What do you think of our "busy body government"? I don't like it. I don't want the government to "give" me anything nor do I want the government to take anything away from me. Am I strange? I don't think so. We all know that the government does not have anything, so how can they give you anything? Good question. They do it by taking property from someone else and giving it to you. If this is such a good concept, why don't you cut out the middle man and just go over to your neighbor and steal his property? It is the same thing isn't it? We all know that in the whole world that there many people who are in different situations than others. Some live where it is warm and others live where it is cold. Should a do gooder, busy body government make the person in the warm area supply fuel to the person in the colder area? The key word here is "make". I have donated many things to help people, but I do not donate to people who have not helped themselves. Why should I have to give some of my earnings to a person who dropped out of school and thus can not find a job? It seems to me that the punishment for dropping out of school is to have to live a life of poverty. If the person chose poverty, why should I be "made" to take wealth from my family to allow them to live a more prosperous life? I have blogged before that I do not see a problem helping people who are mentally retarded or have serious handicaps that are not of their making, but I am not going to be made to help people who have made serious choices or who are not willing to work.
Remember Jamestown? My family was there. Remember John Smith telling the settlers that if they did not work, they would not eat? That was back in 1608 and John Smith had it right. Have you noticed that all these do gooders never spend their money to help other people? They are more like community organizers who help people by figuring out how they can get money from someone else. I know that it is difficult for liberals to understand this simple fact, but Republicans and Christians give a larger percentage of their wealth, voluntarily, to help those in need.
Obamacare is a good example of our "busy body, do gooder" government ruining our health care system in order to help a few who, most of whom, created their own problem. What percentage of those who do not have health insurance dropped out of school or had children out of wedlock or are into drugs? For those who went to college, how many did not graduate, or who took worthless majors? We have to stop thinking that we have to help these people and that it is right for our government, at the point of a gun, to take our property and give it to one of these irresponsible people. There is pain in this world and most of it is there for a very good reason. Pain is about all that Darwin has to help the human race progress. We are starting to find out what our world would look like without pain. I don't think that I would want to live in a world without pain because I know what it would look like and what those human that I would have to live with would be like.
PS---Remember when Obama was a "Community Organizer"? He was not donating his time or money to help anyone. He was a "paid" volunteer who was organizing people to get the government to take property from others and give it to them. Sounds a little like organized theft to me. Now that he has gotten into the White House, do you think he has changed in any way? The people who Obama was organizing had "pain" because Darwin was trying to punish them for bad decisions in life or for not being willing to work. Do you think the problem was with Darwin or Obama? I put my trust in Darwin, not in Obama.
Monday, March 17, 2014
Friday, March 14, 2014
Medical Insurance And Obamacare
I have been watching developments in Obamacare and one thing that has not been made clear is how health insurance really fits in. For starters, most people have zero understanding of how health or any other kind of insurance actually works. I have talked to all kinds of people and most feel that they are going to "save" money by purchasing insurance of one type or another. It is a little like going to the casino where "most" people are winners. There is no such thing as insurance where most people save money, just like there is no casino where most people are winners. Now for the blog.
One of the "tricks" that exists in health care that leads most people to the wrong conclusion is the fact that insurance companies do not pay the amount on the bill that you see. Here is how it works. Let's say you went to a hospital for some procedure and the bill was $1000. That is a lot. If you did not have health insurance, you would be out $1000 right now. Now, for the insurance company. They screw the hospital and the doctors and only pay the hospital $500. The reason that the hospital makes individuals with cash pay the $1000 is to make up for the fact that the hospital needs to collect at least $600, on average, for this procedure to stay in business. When you buy health insurance, the main thing you get is goons who work for the insurance companies working for you. If you know 4th grade math and find that the insurance only had a cost of $800, it would be clear that you actually "saved" money by purchasing health insurance. You might have saved, but it is clear that you saved for the wrong reason. Here is what Obamacare should have done.
One part of Obamacare states that the insurance companies have to pay out a minimum of 90% of their gross sales to the hospitals and doctors. How they would calculate this 90% is beyond any kind of logic. On the other side, Obamacare promises that the insurance companies that if they do not make some minimum percentage of profit, us tax payers will bail them out. A more logical solution would have been to require hospitals and doctors to give individuals paying cash a 10% discount below what they charged insurance companies. The idea for the 10% discount is that hospitals and doctors get paid much faster and they don't have to deal with all the paperwork associated with dealing with an insurance company. In the example above, you would not pay $1000 in cash, you would only have to pay $450 in cash. Now look at that health insurance policy that had a cost of $800. It did not save you anything, it cost you $350 extra.
The bottom line to all this is that individuals taking care of their own health cost is by far the cheapest way to go. We are spending `17% of our GNP on health care and by policies that exposed the insurance scam and getting more people to take care of their own health care cost would be much better than Obamacare. Any time you centralize the control of anything, the efficiency goes down and the cost goes up.
PS--When I presented this concept to a group, several stated that our military was big, but it was an example of big being efficient. I pointed out that this was totally wrong. Answer this one. What does it cost the Jihadists to kill one of our soldiers in Afghanistan and what does it cost us to kill one of them? This is a measure of efficiency.
