The Wall Street Journal published an article this week that, in line with its usual far-right stance, argued that a libertarian approach to education is far superior to the American system of hiring permanent, accredited teachers.
The article started with the premise, “South Korea's students rank among the best in the world, and its top teachers can make a fortune. Can the US learn from this academic superpower?” The article focused on one South Korean teacher who makes $4M per year, and quoted him as saying, “The harder I work, the more I make... I like that.” In describing this man’s work environment, the article says that 10% of the teachers are fired every year (compared to 2% of public school teachers in the US) and “the teachers are free agents. They don't need to be certified. They don't have benefits or even a guaranteed base salary.“
The monumental idiocy (or deceit) of the article is that it is comparing apples and oranges. South Korea has schools, but what the article is describing is after-school tutoring. The tutor being described creates online classes that are charged per view.
The US also has after-school tutors, and it has companies that seek to make big profits off of tutoring. The difference isn’t the availability of teachers or online courses. The difference is demand, and the real question is why parents in North America aren’t as driven to have their children excel at school. I don’t know about South Korea, but in many colonial countries access to education is competitive, which encourages higher performance but puts the emphasis on rote learning. This pattern exists across a variety of school environments.
In any event, the real problem facing the US is lack of access to post-secondary education. The article focuses on South Korea’s higher rate of high school completion, but a diploma is important mostly as a means of getting into college or university. Many US families know that they can’t afford higher education for their kids. Even where there is an affordable school, the affordable schools tend not to provide first rate training in subjects that lead to high-paid jobs. Government involvement in education should be just the opposite of the libertarian approach. Government should be setting goals for the graduation of doctors, engineers, computer science and the like, and finding ways to meet those goals.
Back in the 90s the center-left was changed by Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, Bob Rae, Jean Chretien and others to what was then called “the third way”. It became a tenet of progressivism that the economy must be healthy, and that progressive governments must be good economic stewards. The idea is to focus on the size of the pie and not just the size of the pieces.
More recently the right has transformed itself just as radically. Conservatism is increasingly becoming libertarian – and libertarianism is a crazy philosophy. Milton Friedman argued that there should be no requirements for calling yourself a medical doctor as the market would sort it out. I always thought of Friedman as a thorough Libertarian nutbar, but this disingenuous WSJ article is calling for the same thing for US public school teachers. It’s difficult for me to understand how these people could be so irrational, wrong-headed and irresponsible.
Showing posts with label progressive. Show all posts
Showing posts with label progressive. Show all posts
Sunday, August 04, 2013
Tuesday, July 07, 2009
The Fourth Way: Proactive Liberal Reaction to Crisis
Like many people, I have been floating along assuming that the recent utter failure of unregulated-market theory would result in a change to more regulation, more government oversight, and more involvement of the public purse.
The opposite may be happening. Large economies are acquiring such massive deficits that national agendas will be overwhelmed in the years 2010-2015 with the need to restore fiscal health. As happened in many countries throughout the 1990s, even liberal governments will become deficit hawks and make restraint their number one priority. Everything will be slashed, including much-needed social programs, foreign aid that has long-term economic benefits... even budgets for regulatory agencies.
Despite all the talk about reducing business cycles, we are now in fact creating a world in which business cycles are enhanced by tag-along government spending cycles. We have a market crash and/or recession, followed by government bailouts and/or stimulus, followed by the development of a new market bubble and/or economic growth, followed by government cutbacks to pay off the bailout/stimulus.
You could argue that the government cutbacks put a damper on the upswing, and they might in fact have a positive effect on dampening inflation, but the problem is that by always reacting to market-caused problems, we never have a coherent, cost-effective or humane economic policy.
Part of the challenge is to create the bureaucratic and public will to achieve something without letting the entire rest of the agenda get swept along. For example, the biggest regulatory debacle in the recent financial crisis was caused by the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS), an American regulatory board that was created after the Savings and Loans crisis in an attempt to impose more effective regulations. But the OTS was created in the early 90s - during the era of deficit reduction priorities - and keeping an eye on the bottom line resulted in the creation of a regulatory board that was directly financed by, and so overly beholden to, the institutions it was supposed to regulate. (More about that here.) The fiscal restraint culture resulted in a new regulatory body that provided less protection and more hazard than ever before.
