> How much gold can the education establishment
> consume before the current crop of governing
> Democrats begins to entertain the notion that
> the root problem of public schooling isn't a
> lack of funds?

Much, much more. Politicians (not just Democrats) aren't in the business of solving root problems. No politician has ever solved a root problem.

(Pause to check for rhetorical overreach... Scanning memory... Nope, blank; _________.)

Politicians are in the business of appearing compassionate and responsible with other people's money.

They're not even in the business of 'entertaining notions'. I've never had the sense that Obama's a truly ideological guy; he just backs his home team. He's a Bears fan because he's from Chicago. If he was from New York, he'd back the Jets.

(Hillary was from Chicago, but moved to NY, and took her loyalties with her. Turns out the work anywhere she plants them. Iddinat' sumpin'?)

You want to know what the funny thing is? Even with the 35% inport tarriff, even though it costs me an extra 80 bucks for a set of four tires, its still cheaper to buy the imported tires.

Write off the increased cost of your imported purchases on your taxes. Refuse to finacially reward the government

Incidentally punishing the consumer doesnt stop american compnies from shipping jobs overseas, even my 14yr old brother knws that

You see it every day, for example, in California, where for decades the conventional wisdom has held that the proximate cause of the Golden State's periodic fiscal meltdowns is Proposition 13, the 1978 ballot initiative that caps annual property tax increases. If only those greedy homeowners gave up a bit more of their pie, presto! No more budget problems.
====================================
It couldn't be greedy politicians who can't wait to find and fund another unsuccessful government program.

It couldn't be billions spent on welfare, failing public education, and illegal immigration. It just couldn't be.

President George W. Bush increased federal education spending by 58 percent in real terms, and Obama is on track to at least double that record.
===================================
Blind politicians and people in general have been taught that money solves problems.

In the hands of government money only funds the problem to become an even a bigger problem.
Take welfare and education for examples.

A successful lawyer friend of mine is planning to leave California because he's sick of having so much of his income sucked away by taxes. He has a successful practice in Santa Monica with a bunch of associates. Bye-bye business! Wave goodbye to my friend, Governator!

... before the current crop of governing Democrats begins to entertain the notion that the root problem of public schooling isn't a lack of funds?

Never. They will not admit to failure because it is not a failure. The destruction of the youth of America is intentional. Stupid people don't know better than to keep electing the imbeciles who promise the most goodies. So, better to keep them stupid and stay in power, n'est-ce pas?

Politicians tend to think of the economy as a collection of disconnected silos instead of an interconnected ecosystem. They believe that tweaking one silo will have no effect on any other silo.

This lack of understanding that each aspect of the economy is interconnected with every other aspect is why politicians never understand the ramifications of their misguided attempts to gain control.

But they're willing to pretend to understand the interconnectedness of an ecosystem when it comes to oil drilling, endangered species, or global warming.

====================

Here's an interesting article on China's economic problems in Foreign Policy:

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/01/07/a_123_trillion_china_not_likely

====================

A successful lawyer friend of mine is planning to leave California....

I've been hearing a lot of talk of leaving California lately. Some of it from myself.

I have noticed California flight for the last 20 years. At one time California had most of the best tennis academies in the country because the climate is so good for that. The exodus started several years ago and now almost all tennis academies are located in Florida and Texas (two low tax, no income tax states) I assume the same may be true of golf but don't follow that sport. Once the easily transportable businesses are gone, the next to go will be the harder to move such as professional services, such as Dr's and lawyers. Drs have a hard time making a living off of medicare and medicaid, especially specialists and when over 50 percent of their practice are those patients, they will be gone. Eventially all that will be left is the service support industries and when the customers get sparse enough, a lot of those businesses will be gone too. Basically you will have a couple of big box stores, a 7-11 every five miles or so and a bunch of prisons and public employees standing around with their thumbs up their butts. :-) Isabel

Free trade is a fascinating issue, and I am not sure simple diatribes answer some rather deep questions.

But riddle me this: The workers of America are often told the reason the gravy train is over is due to "fierce global competition," and so the 40-hour week-work, with two weeks off and 10 days sick leave and paid healthcare days are over, baby.

Now, work 50+ hours a week, and 6 days vacation and 6 days sick leave are the norms, and co-pay health insurance if you get it.

We are also told we must endure onerous taxes to support a huge military, so free trade can flourish, and keep those global shipping lanes open (who wants to close them? Don't ask that).

Is it any wonder many question the merits of free trade?

Also unanswered is why China thrives, the antithesis of a free trade model. Oh, that.

Even less answered is why the United States enjoyed such strong GDP growth in the 1950s and 1960s, when free trade was a much smaller fraction of total commerce (and top federal income taxes were above 90 percent).

In short, the free trade popinjay-jackanapes perch on handy platforms, and squawk about its virtues, but have precious little evidence of that reality.

