Redstate

...if you don't want to make an honest living, that is.

They get to sell this swill to our fellow Americans while they get to imbibe from the good stuff that isn't available to us peons. Case in point: Countrywide Home Loans special deals for Senators...

And Rightly So!

Unfortunately, MOST schools do not teach econ.

Those that do, it is an alternative course.... which means that only those who LIKE such things would take it.

Two courses I think ought to be mandatory are personal finances (and not just the 2 week "pretend you have a checkbook" program that schools do, but an entire course dedicated to teaching budgeting, personal finance, and trying to teach discipline to keep these kids out of debt.) and Econ.

Of course, if kids graduated with self-discipline with regards to debt and an understanding of Economics in a way that would dispell the stupidity that we get from the left on economic matters ("no no! If we RAISE taxes on businesses, that'll let them expand!") they'd have less liberals voting for them.

Not suprising, then, that those classes are not required, despite the OBVIOUS incredible need.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

I think this could be a winner for conservatives.

The same study shows overwhelming support for economics education:

More than nine in ten adults and students believe that it is important for the people of the United States to have a good understanding of economics. Virtually all adults believe that economics should be included in high school education. However, only half of high school students say they have ever been taught economics in school. Much of this instruction, when it does occur, appears to happen in 12th grade.

If I were running for local office, I might be stressing this as a platform element.

"Vote for me, and I'll make sure that the local high school teaches basic economics and personal finance starting in the 10th grade."

Most Americans would support such a thing. Even Democrats. Even socialists... at least the ones who aren't fully indoctrinated to Government Provides All theology.

-TS

"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same." - Ronald Reagan

I agree.

Unfortunately I do not have the funds to mount a campaign, even for dog catcher.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

I intend to make a shot of it in 2010...

"Always be honest with yourself. Even if you are honest with no one else."
--me

I'd like to, once my college loans are paid and I'm not paying out of pocket for school, I'll be able to donate to more than just the NRA (for my yearly membership)

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

If you are, for what office and where do you live?

Per a few thousand posts and blogs on here, the way to take the party back is through grass-roots involvement to develop a farm team. As an admirer of your posts and thoughtful conservatism, I'd love to help out wherever and however I can if/when the time comes.

"All that need be done for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

PA-79, state Congress. I found out earlier this year, but too late to run, that my rep, despite having no friends among the voters, never has an opponent, either from within the party or without.

I figured long ago that if I ever wanted to be any more than a whiner, I had to DO something and this is exactly the kind of opportunity I like to capitalize on.
So, 2 years from now, I am going to make a go of it.

Unfortunately, I'm really not certain what I need to do between now and getting the petition signed by enough people...

(a part of fixing that is that I am applying for a job with another, better performing, local rep. Hope I get it)

"Always be honest with yourself. Even if you are honest with no one else."
--me

Is Richard A. Geist the guy you plan to run against?

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/home/member_information/house_...

Please sign Newt's Drilling Petition. I have included a link to it in the below. Thank you.

http://www.americansolutions.com/

"Always be honest with yourself. Even if you are honest with no one else."
--me

Or even a bad politician, as far as they go. He's just vulnerable and I'm in his district.

Well, and I think I can do better. But if not, he can have it back in 2012.

"Always be honest with yourself. Even if you are honest with no one else."
--me

As we approach the limit of the resource in question, whatever it may be, the price will begin to climb and continue to do so until demand falls.
Usually demand will fall because an alternative that is not scarce has become available or was available and is now comparable in price.

The point I am trying to make is that, regardless of how limited resources may be, it's best to let the market decide when to restrict use of those resources.
Artificial scarcity (such as with Oil, the XBOX 360, the PS3, Tickle Me Elmo dolls...) is always a bad thing.

"Always be honest with yourself. Even if you are honest with no one else."
--me

It would do you well to gain a basic understanding of economics.

There is no reason to panic at all about the future even though the artificial actions of governments have caused a temporary lag in supply.

All things have substitutes. Take petroleum for instance (which we are not even remotely running out of). At current prices you can create all petroleum products from abundant coal.