Conservative politicians revel in the idea of being able to reshape the country during fiscal restraint: it's a great excuse for further gutting public health and ushering in two-tier health care; gutting social spending; and so on. But liberal politicians could prepare for the coming half-decade of government cutbacks by creating a strategic vision for how to handle it.
If we accept that business cycles happen and plan for them, then we can have a more coherent economic agenda. This goes beyond having "shovel ready" infrastructure projects always queued up in anticipation of stimulus need. It may mean forging a new relationship with civil service unions that creates more flexibility in the system - even if not as much flexibility as exists with private sector employees, then at least somewhat more. It means long range economic planning that includes crisis management and that creates strategic priorities that can be maintained through good times and bad. (For example, perhaps instead of granting annual budgets to programs, governments should set up endowments.) It means finding a way to cut back spending that is temporary and humane.
Two decades ago, the "third way" transformed liberal politics by melding fiscal restraint with social progressiveness: by taking responsibility for how to pay for what we want to achieve as a society. Now we need a way to expand liberal principles to deal with economic crises in humanitarian, cost-effective, and coherent ways. Government needs to become less reactive to market shocks. It's not fair to create lavish social programs during rosy times and then slash them a few years later. Equally as disturbing, it's inefficient.
###
The opposite may be happening. Large economies are acquiring such massive deficits that national agendas will be overwhelmed in the years 2010-2015 with the need to restore fiscal health. As happened in many countries throughout the 1990s, even liberal governments will become deficit hawks and make restraint their number one priority. Everything will be slashed, including much-needed social programs, foreign aid that has long-term economic benefits... even budgets for regulatory agencies.
Despite all the talk about reducing business cycles, we are now in fact creating a world in which business cycles are enhanced by tag-along government spending cycles. We have a market crash and/or recession, followed by government bailouts and/or stimulus, followed by the development of a new market bubble and/or economic growth, followed by government cutbacks to pay off the bailout/stimulus.
You could argue that the government cutbacks put a damper on the upswing, and they might in fact have a positive effect on dampening inflation, but the problem is that by always reacting to market-caused problems, we never have a coherent, cost-effective or humane economic policy.
Part of the challenge is to create the bureaucratic and public will to achieve something without letting the entire rest of the agenda get swept along. For example, the biggest regulatory debacle in the recent financial crisis was caused by the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS), an American regulatory board that was created after the Savings and Loans crisis in an attempt to impose more effective regulations. But the OTS was created in the early 90s - during the era of deficit reduction priorities - and keeping an eye on the bottom line resulted in the creation of a regulatory board that was directly financed by, and so overly beholden to, the institutions it was supposed to regulate. (More about that here.) The fiscal restraint culture resulted in a new regulatory body that provided less protection and more hazard than ever before.
Conservative politicians revel in the idea of being able to reshape the country during fiscal restraint: it's a great excuse for further gutting public health and ushering in two-tier health care; gutting social spending; and so on. But liberal politicians could prepare for the coming half-decade of government cutbacks by creating a strategic vision for how to handle it.
If we accept that business cycles happen and plan for them, then we can have a more coherent economic agenda. This goes beyond having "shovel ready" infrastructure projects always queued up in anticipation of stimulus need. It may mean forging a new relationship with civil service unions that creates more flexibility in the system - even if not as much flexibility as exists with private sector employees, then at least somewhat more. It means long range economic planning that includes crisis management and that creates strategic priorities that can be maintained through good times and bad. (For example, perhaps instead of granting annual budgets to programs, governments should set up endowments.) It means finding a way to cut back spending that is temporary and humane.