PS, Gee, I am so sorry a lawyer is leaving California. We are doomed!
Let me guess: He made enough money here to essentially retire.
Guess what (unfortunately in this particular case): There will be two who pop up to take his place. Lawyers we have, and they make plenty. I wish we had taxed him way harder while he was here, as he is an economic parasite.

I do think we need to think about retaining manufacturing industries

"I do think we need to think about retaining manufacturing industries"

Enviornmental regulations have made it virtually impossible for most kinds of heavy and many kinds of light industry to operate profitably in the US. Tort law, labor unions and health care costs did the rest. Isabel

Mr Short..."Even less answered is why the United States enjoyed such strong GDP growth in the 1950s and 1960s".

(1)Much of the manufacturing capacity of Europe, along with its cities, had been destroyed in WWII, implying that anyone wanting manufactured goods was probably going to have to get them from a U.S. company.

(2)Higher growth rates are generally more easily attained on a smaller base.

(3)In the 1950s & 1960s, the combination of litigation, environmental extremism, and general NIMBYism had not yet made it so difficult to operate a manufacturing business.

Despite everything, there is still a heck of a lot of manufacturing in the U.S....our manufacturing output is almost twice that of China.

David Foster-

Agreed on many issues re manufacturing, although "environmental extremism" might be debatable. I find everyone becomes a greenie-weenie when the rendering plant is proposed for their neighborhood.

The most restrictive place in CA to develop? Hardcore right-wing R-town Newport Beach. Don't even try to put up a condo tower on the beach there baby. Property rights? If proposed development larger than 100,000 sf, you need approval...from city voters, in a city vote. I kid you not.

Most of our industry migrated offshore for cheaper labor, and less regulation. I think it would be better to keep it here.

Also unanswered is why China thrives, the antithesis of a free trade model. Oh, that.

Read the article from Foreign Policy I posted earlier.

Mr Short...see my post Seattle's Unwelcome Mat:

http://photoncourier.blogspot.com/2004_03_01_photoncourier_archive.html#107904643526595392

Conan- Back in the 1950s, and again in the early 1970s, Foreign Affairs magazine published articles suggesting strongly that U.S. Navy surface ships were too vulnerable. The USS Sunkfast, the USS Bottomdweller, and the USS Davy Jones Locker--these names come to mind, due to improved recon, torpedoes and missiles.

In a real war, surface fleets would be sunk or retire to harbor.

Does the fact that a magazine publishes an article make it true?

Does the fact that a magazine publishes an article make it true?

Nope. But it offers a decent argument that China may not be the viable economic model you hold it out as.

We won't know for sure for around 10-20 years. In the meantime, I'll take the free market economy.

The Political Dictionary: Liberal Economics

Liberal Economics: Money falls from heaven for everyone to use. But, the immoral and sneaky rich gather more than their share. The government's purpose is to redistribute the money the way God intended. Or, if you wish, the way Gaia, or the Tooth Fairy, or whoever intended.

Taxes remove the excess income of the rich and give it to the voting poor, through a fair and organized bureaucracy. The rich oppose this action by selfishly and spitefully decreasing employment. Government responds by increasing grants and spending, to boost employment. The government runs a deficit while it discovers the "knack" for creating the jobs that the rich are hiding.

Also unanswered is why China thrives, the antithesis of a free trade model. Oh, that.

Read the article from Foreign Policy I posted earlier.

Posted by: Conan the Grammarian at January 10, 2010 2:03 PM
=======================================
China is basically a capatalist economy with a government that still proclaims it is communistic.

You see it every day, for example, in California, where for decades the conventional wisdom has held that the proximate cause of the Golden State's periodic fiscal meltdowns is Proposition 13, the 1978 ballot initiative that caps annual property tax increases.

Welch is not correct. The bigger problem with Prop 13 is the supermajority requirement for passing the budget. The minority party has veto power of the budget, and they have used it to destroy our state's bond rating, get Governor Davis recalled, and undermine the governor from their own party by failing to pass his compromise budgets.

China is basically a capatalist economy with a government that still proclaims it is communistic.

China's government still exercises a large degree of centralized control over the economy; and uses anticompetitive measure to ensure that government-run companies face little or no competitiion.

China is basically a capatalist economy with a government that still proclaims it is communistic.

China's government still exercises a large degree of centralized control over the economy; and uses anticompetitive measure to ensure that government-run companies face little or no competitiion.

Posted by: Conan the Grammarian at January 11, 2010 9:05 AM
================================
Maybe in selective circumstances. However, when you have McDonald, KFC's and Wal-Marts popping up like breeding rabbits, they aren't controlling all that much. If the Chinese government was controlling everything you woudn't be seeing the explosive economic growth that China is undergoing.

China's explosive economic growth is reported by -- China. It is the Chinese government that collect, summarizes, and massages those figures, just as the US government does.

In the US, there are independent voices to question and explain government statistics. Remember that the US government report/website of jobs created and saved cost $18 million. It reported 100,000 new jobs within congressional districts that do not exist.