Government however has made it hard to invest in coal gassification and there is the element of uncertainty. Business are uncertain that if they spend the money to build such a plant that the enviro-mentals will make it impossible to run the plant.

I suggest one book, "Basic Economics" (and it's sequal advanced economics) By Dr. Thomas Sowell. It will give you the basic knowledge to dodge all the Bullchips coming from politicians.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

Thanks for the recommendation. I will look for this book.

It's very strange that in all my years of schooling, I was never required to have an economics course. And I didn't take it as an option since I thought it was boring. More fool me.

might help you here.

This was a multiple choice quiz. The question is:

Since the resources used in the production of goods and services are limited, society must:

A. Reduce their use of resources

B. Try to obtain additional resources

C. Make choices about how to use resources

D. I don't know.

14% of adults answered "reduce use of resources".

The right answer is "C" -- make choices about how to use resources. The automatic, kneejerk response that since resources are limited, we must reduce use is what leads to ridiculous schemes by envirocrats, hair-shirt Gaianiacs, and others that hurt the economy.

-TS

"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same." - Ronald Reagan

'C' effectively includes options A and B, depending on the situation. Reducing use of resources is not always appropriate or necessary. Sometimes I think it *is* necessary (or at least a very good idea) and this was my objection to the original comment in the post.

and economics, at its base, is a study of how human beings make decisions on use of scarce resources. Sometimes, it is necessary to reduce usage; other times, it's necessary to go in a different direction.

To respond with "reduce" signifies a deep lack of understanding that comes from repeated exposure to messages in our media and elsewhere to Reduce, Reduce, Reduce.

-TS

"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same." - Ronald Reagan

At my high school, such a thing was a part of an AP History course I took.

The school didn't have an econ class or finance type class. I think they tried one once, but they couldn't get enough students to take it.

If the point of schools is to educate and prepare the student, I find it shameful that schools so woefully undereducate and underprepare.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

"Land of the Free and Home of da Whopper" Peter Griffin...Family Guy

conform and celebrate diversity....or else!!!

Steel-Belted Radial Right Winger

I wondered that myself.

Now, I was required to take 2 semisters of foreign language (for a while they only offered Spanish), 2 art classes and at least 1 music class.

Now, while I value art and music and foreign language education in schools, it ought to be secondary to things like math, reading and personal finance/econ.

while I MIGHT need to make use of a foreign language at some point in my life, I KNOW I will need to use personal finance and economics related material every day.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

IIRC, we were required (in high shool) to take two years of a foreign language (Spanish, French, Latin, or Russian were the choices), one business course (I guess Basic Econ was a choice--I picked Typing because it seemed more practical), two credits of Music or Art, English Comp or Lit as a senior, plus the standard required courses and enough extra time to take more of the electives.

I never thought of it before, but it seems to me that high school courses should do one of two things--They should either teach something that will help with adult living (including college prep), or they should expose a student to something they might learn to like if given the chance. Basic Econ seems to go into the first category, but it seems like the right course should be a requirement. That foreign language requirement seems like the second category, and it could be cut back to one year.

Even in college, the requirement for a BS candidate was two semesters of foreign language, two semesters of "social science," one semester of Music or Art, and various electives outside the core science curriculum. A required Econ course would be an improvement over the second semester of foreign language. I entered my MBA program having never taken a business course other than Statistics and Probabilities (one of my math electives as an undergrad).

I have theories about about why colleges require foreign language training, but they can wait.

Pluto, the Ninth Planet - Forever!

I had three years of french never managed anything resembling proficiency. The whole thing was a waste for me. Typing however I took because the teacher was the prettiest woman in the school and I learned it and learned it well. If you are going to teach something students something it should be to the point that it is useful for them or not at all. If it looks like students won't make it in a course let them get out quickly.

I'm not sure why you say we disagree.

Strangely enough, our HS French teacher was also a babe--Beverly Goodbrake was her name, and I hope she sees this. However, I took Spanish from a much less attractive older woman who was married to a funeral home director. I thought French would be too hard, and mostly useless.