One of the "tricks" that exists in health care that leads most people to the wrong conclusion is the fact that insurance companies do not pay the amount on the bill that you see. Here is how it works. Let's say you went to a hospital for some procedure and the bill was $1000. That is a lot. If you did not have health insurance, you would be out $1000 right now. Now, for the insurance company. They screw the hospital and the doctors and only pay the hospital $500. The reason that the hospital makes individuals with cash pay the $1000 is to make up for the fact that the hospital needs to collect at least $600, on average, for this procedure to stay in business. When you buy health insurance, the main thing you get is goons who work for the insurance companies working for you. If you know 4th grade math and find that the insurance only had a cost of $800, it would be clear that you actually "saved" money by purchasing health insurance. You might have saved, but it is clear that you saved for the wrong reason. Here is what Obamacare should have done.
One part of Obamacare states that the insurance companies have to pay out a minimum of 90% of their gross sales to the hospitals and doctors. How they would calculate this 90% is beyond any kind of logic. On the other side, Obamacare promises that the insurance companies that if they do not make some minimum percentage of profit, us tax payers will bail them out. A more logical solution would have been to require hospitals and doctors to give individuals paying cash a 10% discount below what they charged insurance companies. The idea for the 10% discount is that hospitals and doctors get paid much faster and they don't have to deal with all the paperwork associated with dealing with an insurance company. In the example above, you would not pay $1000 in cash, you would only have to pay $450 in cash. Now look at that health insurance policy that had a cost of $800. It did not save you anything, it cost you $350 extra.
The bottom line to all this is that individuals taking care of their own health cost is by far the cheapest way to go. We are spending `17% of our GNP on health care and by policies that exposed the insurance scam and getting more people to take care of their own health care cost would be much better than Obamacare. Any time you centralize the control of anything, the efficiency goes down and the cost goes up.
PS--When I presented this concept to a group, several stated that our military was big, but it was an example of big being efficient. I pointed out that this was totally wrong. Answer this one. What does it cost the Jihadists to kill one of our soldiers in Afghanistan and what does it cost us to kill one of them? This is a measure of efficiency.
Thursday, March 13, 2014
"Quantity Has A Quality All Its Own"
Did you ever hear this one? The first time that I ever heard it was in a documentary interview with a Russian General about WWII. The Germans had the best "Quality" equipment and the Russian had only what they could fashion together. How could Russia expect to win given this situation? What the Russians had was "quantity". It was the same for us in WWII. Our main asset was "quantity" pure and simple. That is what defeated both Germany and Japan. Our own Civil War was exactly the same. The North had the "quantity" and the South had the "quality" and you know how that battle turned out. This brings me to the point of this blog and it goes like this. "Low cost has a quality all its own". Now, what do I mean about this?
Look at many of our kids today. Notice how many will only wear cloths of a special brand? I know very young kids who demand that special brands and parents who go along. These are normally much more expensive cloths and as a result, the kid has to settle for fewer new cloths or the family has to give up something. This concept applies to all kinds of things, like toys, cars, computers, cell phones. I have heard people say that if they can not have the special brand or model that they want, then they don't want any. It seems like this concept has woven itself all through our society. You may even agree with this concept in many situations. It applies to food too. Many people would rather go hungry than to eat something that was of lower quality. You know this is true, but does it affect the bigger picture? Yes!
I just purchased a new 1-1/2" wood chisel for over $100 because I "wanted" it. I checked on Harbor Freight and I could buy a whole set of wood chisels for less than $10. Now, the Harbor Freight chisels are not as high a quality as the one I just purchased, but think of it this way. There are 10 times as many people out there who can not afford the $100 chisel and thus would have to go without any wood chisels if it were not for the low prices at Harbor Freight. Think of the "quality" of life for those people who could not afford the $100 chisel if there were no $10 set of chisels available? I think that you are starting to see the concept. To satisfy the greatest number of people, the first phase is to provide the lowest cost tools. It would be the same with shoes, cheap shoes vs no shoes. A company that made cheap shoes provides "quality" just as well as the company that makes fancy brand shoes.
Look at Obamacare. It started off from the point that at least 10% or 15% of our population does not have health insurance. That might be true, but it does not mean that they do not have or get adequate health care. I don't know of a case where anyone who did not have health insurance did not get adequate health care. Do you? No emergency room turns away sick or injured people with or without health insurance. So what was the "real" problem? I guess it was that too many people had "substandard health care". Why did Obama go for "Superior" quality rather than first getting basic coverage for those who did not have health care insurance? That is because he is as stupid as the young kids that I described above or their parents. Maybe, Obama knows how stupid the voters are and has no problem taking advantage of their stupidity.
Low cost has a quality all its own. We need to remember that and not get on our high horse and demand that we have the very best until everyone has the low cost item.