Two decades ago, the "third way" transformed liberal politics by melding fiscal restraint with social progressiveness: by taking responsibility for how to pay for what we want to achieve as a society. Now we need a way to expand liberal principles to deal with economic crises in humanitarian, cost-effective, and coherent ways. Government needs to become less reactive to market shocks. It's not fair to create lavish social programs during rosy times and then slash them a few years later. Equally as disturbing, it's inefficient.
Sunday, December 16, 2007
Let's Get Back on Track on Liberal Issues
I recently watched a very enjoyable long interview with Jean Chretien on Allan Gregg's show on TVO. The experience reminded me why I like Jean Chretien: his candor and willingness to share his insights without any pretense. One thing that came up that I had forgotten about was that at the end of his term he tried, unsuccessfully, to legalize marijuana.
Legalizing marijuana is one of those things that I tend to forget about because I don't use marijuana or spend any time with anyone who does. But when I do think about it, I realize that it should be a bigger issue. Noone should have a criminal record or spend time in prison because of soft drug use. There is no evidence that marijuana ever leads to other crimes, as more addictive drugs do. There's plenty of evidence that marijuana is less harmful than alcohol. Back in 2001, the US National Review even thought we were about to do it. Let's do it.
While we're at it, let's address some of those other liberal ideas that seem to have got forgotten during two years of right wing rule. Let's take back the government and take on a humanist agenda:
* Social issues
We managed to legalize gay marriage and the fall of western civilization didn't happen. In fact, the biggest issue of the day (when the law was being discussed, I was chased down driveways while canvassing for the Liberal party because people were so upset about it) has turned into a complete non-issue. Let's take on the causes of other people who are treated poorly by our society, such as people with disabilities. Once we acknowledge a problem, making it better is frequently not that difficult.
* Making real improvements on the environment
There is so much that we need to do. Two items at the top of the list: Ontario consumers need to reduce electricity consumption so that we can shut down the Nanticoke coal-fired generating station; and we need to do something now (not 20 years from now) about pollution from the Alberta tar sands. We also need public education to reverse a trend to consume more and more. As long as we continue to build domiciles that are designed to require air conditioning, to build cities that require long car trips to buy a carton of milk, to shut down intercity transit, and on and on and on, we'll get nowhere. In fact, our disposable-consumer society gets worse every day, with a recent trend towards disposable cooking and cleaning products (Swiffer disposal brooms and mops; disposable crock pot liners; disposable microwave bags; and on and on).
* Creating stronger regulations to protect employees
Civil servants with their strong unions may forget this, but most Canadians don't have pensions. Complete reliance on self-directed RRSPs can lead to disaster in these volatile times. We need stronger regulations to protect employees from unjustified firing... and so on.
* Keeping people out of jail
Stephen Harper wants to build more jails and fill them, especially with young people (link). I want to do the opposite: make every effort to keep people out of jails, especially young people.
###
Legalizing marijuana is one of those things that I tend to forget about because I don't use marijuana or spend any time with anyone who does. But when I do think about it, I realize that it should be a bigger issue. Noone should have a criminal record or spend time in prison because of soft drug use. There is no evidence that marijuana ever leads to other crimes, as more addictive drugs do. There's plenty of evidence that marijuana is less harmful than alcohol. Back in 2001, the US National Review even thought we were about to do it. Let's do it.
While we're at it, let's address some of those other liberal ideas that seem to have got forgotten during two years of right wing rule. Let's take back the government and take on a humanist agenda:
* Social issues
We managed to legalize gay marriage and the fall of western civilization didn't happen. In fact, the biggest issue of the day (when the law was being discussed, I was chased down driveways while canvassing for the Liberal party because people were so upset about it) has turned into a complete non-issue. Let's take on the causes of other people who are treated poorly by our society, such as people with disabilities. Once we acknowledge a problem, making it better is frequently not that difficult.
* Making real improvements on the environment
There is so much that we need to do. Two items at the top of the list: Ontario consumers need to reduce electricity consumption so that we can shut down the Nanticoke coal-fired generating station; and we need to do something now (not 20 years from now) about pollution from the Alberta tar sands. We also need public education to reverse a trend to consume more and more. As long as we continue to build domiciles that are designed to require air conditioning, to build cities that require long car trips to buy a carton of milk, to shut down intercity transit, and on and on and on, we'll get nowhere. In fact, our disposable-consumer society gets worse every day, with a recent trend towards disposable cooking and cleaning products (Swiffer disposal brooms and mops; disposable crock pot liners; disposable microwave bags; and on and on).