Pluto, the Ninth Planet - Forever!

And everyone else who had a babe of a teacher.
I missed out on that piece of my education.

...But I did have a teacher who was heavily involved with the SCA and brought his armour to class regularly. Wore the whole suit a couple times, even. Would have been better were it European History, but it was English Lit.

"Always be honest with yourself. Even if you are honest with no one else."
--me

Did he wear it while you were reading Beowulf?

Pluto, the Ninth Planet - Forever!

Specifically, The Knight's Tale.
You know, from the Canterbury Tales.

"Always be honest with yourself. Even if you are honest with no one else."
--me

Here's a case for continuing education:

lesterblog.blogspot.com

That "Intelligence is Sexy" opening got me thinking of my wife. Who I get to see tomorrow! Yay!

"Always be honest with yourself. Even if you are honest with no one else."
--me

And I remember fighting with the teacher who maintined that folks would stop driving after gas hit $1.00 a gallon(class was 1978)I live in AZ and belive folks in the west will not give up their cars any faster than their guns. We also did the stock thing.

I took part in it as an outside volunteer to help the teacher while I served as a recruiter (yes, I had ulterior motives).
The great weakness of this program is that it does not require the teacher to use the provided books.
The class I worked with was using a book with several errors and a couple of outright falsehoods in it. No, I don't remember which book it was, the teacher got rid of the book for our second year of the program but still refuses to use those provided by JA.

"Always be honest with yourself. Even if you are honest with no one else."
--me

Well, I'm not going to comment on any silent majority, though I have hope they are there and ready to move the country to the right.

I will say this though:

The Founding Fathers gave us the 2nd Amendment to protect ourselves and the Constitution from harm.

We just need to remind the government of that, and hope we never have to make good on the promise.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

requires an educated electorate. Any number of "people's republics" around the world have failed, especially in third world countries, because the people were too uneducated to form intelligent decisions.

The US has apparently determined to follow the lead of third world dictators by dumbing down our electorate through public education.

The Minority Report

I remember Thomas Sowell started this year by making a point in an article that since Dick Armey and Phil Gramm left Congress it has become an economist-free zone. The way CongressCritters™ discuss high prices at the pump proves his point.


Extreme taxation, excessive controls, oppressive government competition with business … frustrated minorities and forgotten Americans are not the products of free enterprise.Ronald Reagan

officials show must embarrass their former teachers. I know I am embarrassed by them.

Freedom of Religion NOT Freedom from Religion

the idiots in Congress are a result of the voters. To get better reps, we need better citizens.

___________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

"Over time" Americans will choose the right course.
We may decide, as a nation, to take the wrong course for awhile, but when we all get spanked for it (see: Carter), we wise up and fly right.
Short term, we will make many errors and will experience an unwelcome amount of pain.
Long term, we will only get better.

"Always be honest with yourself. Even if you are honest with no one else."
--me

... unless you expect democracy to immunize us from the flaws of human beings.

I agree completely about the bad consequences of such appalling economic ignorance among the electorate. However I think you set too high a bar for democracy when you say:

Our entire form of government is based on the idea that "the people" will make good decisions.

We have to accept that "the people" will often make some really dumb and costly mistakes. I don't think our ancestors consistently made good decisions on election day.

I like Churchill's characterization of democracy as the worst possible form of government except for all the others that have been tried.

The widespread economic illiteracy of our citizenry results in more fools and charlatans being elected to positions of power, but we still get better government than we would have with philosopher kings (like some Supreme Court justices are trying to be) or the learned faculty of Harvard U. running the show.

Were the "people" in the times of the Founders really that much more economically literate than the people are today? Perhaps the politicians were, but were the people really more knowledgeable? Or is it just that the politicians knew their limitations as a governing body, but todays pols do not. As a result, our government is so broad and vast now that the errors of the planned economy are amplified so much more?

I don't know... just thinking out loud. Either way, it makes personal finance and economic education that much more important.

