do you decide at twelve what you will do with your life, or do you educate yourself first, before deciding ? To me, here in 2010, the answer to that should be obvious.

Troy says

I believe in education for education’s sake but that’s not going to pay the rent.

Are you sure ?

If a student feels passionately the same way, about the value of education for education sake, are you sure that in the long run it won't pay the rent ? Once one is well on their way with their education, how hard is it, at grad school time or earlier to direct or redirect their educational focus towards how they will make a living ?

Back to the thread: the link to Sheila Bair's Washington Post Op-Ed piece. When you read this, compare what the head of the FDIC has to say with some of the comments in here (Hi Ducky).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/25/AR2010112502215.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

marcus says

Ray’s point is weak though, because you can’t compare our role in the world now to Germany’s between WWI and WWII. For example, the Deutsch Mark was the not the world reserve currency.

It's not as weak as you might think. Weimar and the American government have a lot in common. The fact that we have the world's reserve currency isn't the issue. What is the issue is that we are spending at a rate that cannot be sustained. "Quantitative Easing" is nothing other than printing money, which debases the currency in circulation. It also, has a direct effect on other nations' desire to continue to loan us money in which to operate. Currently, $2.5 billion PER DAY must be borrowed (via T-bonds) from foreign sources such as China, Japan, etc. This cannot continue, precisely what the FDIC chair is attempting to say.

Furthermore, the reserve currency status is on shaky ground. Recently, China & Russia made an historical agreement to forego using the U. S. dollar in their trade deals. They are now trading with their own currencies because they are losing trust in the dollar due to QE1 & QE2. Monetizing the debt is the last phase by desperate nations that have run out of options. It's the same as if you were bartering with someone using expensive wine for exchange and the other side began to add water. Would you be satisfied with that?

RayAmerica says

Back to the thread

From Ray's link

Fixing these problems will require a bipartisan national commitment to a comprehensive package of spending cuts and tax increases over many years. Most of the needed changes will be unpopular, and they are likely to affect every interest group in some way.

Based on what I see in our political environment, politicians will insist we go through terrible unimaginable pain, or maybe world war, before such bipartisan problem solving can occur. It is sad. The only solution would be to take the big money out of politics and to act like grown ups.

Both parties have proven that they are reckless spenders. In Washington a "cut" in spending is a decrease in the amount of the INCREASE in spending. Only in government can this type of fraud go on without any serious repercussions. For the most part, politicians have always been a dishonest lot, and the bunch we've had for the last 35 years has been the worst of the worst, IMO.

marcus says

My guess is you were much more successful in school in history than you were in Math

No, I was taking calculus in night classes at CC my senior year since my school didn't have AP Calculus (and taking actual college classes makes much more sense than this AP nonsense anyway). I continued this with the full series of engineering Math classes required for my major, and saw much beauty and structure -- and utiiity -- in the higher calculus classes. They were hard, but what I got from them was fair.

But that was 20+ years ago now and I've forgotten all that now and all the pages of trigonometric substitutions to do integrations etc. etc. is all gone.

One thing I noticed at the time is that math really didn't get interesting until it was solving stuff other than toy problems. And to do that you need to have physical units and some degree of dimensional analysis (if nothing else to check your work). It was when my freshman college physics class covered how to do math "for real" that math began to have any applicability to my day-to-day life.

I'm looking over the Algebra II sample set and seeing nothing that is changing my mind here, LOL

I think we need "Math Appreciation" courses along with parallel courses dealing with Chemistry and other sciences. Focus the rest of the time on actual intellectual development, like what they do in the elite private schools. Focus on keeping math useful.

RayAmerica says

For the most part, politicians have always been a dishonest lot, and the bunch we’ve had for the last 35 years has been the worst of the worst, IMO.

and yet ...

In the late 90s the Democratic tax rises of 1991-1993 and general budget discipline adhered to by the split government (after the electorate threw out the Democrats for raising their taxes in 1994) actually resulted in government spending moving towards sustainability.

It is not the politicians who are defective, it is us. Well, you, really.

what percentage of the newly created liquid of the past 10 years has left America and landed in non-American hands, in non-American lands? I ask this because I suspect that is why inflation is really being looked at twice, vs auto-inflation like normal. All those non-Americans will just move their holding into and out of their land's correct currency, maintaning their wealth vs state side Americans, while inflation kills their wealth.

just a guess.

marcus says

The only solution would be to take the big money out of politics and to act like grown ups.

Just curious... does your definition of "big money" include the big money from the teachers' unions and other public employee unions?

Sure, if the cost of running were brought down to earth. I'm not saying no lobbying. But when politicians have to spend half their time raising money, something is wrong.

they don't have to, they choose to.