* Creating stronger regulations to protect employees
Civil servants with their strong unions may forget this, but most Canadians don't have pensions. Complete reliance on self-directed RRSPs can lead to disaster in these volatile times. We need stronger regulations to protect employees from unjustified firing... and so on.
* Keeping people out of jail
Stephen Harper wants to build more jails and fill them, especially with young people (link). I want to do the opposite: make every effort to keep people out of jails, especially young people.
Saturday, October 13, 2007
Facts Counter Conventional Wisdom
The Center for Global Development has released its Commitment to Development Index ranking "21 rich countries on how much they help poor countries build prosperity, good government, and security." Canada's scorecard is somewhat surprising - you might even say it goes against conventional wisdom. To wit:
* Among the G8, Canada ranks 1st overall. Among all 21 industrialized countries, it is tied for 5th.
* Among the G8, Canada ranks 1st in aid.
* Overall, Canada ranks 1st in positive trade policies with developing countries.
Things that run against the grain are not limited to the positive:
* Canada's immigration record is not so hot (it's ranked 9th of 21).
* Canada is ranked 18th of 21 on the environment.
* Canada is ranked 12th of 21 on global security (which includes peacekeeping).
There is nothing surprising about the highest-ranked countries (Holland, Denmark, Sweden and Norway) - they always top indexes of enlightened governance. But I was surprised by the last-place country (and it was not even close to the next-to-last): Japan.
###
* Among the G8, Canada ranks 1st overall. Among all 21 industrialized countries, it is tied for 5th.
* Among the G8, Canada ranks 1st in aid.
* Overall, Canada ranks 1st in positive trade policies with developing countries.
Things that run against the grain are not limited to the positive:
* Canada's immigration record is not so hot (it's ranked 9th of 21).
* Canada is ranked 18th of 21 on the environment.
* Canada is ranked 12th of 21 on global security (which includes peacekeeping).
There is nothing surprising about the highest-ranked countries (Holland, Denmark, Sweden and Norway) - they always top indexes of enlightened governance. But I was surprised by the last-place country (and it was not even close to the next-to-last): Japan.
Thursday, July 26, 2007
France: Enlightened, Progressive - an Evolved Democracy
When France opposed the US invasion of Iraq there was an unbelievable backlash in the US. (We all remember "Freedom fries".) Jokes abounded (and still do) about the French. Some of them were even pretty funny. But it seems likely that they originated in the office of Karl Rove or his ilk, in the now all-too-familiar scenario of the Bush administration striking back at its political opponents.
Recently, however, France's reputation is on the rise. As the Bush administration continues to bomb, torture, wire-tap and generally act like a bunch of murderous thugs, France is emerging as a state of enlightenment that is taking a lead in progressive international affairs.
Michael Moore helped with his portrayal of France in his new film SiCKO. France appears as the most evolved form of democracy in the world - where the state runs more for the benefit of the people rather than overemphasizing the wishes of lobbyists and political donors (as most of us western "democracies" do). French people have the best health care in the world, the strongest employee protection laws, and so on. (And no, the capitalist system did not collapse.)
This week France has been in the news twice in high profile cases. First, Cecilia Sarkozy, wife of the newly elected French president, negotiated a deal with Libyan president Moammar Gadhafi to free Bulgarian medical staff who were facing the death penalty in Libya. (It makes you think that Libya must have been desperate to find a solution to the mess, and that the rest of the world must have been negligent, if Libya was so willing to release the prisoners after speaking to such an unofficial source.)
Then we learn that President Sarkozy named Bernard Kouchner as his new foreign minister - that's the same Kouchner who founded Doctors Without Borders - and in his first week in office, Kouchner convened a summit which led to EU troops mobilizing to help ease the suffering in Darfur. Everyone else seems to be just wringing their hands. (The UN is considering deployment, but is said to be "years away" from being able to send troops.)