Support libertarian Republicans here and here.
www.rlc.org
www.fairtax.org

they set it up so that only land owning males over 21 could vote. SO I don't think they trusted "the people" as much as some people think they did.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

That is not true (even though left likes to beat that drum a lot). Each state had its own unique requirements for voters. For example both PA and GA had universal adult male suffrage. Moreover NJ had female suffrage during the early republic.

Please sign Newt's Drilling Petition. I have included a link to it in the below. Thank you.

http://www.americansolutions.com/

I think we should go with over 21, landowners. I also think we should give out a civics test before voting.

Also, if you received any money from the government that year, you should be disqualified.

While your dreaming, might as well dream big.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

In states that had property requirements. The requirements could usually be met with the ownership of a horse or even an ass (Ben Franklin had an amusing quip upon this subject).

Please sign Newt's Drilling Petition. I have included a link to it in the below. Thank you.

http://www.americansolutions.com/

I think the first factor is that there wasn't that much knowledge about market economies then. Mercantilism was on the way out, slowly, and the industrial revolution, which jump-started capitalism, was still on the horizon. Also, The Wealth of Nations, by Adam Smith (who also coined the term "mercantilism"), was published in 1776. Nations was the intellectual foundation of our capitalist society.

You can look at early tax laws to verify that the founders were feeling their way, but more or less following the examples of the past. One helpful factor was that the economy was much less centralized then. Whatever was done to harm it was often readily identified as being bad, resulting in riots and rebellions. That often resulted in a quick fix. For a farmer in the New World who was mostly self-sustaining, government economic policy was often a moot question.

Even later, the American economy was a roller coaster ride. There were booms and busts up to the Great Depression, which itself was made worse by some of the "remedies" that were applied. We really did learn some lessons from that, although there are those who deny it.

Systematic study of economies over 232 years has taught us a lot, but you still have to recognize that there are plenty of educated people who think it would be a good idea to put "windfall profits" taxes on Big Oil and that all we have to do is raise income tax rates to balance the budget.

Pluto, the Ninth Planet - Forever!

"I think the first factor is that there wasn't that much knowledge about market economies then. Mercantilism was on the way out, slowly, and the industrial revolution, which jump-started capitalism, was still on the horizon. Also, The Wealth of Nations, by Adam Smith (who also coined the term "mercantilism"), was published in 1776. Nations was the intellectual foundation of our capitalist society."

I am not so sure about that.  Much of what Smith wrote about were observations he had made of the behaviors of a great multitude of people he had encountered. 
Such as those that were involved in the manufacture of pins.  The system that he described had been in existence in Britain long before his birth.  One of the many interesting things that Jack Green points out is that the market system was in widespread existence in the British Isles prior to the advent of British colonies in the New World.

Moreover explicit knowledge of capitalism is not a prerequisite for success in capitalism. The great wonder of capitalism is its simplicity. It is a system that functions nearly perfectly via the singular prerequisite of enlightened self-interest (a.k.a. the profit motive). It is not one's knowledge of the system that makes capitalism work, but merely ones desire for profit.

Please sign Newt's Drilling Petition. I have included a link to it in the below. Thank you.

http://www.americansolutions.com/

capitalism even before they had a word for it. It took british educated German fops Marx and Engels to get it all wrong.

As for Flagship's comment about boom and bust cycles. Before the Great Depression those cycles corresponded with increases in the supplies of Gold. The economy would boom with a new gold field and then bust when it played out.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

RUSH: From my second bestseller, "See, I Told You So, ""Chapter 6, "Dead White guys, or What the History Books Never Told You: The True Story of Thanksgiving." The story of the Pilgrims begins in the early part of the seventeenth century (that's the 1600s for those of you in Rio Linda, California). The Church of England under King James I was persecuting anyone and everyone who did not recognize its absolute civil and spiritual authority. Those who challenged ecclesiastical authority and those who believed strongly in freedom of worship were hunted down, imprisoned, and sometimes executed for their beliefs.

A group of separatists first fled to Holland and established a community. After eleven years, about forty of them agreed to make a perilous journey to the New World, where they would certainly face hardships, but could live and worship God according to the dictates of their own consciences.

