Keynes…

NYT reports today that European governments are now rejecting the Keynesian prescription to spend your way out of a recession/depression/panic economic bad thingie.

Now, I’m largely economically illiterate – read Adam Smith a couple times and took a few econ classes in business school – so I probably just missed this point. Simple question: what’s enough? I’ve never yet come across a formulation of the Keynesian policy that said: you can spend up to X or X% of Y or any limit whatsoever. Nope. Just spend.

So, if $1 in deficit spending is good, $10 is 10 times as good. If a trillion dollars is good, 2 trillion is way better! How about $10 trillion? $100 trillion? Seriously, not only have I never heard what the natural or logical limit to debt spending is, I’ve never heard any Keynesian argument that there even is a limit.

I’ll consider getting on board the good ship Keynes as soon as it’s clear where it’s planning to dock, or indeed clear it has any interest in docking at all.

Another Song from Mass 10/17/10

Parish A this week. Wading into the enigma shrouded in mystery wrapped in a ‘huh?’ that is: Marty Haugen.

Eye Has Not Seen

Chorus
Eye has not seen,
ear has not heard
what God has ready
for those who love him;
Spirit of love, come,
give us the mind of Jesus,
teach us the wisdom of God.

Continue reading “Another Song from Mass 10/17/10”

Historically Conditioned Ramble, Pt 1

Sometimes listen to NPR. Terry Gross’s interviews are my favorite item. She should give lessons to all interviewers in whatever format that is she uses, which would consist of 3 things: Shut up and let your guest talk; ask good questions; shut up and let your guest talk.

Anyway, she was talking to some legal scholar a bit back, and the topic of ‘original intent’ came up, and she, very predictably (this is NPR) blessed the notion that, since it is inevitable that issues and situations not covered by the original intent of the drafters would come up, OF COURSE the SCOTUS would need to, you know, sort of make it up as they go, with an implied ‘what can these crazy original intent types be thinking?’.

Now, of course, the issue isn’t really binary: thinking people (especially lawyers) understand that you can’t write everything down, that there will be plenty of situations that require judges to apply law that wasn’t written with the concrete case in front of you in mind, and few ‘living document’ types really, truly believe that the Constitution is a blank piece of paper (although many of our elected officials seem damn close to that POV – it doesn’t count when your behavior is constrained by fear of the people, and that just happens to coincide with some musty legal fundamentalist’s interpretation of the Constitution. That’s called cowardice, not principle.)

What struck me was not that Ms Gross came down on the issue the way she did – news flash! Sun sets in the West – but rather how, given a situation where, from any objective perspective, you’re walking a path between the state whereby intolerable evils persist because no written law applies to remedy them and the state of chaos where the law means whatever any judge happens to feel like it means at that moment, that you’d recognize the dangers on one side of  the issue but totally miss or ignore the trouble lurking on the other.

That path is not all that narrow, but it seems to me to important to recognize you’re on it, and work to stay on it. If all you fear is that some evil might not be redressed because there are as yet no laws available with which to redress it, while not also fearing that judges might confound what they want to see happen with justice (like we all do) and thereby do evil, then you will, frankly, arrive at the current unhappy state of affairs.

Thinking about this in relation to a different but conceptually related notion: that the beliefs of the Catholic Church are ‘historically conditioned’, meaning, it seems,  that any statement of belief can be challenged and overturned based on the assertion that the belief does not represent an eternal truth, but is rather just a data-point of how people at one time and place *understood* a fundamentally ineffable truth that defies any attempt at definitive formulation.

Something like that. There’s probably a cleaner formulation of this concept out there.

Continue reading “Historically Conditioned Ramble, Pt 1”

Foucault’s Swinging Experiment

We interrupt my ranting for one of those fun little historical items:

If you’ve heard of Foucault’s  Pendulum, you probably know it as that ball on the end of a long wire thing people set up in museums and observatories. Once in a great while, it knocks over a peg, proving that the earth does, indeed, rotate on its axis.

How? Pendulums, following Newton’s laws, will swing in the same plane, unless some force acts upon them to cause them do otherwise. But the plane of  Foucault’s pendulum slowly changes (in fact, it doesn’t seem to swing in a plane at all, but is observed to swing through a series of slightly curved surfaces.) By a fairly long series of logical steps, it is concluded that the only reasonable way to explain the motion of the pendulum is by the movement of the earth beneath it – it is considered too shocking of a coincidence for the movement to be exactly what would be expected if the earth rotated exactly once a day, yet to have some other cause. In fact, the pendulum also moves differently depending on the latitude in exactly the way it should, if the motion were caused by the earth’s rotation. There’s no other reasonable explanation

Big Whup? What makes this all very interesting is that Foucault demonstrated his pendulum – it was a sensation – in February, 1851.

Galileo died in 1642.

Continue reading “Foucault’s Swinging Experiment”

Great Colleges, Poor High Schools

Ever wonder how it works that our country has hundreds of great colleges admired all around the world, and yet has high schools and grade schools that are routinely disparaged in comparison to those of other countries and constantly said to need reform (and more money)?

As mentioned in an earlier post, up to 50% of the students admitted to elite colleges are placed in remedial classes in their freshman year. Keep in mind, these are kids who sport GPAs well north of 4.0, have taken many ‘college prepatory’ AP classes, and have spent thousands of hours doing homework – and they need remedial help to do basic college-level work.

So, how can it be that these kids a) have not mastered what the college considers basic reading, writing and math skills, yet b) are decorated veterans of high school, the best of the best?

A couple of ways to look at this:

– First, that high school doesn’t teach the skills you need for success in college;

– Second, that, for many students, this lack of skills isn’t damaging to their future academic success. Haven’t seen any numbers, but I imagine that the remedial classes do meet with some success – that at least some of the students who arrived on campus academically unprepared take the remedial classes and go on to succeed (at the very least, the college would be heavily invested in making sure that happens).

The important note here is that elite colleges routinely succeed in a year or less in teaching skills that 12 or more years of schooling before college – including successfully completed advanced placement classes – failed to teach.

There are a number of reasons colleges succeed at what are alleged to be the same tasks at which high schools, even and especially *good* high schools, routinely fail, even when we’re talking about elite students.  So what’s so different about how colleges teach things than how high schools teach them?

– Ratio of in-class time to out of class time: The most fanatical high school students approach 1:1 – 6 hours of class time to 6 hours of study outside of class in a typical day. College students run more like 1:3 – 2 – 3 hours of class a day, with 6 – 9 hours of studying for the more ambitious students.

– Flexibility: High school students are expected to put in their 6 hours of class time a day every day for 4 years. College students can adjust their loads and arrange their schedules to meet personal preferences and needs. The 5 and even 6 year college plans are available if need be.

– Freedom: High schools student have minimum freedom in their choices of what to study, with many required classes and few really free choices. College students have much more freedom to study what interests them.

So, to ask the obvious question: instead of endlessly tweaking pre-college educational models, why don’t we replace them with the tried-and-true college model that is the envy of the world? Way less time in the classroom, way more freedom and responsibility. This would also have the benefit of actually preparing kids for college, which the current model demonstrably fails to do.