I think it's time we all start paying a lot more attention to France, and think about using it as a role model. (In the French press today: a law has just been passed that no income tax will be charged on wages paid for overtime.) Here are some English-language sites I've bookmarked:
The Tocqueville Connection
French News
Expatica
Le Monde Diplomatique
###
Recently, however, France's reputation is on the rise. As the Bush administration continues to bomb, torture, wire-tap and generally act like a bunch of murderous thugs, France is emerging as a state of enlightenment that is taking a lead in progressive international affairs.
Michael Moore helped with his portrayal of France in his new film SiCKO. France appears as the most evolved form of democracy in the world - where the state runs more for the benefit of the people rather than overemphasizing the wishes of lobbyists and political donors (as most of us western "democracies" do). French people have the best health care in the world, the strongest employee protection laws, and so on. (And no, the capitalist system did not collapse.)
This week France has been in the news twice in high profile cases. First, Cecilia Sarkozy, wife of the newly elected French president, negotiated a deal with Libyan president Moammar Gadhafi to free Bulgarian medical staff who were facing the death penalty in Libya. (It makes you think that Libya must have been desperate to find a solution to the mess, and that the rest of the world must have been negligent, if Libya was so willing to release the prisoners after speaking to such an unofficial source.)
Then we learn that President Sarkozy named Bernard Kouchner as his new foreign minister - that's the same Kouchner who founded Doctors Without Borders - and in his first week in office, Kouchner convened a summit which led to EU troops mobilizing to help ease the suffering in Darfur. Everyone else seems to be just wringing their hands. (The UN is considering deployment, but is said to be "years away" from being able to send troops.)
I think it's time we all start paying a lot more attention to France, and think about using it as a role model. (In the French press today: a law has just been passed that no income tax will be charged on wages paid for overtime.) Here are some English-language sites I've bookmarked:
The Tocqueville Connection
French News
Expatica
Le Monde Diplomatique
Saturday, May 20, 2006
I Have a Dream
- US President Al Gore
- US Vice-President Hillary Clinton
- Canadian Prime Minister Bob Rae
Just imagine the world we could create: fiscally, environmentally and socially responsible; fiscally, environmentally and socially progressive. Leaders who have a sincere desire to make the world a better place for all, and the vision and skill set to make great improvements.
Okay, it won't happen, at least not in the US. But playing with the idea brings to mind the oft-heard comment on the left that it doesn't matter who's in power (Liberal/Conservative, Democrat/Republican) because they're all the same.
That's so tragically untrue that it's criminally negligent. (I mean you, Ralph Nader.) Can anyone argue that the US is the same place with George Bush at its helm as it would have been with Al Gore? Does anyone remember all the great things that Jimmy Carter did? Imagine the world if he had been reelected (as he might have been if not for Iran) and if the entire Reagan era had never happened.
I believe that presidents and prime ministers should govern from the middle. Once elected, their constituents are not just the folks who voted for them - a leader must represent and do right by everyone. That means that the base doesn't get everything they want. Being a left-wing politician means you care about everyone's welfare, and you don't enact economic policies that benefit the employed by creating more unemployed. But governing from the middle and being fiscally responsible does not mean that a center-left government is anything like a right-wing government.
Another sentiment popular in both the US and Canada these days is that all parties are so corrupt that it doesn't matter who you vote for. I think we really need to give ourselves a shake and drop all this cynical crap. Most politicians are honest and our political system works. There has been corruption but it's not systemic. If you want to see what systemic corruption feels like, try living and working in Africa for a little while. When there is systemic corruption, you won't just read about it in the news; when it exists, you'll experience it first-hand.