On August 1, 1620, the Mayflower set sail. It carried a total of 102 passengers, including forty Pilgrims led by William Bradford. On the journey, Bradford set up an agreement, a contract, that established just and equal laws for all members of the new community, irrespective of their religious beliefs. Where did the revolutionary ideas expressed in the Mayflower Compact come from? From the Bible.

The Pilgrims were a people completely steeped in the lessons of the Old and New Testaments. They looked to the ancient Israelites for their example. And, because of the biblical precedents set forth in Scripture, they never doubted that their experiment would work.

But this was no pleasure cruise, friends. The journey to the New World was a long and arduous one. And when the Pilgrims landed in New England in November, they found, according to Bradford's detailed journal, a cold, barren, desolate wilderness. There were no friends to greet them, he wrote. There were no houses to shelter them. There were no inns where they could refresh themselves.

And the sacrifice they had made for freedom was just beginning. During the first winter, half the Pilgrims – including Bradford's own wife – died of either starvation, sickness or exposure. When spring finally came, Indians taught the settlers how to plant corn, fish for cod and skin beavers for coats. Life improved for the Pilgrims, but they did not yet prosper!

This is important to understand because this is where modern American history lessons often end. Thanksgiving is actually explained in some textbooks as a holiday for which the Pilgrims gave thanks to the Indians for saving their lives, rather than as a devout expression of gratitude grounded in the tradition of both the Old and New Testaments.

Here is the part that has been omitted: The original contract the Pilgrims had entered into with their merchant-sponsors in London called for everything they produced to go into a common store, and each member of the community was entitled to one common share. All of the land they cleared and the houses they built belong to the community as well.

They were going to distribute it equally. All of the land they cleared and the houses they built belonged to the community as well. Nobody owned anything. They just had a share in it. It was a commune, folks. It was the forerunner to the communes we saw in the '60s and '70s out in California – and it was complete with organic vegetables, by the way.

Bradford, who had become the new governor of the colony, recognized that this form of collectivism was as costly and destructive to the Pilgrims as that first harsh winter, which had taken so many lives. He decided to take bold action. Bradford assigned a plot of land to each family to work and manage, thus turning loose the power of the marketplace.

That's right. Long before Karl Marx was even born, the Pilgrims had discovered and experimented with what could only be described as socialism. And what happened? It didn't work! Surprise, surprise, huh? What Bradford and his community found was that the most creative and industrious people had no incentive to work any harder than anyone else, unless they could utilize the power of personal motivation!

But while most of the rest of the world has been experimenting with socialism for well over a hundred years – trying to refine it, perfect it, and re-invent it – the Pilgrims decided early on to scrap it permanently. What Bradford wrote about this social experiment should be in every schoolchild's history lesson If it were, we might prevent much needless suffering in the future.

"The experience that we had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years...that by taking away property, and bringing community into a common wealth, would make them happy and flourishing – as if they were wiser than God," Bradford wrote. "For this community [so far as it was] was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For young men that were most able and fit for labor and service did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense...that was thought injustice."

Why should you work for other people when you can't work for yourself? What's the point?

Do you hear what he was saying, ladies and gentlemen? The Pilgrims found that people could not be expected to do their best work without incentive. So what did Bradford's community try next? They unharnessed the power of good old free enterprise by invoking the undergirding capitalistic principle of private property. Every family was assigned its own plot of land to work and permitted to market its own crops and products. And what was the result?

"This had very good success," wrote Bradford, "for it made all hands industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been." Bradford doesn't sound like much of a Clintonite, does he? Is it possible that supply-side economics could have existed before the 1980s? Yes. Read the story of Joseph and Pharaoh in Genesis 41. Following Joseph's suggestion (Gen 41:34), Pharaoh reduced the tax on Egyptians to 20% during the "seven years of plenty" and the "Earth brought forth in heaps." (Gen. 41:47)

In no time, the Pilgrims found they had more food than they could eat themselves.

Now, this is where it gets really good, folks, if you're laboring under the misconception that I was, as I was taught in school.