If China actually has explosive economic growth, it would be the first time that a totalitarian government has not lied about its growth figures.

The (now reorganized) Soviet Union reported explosive growth right up to the point that their economy collapsed, and their empire somewhat dissolved.

The US government will report hopeful improvement and massive spending to "rebuild the economy" right up to the point that the truth becomes widely known.

If China actually has explosive economic growth, it would be the first time that a totalitarian government has not lied about its growth figures.

The (now reorganized) Soviet Union reported explosive growth right up to the point that their economy collapsed, and their empire somewhat dissolved.

The US government will report hopeful improvement and massive spending to "rebuild the economy" right up to the point that the truth becomes widely known.
==========================
In the past that has definitely been the case.
However, When you see documentaries where they are filming in China and you actually see the KFC's, Mcdonald's, Wal-Marts, cars in the street etc... I don't think the Chinese government is going to all the trouble to stage those things.
Like the former Soviet Union, China realizes to keep with the U. S. and other modern countries they have to be more capatalistic.

Also, If China isn't producing why are they loaning the U.S. government money and why we are borrowing a few trillion from them?

To David M,

() In the past they have definitely lied. But, now it is different. (smile)

() The US has more KFC's etc. than China. How is that working out for us? KFC's don't hinder growth, and they aren't a growth indicator. The Chinese government is gaining some favor with a suppressed population by allowing more consumer goods.

() The Chinese economy is so vibrant (smile) that the Chinese government thinks the best use of their dollars is to invest it in US government bonds.

Who is more stupid. The US, which is borrowing heavily to distribute cash to political supporters and projects, or China, which has lent heavily to the US at almost zero interest rates.

() China is selling its long-term US Treasury bonds and buying about the same amount of US 2-year debt. In the comming inflation, China will be gone from US debt in two years. We US citizens will be in the middle of it.

() The Chinese economy is so vibrant (smile) that the Chinese government thinks the best use of their dollars is to invest it in US government bonds.

Who is more stupid. The US, which is borrowing heavily to distribute cash to political supporters and projects, or China, which has lent heavily to the US at almost zero interest rates.

() China is selling its long-term US Treasury bonds and buying about the same amount of US 2-year debt. In the comming inflation, China will be gone from US debt in two years. We US citizens will be in the middle of it.

Posted by: Andrew_M_Garland at January 12, 2010 10:29 AM
=======================================
Speaking of governments and not individuals- Don't you have to have a surplus of money to loan to someone else (the Chinese) and don't you have to be in monetary debt to borrow the (U.S.)?

So if I'm hearing you right. Non-Capatalist China, whose economy is somewhat fabricated by their government, is loaning money to the capatalist U.S. and we the U.S. are going deeper in debt.

If this is correct and we either renege on the debt or print money to pay them back what happens to the U.S. dollar as the world's currency?

I'm not being facetious I really want to know.

Ooops! Hit the enter button accidently.

To David M,

The Chinese government (central bank) uses US dollars to buy US debt. China can buy dollars with yuan, or more likely, use dollars accumulated from selling goods to the US by its state owned industries. China's economy doesn't have to be "vibrant" for the Chinese government to save up dollars. China only needs to be frugal and pay little to the people working in the Chinese factories. Most of China's economy is state controlled; there is little competition to bid up workers salaries.

The US Treasury creates debt by selling Treasury Bonds. The Treasury sells bonds (a promise to repay cash in the future) and collects dollars now, which the US government can spend on projects and salaries. The Treasury can sell these bonds whether or not it has a tax surplus, but it hasn't had a surplus in 50 years, and the US has had a national debt going back to 1930, and probably before.

An amazing fact. The Treasury directly and indirectly sells bonds to the US Federal Reserve Bank, which prints up money to do the buying. This creates money "out of thin air". Essentially, the Treasury spends money supported only by it's ability to collect taxes in the future, like personal credit card debt. All US currency has been created this way. A dollar is a little bit of US government debt, but with no rights to collect interest or be paid back in anything real.

If the US defaults, devalues, or inflates more than usual (and we will do all of them), then we no longer have a currency that can store value. That is a big problem for US citizens. Hyperinflation is caused by the realization that you are holding dollars which won't buy what you think they will, and are losing value at 10+%/year. The response is to spend on anything you might possibly need, or can sell later, before available goods disappear or your money evaporates in value. I think the US dollar will be used less as a world currency and will be distrusted by everyone.

China Grows More Picky About Debt
www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/business/global/21reserves.html
-> Search within article for: long-term

Devaluation sparks shopping frenzy in Venezuela
www.brisbanetimes.com.au/business/devaluation-sparks-shopping-frenzy-in-venezuela-20100111-m1kx.html

Up Against a Wall of Debt, Part II
www.newsweek.com/id/221563/page/2

Thank you Andrew. I will be keeping an eye on this situation.