In the case of Canada we had a financial scandal that toppled our government. It was a very serious scandal and we should do all we can to ensure nothing like it ever happens again. However, let's keep it in perspective. This scandal occurred in a desperate attempt to keep Quebec from separating from the rest of Canada. It seems likely that the financial scandal was not the whole story; there was probably also voter fraud in the 1995 sovereignty referendum. The people who did these things should be punished and steps should be taken to prevent them from happening again, but this kind of malfeasance is different from personal financial corruption.
I'm not claiming that we have never had any corrupt politicians who used their position to get rich. Before letting the Tories take the high ground on the corruption issue, everyone should read Stevie Cameron's 1995 classic On the Take: Crime, Corruption and Greed in the Mulroney Years, which details the hundreds of things the Mulroneys did to line their pockets while he was prime minister. One of her most serious allegations, the Karl Schreiber Airbus scandal, has since been confirmed by Schreiber, who admits to giving Mulroney hundreds of thousands of dollars. Keep in mind that the litigious Mr. Mulroney never tried to sue Cameron over any of her allegations.
I recently read an Ipsos Reid poll that said only 20% of Canadians support conservative values and policies. For everyone who does, I say vive la difference and go for it. But for those who have different values, it's tragic that our own cynicism and partisan blinkers should keep us from achieving our vision.
###
- US Vice-President Hillary Clinton
- Canadian Prime Minister Bob Rae
Just imagine the world we could create: fiscally, environmentally and socially responsible; fiscally, environmentally and socially progressive. Leaders who have a sincere desire to make the world a better place for all, and the vision and skill set to make great improvements.
Okay, it won't happen, at least not in the US. But playing with the idea brings to mind the oft-heard comment on the left that it doesn't matter who's in power (Liberal/Conservative, Democrat/Republican) because they're all the same.
That's so tragically untrue that it's criminally negligent. (I mean you, Ralph Nader.) Can anyone argue that the US is the same place with George Bush at its helm as it would have been with Al Gore? Does anyone remember all the great things that Jimmy Carter did? Imagine the world if he had been reelected (as he might have been if not for Iran) and if the entire Reagan era had never happened.
I believe that presidents and prime ministers should govern from the middle. Once elected, their constituents are not just the folks who voted for them - a leader must represent and do right by everyone. That means that the base doesn't get everything they want. Being a left-wing politician means you care about everyone's welfare, and you don't enact economic policies that benefit the employed by creating more unemployed. But governing from the middle and being fiscally responsible does not mean that a center-left government is anything like a right-wing government.
Another sentiment popular in both the US and Canada these days is that all parties are so corrupt that it doesn't matter who you vote for. I think we really need to give ourselves a shake and drop all this cynical crap. Most politicians are honest and our political system works. There has been corruption but it's not systemic. If you want to see what systemic corruption feels like, try living and working in Africa for a little while. When there is systemic corruption, you won't just read about it in the news; when it exists, you'll experience it first-hand.
In the case of Canada we had a financial scandal that toppled our government. It was a very serious scandal and we should do all we can to ensure nothing like it ever happens again. However, let's keep it in perspective. This scandal occurred in a desperate attempt to keep Quebec from separating from the rest of Canada. It seems likely that the financial scandal was not the whole story; there was probably also voter fraud in the 1995 sovereignty referendum. The people who did these things should be punished and steps should be taken to prevent them from happening again, but this kind of malfeasance is different from personal financial corruption.
I'm not claiming that we have never had any corrupt politicians who used their position to get rich. Before letting the Tories take the high ground on the corruption issue, everyone should read Stevie Cameron's 1995 classic On the Take: Crime, Corruption and Greed in the Mulroney Years, which details the hundreds of things the Mulroneys did to line their pockets while he was prime minister. One of her most serious allegations, the Karl Schreiber Airbus scandal, has since been confirmed by Schreiber, who admits to giving Mulroney hundreds of thousands of dollars. Keep in mind that the litigious Mr. Mulroney never tried to sue Cameron over any of her allegations.
I recently read an Ipsos Reid poll that said only 20% of Canadians support conservative values and policies. For everyone who does, I say vive la difference and go for it. But for those who have different values, it's tragic that our own cynicism and partisan blinkers should keep us from achieving our vision.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)