So they set up trading posts and exchanged goods with the Indians. The profits allowed them to pay off their debts to the merchants in London. And the success and prosperity of the Plymouth settlement attracted more Europeans and began what came to be known as the "Great Puritan Migration."
Now, you probably haven't read this. You might have heard me read it to you over the previous years on this program, but I don't think this lesson is still being taught to children -- and if not, why not? I mean, is there a more important lesson one could derive from the Pilgrim experience than this? Thanksgiving, in other words, is not thanks to the Indians, and it's not thanks to William Bradford. It's not thanks to the merchants of London. Thanksgiving is thanks to God, pure and simple. Go read the first Thanksgiving proclamation from George Washington and you'll get the point. The word "God" is mentioned in that first Thanksgiving proclamation more times... If you read it aloud to an ACLU member, you'll get thrown in jail, but that's what the first Thanksgiving was all about. Get it. I'm telling you, read it. Maybe we can find it and link to it: George Washington's first Thanksgiving Proclamation. Folks, if you haven't read that, you need to read it. It will tell you the true story of Thanksgiving. I'm happy to share it with you each and every year as a tradition on this program.

END TRANSCRIPT

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

Freedom of Religion NOT Freedom from Religion

Extreme taxation, excessive controls, oppressive government competition with business … frustrated minorities and forgotten Americans are not the products of free enterprise.Ronald Reagan

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

Extreme taxation, excessive controls, oppressive government competition with business … frustrated minorities and forgotten Americans are not the products of free enterprise.Ronald Reagan

of whiskey

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

My comment was directed towards the question, "Did the early american 'people' understand economics better than today's people?"

My suggestion was "no," and I provided some reasons why I thought so, and why I thought it simply mattered less.

I agree about Adam Smith and capitalism. Examples and systems of capitalism existed before Smith described it/them, just as (OMG) evolution existed before Darwin described it. But Smith did provide an intellectual description and that enabled it to be incorporated into whatever study of economics existed at the time.

As I said, "there wasn't that much knowledge about market economies then. " And there isn't that much among the public now, either.

Pluto, the Ninth Planet - Forever!

"As I said, 'there wasn't that much knowledge about market economies then. ' And there isn't that much among the public now, either."

I am not so certain that is true. For all practical purposes the only things a person really needs to know about markets is that enlightened self-interest really really works, and that alternatives to enlightened self-interest are much much less effective. The benefits of enlightened self-interest were commonly expounded in the literature (newspapers, essays, etc.) of the 1600’s and 1700’s. The popular literature or perhaps I should say media of today almost never discusses the benefits of self-interest; instead it often inundates us with antiself-interest propaganda. Moreover, in consequence to the rise of the so-called “life-adjustment” movement of the early 20th century our public education system has declined to such a point where the works of Bradford, Locke, Paine, Franklin, etc. that either directly or implicitly discusses the merits of self-interest and the weakness of it antithesis are no longer commonly read, as they had been by generations of American school children (the New England example that I linked to in the below was once commonly studied in schools). It is my position that the present generations of this country are more ignorant of market economics than our revolutionary predecessors because we as a people have a much poorer understanding of the cornerstone of market economies; enlightened self-interest.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1650bradford.html

Please sign Newt's Drilling Petition. I have included a link to it in the below. Thank you.

http://www.americansolutions.com/

"I am not so certain that is true. For all practical purposes the only things a person really needs to know about markets is that enlightened self-interest really really works, and that alternatives to enlightened self-interest are much much less effective."

I don't disagree. It certainly isn't common knowledge today. I won't argue about what was common knowledge in the 17th and 18th centuries, beyond the observation that no matter what was written, the literacy of the general public is the question, and the availability of what was written is also unknown.

If literacy has not improved since 1650, that's a damning indictment of the public school system, isn't it?

Just my opinion.

Pluto, the Ninth Planet - Forever!

I am not exactly sure what literacy rates were like in British Colonial America. The Puritains were as a group highly literate, as were many of the Religious dissenters that fled to the colonies in search of liberty. I have read claims many years ago to the effect that colonial literacy rates (1700's) were higher than our present day literacy rates, but my memory on these articles is a bit hazy. I do know some commonly cited statistics from the 1770’s though. For example it is generally held that the total population of the original 13 colonies was about three million. Moreover, Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense” is believed to have sold well over three hundred thousand copies in the colonies during the 1770’s. That is approximately one copy for every ten people in the colonies. Now given that it is unlikely that a typical household would purchase more than one copy for their own consumption, and that we are dealing with a period when households were much larger than present day ones one can imply very very high literacy rates in the colonies just from the sales of Paine’s most famous work. Moreover, notions of copyright did not exist in the colonies, and works like “Common Sense” were often recopied either as excerpts or as complete works into the popular newspapers of the day. It also therefore stands to reason that there existed in colonial America an additional pool of literate people that did not spend their coin upon a copy of “Common Sense” because they had already read it via their newspapers.

Please sign Newt's Drilling Petition. I have included a link to it in the below. Thank you.

http://www.americansolutions.com/

I wouldn't be surprised if you are correct.

So it is a damning indictment of the public school system, isn't it? Or of something, anyway.

Pluto, the Ninth Planet - Forever!

I blame the "Life-Adjustment" Movement; it was/instrumental in undermining learning.

Please sign Newt's Drilling Petition. I have included a link to it in the below. Thank you.

http://www.americansolutions.com/

One of the reasons that private education is usually superior to public education is that the “Life-Adjustment” Movement never really significantly infiltrated most private school systems. During the 1920’s and 1930’s “Life-Adjusters” for the most part took over public education in this country, and they still have a profound influence upon the public schools to this day.

Please sign Newt's Drilling Petition. I have included a link to it in the below. Thank you.

http://www.americansolutions.com/

A more direct answer: The people knew little about "economics" (the term probably didn't even exist), but they did know if a tariff or specific tax made something too expensive to buy, or to produce.

And yes, the size of the economy magnifies the effect of errors.

Pluto, the Ninth Planet - Forever!

from 1999 to 2005. So there's hope yet.

Thing is, I don't believe that economic literacy is something that "just happens". I think that we need to make a concerted effort as a society, and that fiscal conservatives in particular need to undertake specific actions to encourage, the education of The People in basic, fundamental economics.

This truly isn't a partisan issue, except insofar as certain elitists believe that keeping The People in the dark about basic economics benefits their seizing control over the levers of power. I don't know that those elitists are limited to Democrats.

What I do know is that in a modern, contemporary, globalized world, a people that doesn't understand basic economics is doomed to be exploited, whether by unscrupulous politicians or thieves-in-suits who want to sell you unaffordable mortgages.

It's even difficult to hold individuals responsible for their own financial decisions if they have never been taught fundamentals like the effect of interest rates. I've lived in the ghetto in my lifetime, and I can't tell you how many people I knew would go to the store, see something they want, wait and wait and wait for the item to go on sale, then buy it with a credit card charging 18.5% APR, and make minimum monthly payments. o.0 So that $400 TV that you waited to buy till it was 20% off ends up costing you something north of $1200.

That's financial suicide. And if you don't understand interest rates, you have NO chance to survive, or to make smart decisions about anything.

Because the single biggest threat to a democracy comes from within, as people try to use the mechanisms of state power to steal from others to the detriment of everyone, economic literacy has to be at or near the top of our longterm priorities.

-TS

"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same." - Ronald Reagan

I go along with Raven. Democracy doesn't guarantee "right" decisions, just "better" decisions "over time."

We're having some trouble right now because the Supreme Court has failed to understand its proper place within the government and the other two branches have been loathe to confront them, YET. Also, government at many levels has been hell-bent to prevent the People from having a say, even when the People follow the rules. State courts especially have been only too happy to change the rules when they thought it expedient.

Certainly, there has been an "assimilation" problem when reforming crusaders first get to DC. They somehow lose their zeal to reform. Still, some remain true to an ethical compass; Joe Lieberman is an example. John McCain seems to be another exception. I note that neither of these men went to Congress on a "reform" platform.

The good news? Democracy has built-in mechanisms to correct all these problems. It's too bad that they never get corrected quickly (Carter notwithstanding), but they can be corrected. A dictatorial form of government may be more nimble in theory, but in fact the dictators never achieve power for reasons that will support their success as dictator. Examples: Castro, Stalin, Mao, Mugabe, Hitler, etc. Now that China has abandoned some of its centralized economy management, it has become a powerhouse-in-waiting. I think (hope?) that the reaction of the People to high gasoline prices signals the beginning of a turn to starboard.

Economic illiteracy does slow the process down, unfortunatley.

Pluto, the Ninth Planet - Forever!

There was never a golden age when things were better. In the past most city public schools were better than today's schools, but most rural schools were abysmal, and that was when most people lived in rural areas.

The so called greatest generation were about 80% liberal democrat. They put their stamp of approval on all sorts of socialism. And they raised up the most narcissistic generation.

The baby boomers are the most over educated generation in history, and most of them can't pour pee out of a boot.

So don't get too down in the dumps, we will probably muddle through like always.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

The world has been going to hell in a handbasket since the dawn of time, or at least as long as there have been grandmothers to complain about the kids these days. All of us have at some time been "the kids these days" that some of our elders were convinced were so unfit to someday take up the reins.

Yet somehow we're still all here, and precious few of us would trade our contemporary world to live in those supposedly better times. For those who claim the present is worse than the past, I'll bet most of them really mean they enjoyed life in their younger days more than at their current age.

Of course we can always find some aspects of our society that are worse than in some earlier times, but overall with the ups and downs America continues to get better over time. On comparison over a few decades or more, anybody who thinks America was better in the past is just hung up on problems with his own life, not with America.

Like so many of us, I complain about current events and trends, but your perspective is what all the complaints have to be seen through. Yeah, a lot of things suck, but as always we'll find a way to muddle through.

and several of the previous responses. My concern is that there is a structural change, rather than transient. As a student of history, I realize the "good old days" are overrated. But we did have in years past a more homogenous society, a people with at least a common cultural literacy. Of course they were not all educated, but at least they all knew what educated meant. Today, I see a people manipulated and distracted. They believe fame is an acheivment, rather than acheivment can lead to fame.

I do take solace in your reminder, I did ask for some cheering up :)

___________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

.

___________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

Promising to "create jobs" and "level the playing field" and then interpose it with Coach Sam Gundy saying "IT AINT TRUE!!!"

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

The problem is that the country is even more ideologically divided when it was when Schoolhouse Rock was produced, on the level of interpersonal relationships, I think. You couldn't do something simple like Schoolhouse Rock today: there's far too much identity politics. The federal government itself is now something like 23-24% of GNP, which means that it's now a very bloody ballgame of people pushing money around to their friends, for one. And that's leaving out the state and local governments, which have all become money-shoveling machines.

When I think about the fact that the government has become primarily a vehicle for deciding who gets a piece of the enormous amounts of money it collects and then doles back out, I worry there's nothing that can be done: everyone is far to craven.

It's New Jersey writ large. I don't think there's any turning back from that to a simpler time when people could consider each other as Americans first: everyone has an identity politics group now that's tied to government funding.

Defend Liberty -- Join the NRA | Live in Massachusetts? Join GOAL.

might be time for some nooses and makeshift gallows. or at very least some hot tar and feathers.

Yeah, I am just blowing off steam.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

Think about that for a second. Here they've waged this do-or-die campaign for all these months and for some reason, Barry thinks the right thing to do is make her campaign against him painless; just give her back all the money.

It was painful enough for everyone else who contributed to it, and they're not going to be "forgiven."

We can expect nothing but more of this stuff in the future. Hey, George Soros is rumored to have a *lot* of money these days. Obama hasn't even reached the convention yet and he's doing his best to show people what he thinks of economics.

Defend Liberty -- Join the NRA | Live in Massachusetts? Join GOAL.