PS----Did you ever read the book " Two Years Before The Mast " by W. H. Dana? If you did, you may recall his description of the "Spanish Dandies" who strutted around Monterrey looking like little Banty Roosters. They all wore fancy cloths made in Spain in the dusty frontier town of Monterrey. They only had "one" change of cloths, but if they were willing to wear cheap locally made cloths they would not have smelled so bad.
Look at many of our kids today. Notice how many will only wear cloths of a special brand? I know very young kids who demand that special brands and parents who go along. These are normally much more expensive cloths and as a result, the kid has to settle for fewer new cloths or the family has to give up something. This concept applies to all kinds of things, like toys, cars, computers, cell phones. I have heard people say that if they can not have the special brand or model that they want, then they don't want any. It seems like this concept has woven itself all through our society. You may even agree with this concept in many situations. It applies to food too. Many people would rather go hungry than to eat something that was of lower quality. You know this is true, but does it affect the bigger picture? Yes!
I just purchased a new 1-1/2" wood chisel for over $100 because I "wanted" it. I checked on Harbor Freight and I could buy a whole set of wood chisels for less than $10. Now, the Harbor Freight chisels are not as high a quality as the one I just purchased, but think of it this way. There are 10 times as many people out there who can not afford the $100 chisel and thus would have to go without any wood chisels if it were not for the low prices at Harbor Freight. Think of the "quality" of life for those people who could not afford the $100 chisel if there were no $10 set of chisels available? I think that you are starting to see the concept. To satisfy the greatest number of people, the first phase is to provide the lowest cost tools. It would be the same with shoes, cheap shoes vs no shoes. A company that made cheap shoes provides "quality" just as well as the company that makes fancy brand shoes.
Look at Obamacare. It started off from the point that at least 10% or 15% of our population does not have health insurance. That might be true, but it does not mean that they do not have or get adequate health care. I don't know of a case where anyone who did not have health insurance did not get adequate health care. Do you? No emergency room turns away sick or injured people with or without health insurance. So what was the "real" problem? I guess it was that too many people had "substandard health care". Why did Obama go for "Superior" quality rather than first getting basic coverage for those who did not have health care insurance? That is because he is as stupid as the young kids that I described above or their parents. Maybe, Obama knows how stupid the voters are and has no problem taking advantage of their stupidity.
Low cost has a quality all its own. We need to remember that and not get on our high horse and demand that we have the very best until everyone has the low cost item.
PS----Did you ever read the book " Two Years Before The Mast " by W. H. Dana? If you did, you may recall his description of the "Spanish Dandies" who strutted around Monterrey looking like little Banty Roosters. They all wore fancy cloths made in Spain in the dusty frontier town of Monterrey. They only had "one" change of cloths, but if they were willing to wear cheap locally made cloths they would not have smelled so bad.
Wednesday, March 12, 2014
Socialization Myth
How many times have you heard someone involved in education expound on the importance of "socialization" of our children? I hear it all the time when it comes to "home schooled" kids. Unionized teachers may agree that home schooled kids do much better on tests than public schooled kids, "But" what about their "socialization"? I have hired, trained and fired many people over the past 50 years and I have never hired or fired anyone because they lacked proper "socialization". In no interview have I ever heard anyone ask about how "popular" the person was in school or how many good friends that they had. If the facts are so clear, how do you think our public schools got off on the "socialization" tangent? Today, it is more important to "get along" and be "liked" than it is to learn anything. I always thought that the purpose of schools was to teach the person what they needed to learn in order to deal with "life". Was I wrong?
We now have a new problem and that is "social networking". Our kids and parents too have bought into idea that "social networking" has some value. I think that this whole concept has grown out of the message that our kids have been getting from our public school teachers and administrators. They created a "market" that the electronic gadget makers just capitalized on. If you have not noticed that our kids spend more time on their electronic gadgets socializing with people that they do not even know than with real people including their parents. This is where we need to take a more mature look at what has happened and how it affects other aspects of our lives.
Did you ever hear of the concept, "time thief"? This is something that steals "time". How can you steal time and what difference does that make? We only have so much time and if you shift how you use that time to a new item, it means that you had to "steal" that time from something else that you were spending that time on. Simple concept. What our kids have been doing for thousands of years is hanging around with their immediate family learning their roll. I researched the genealogy of my family and had to dig into a lot of census records. What I found were "families" and these families were made up of a mixture of individuals from children to mothers and fathers and in some cases grand parents. Let's say that the typical family had 6 members made up like this:
(1) One grand parent
(2) Two parents
(3) Three kids from ages 4, 10 and 15
Take the youngest kid who was 4 years old and look at the environment that they socialized in. This 4 year old saw two parents working to earn a living and care for the grand parent and their two older siblings. There was a lot to learn in this environment about the world and how to function in it. Now contrast that to a kid 10 years old who spent most of their family time socializing on an electronic gadget to kids their own age that they never saw. What do you think of the mental growth of that 10 year old of today compared to that 4 year old from the census records? No comparison. For every minute that our kids today are punching their thumbs on those electronic gadgets is a minute that they have taken away from one of the primary methods of historical learning.
I don't know why it is that people today jump to conclusions that they know better how to raise kids or educate them in the fundamentals of life than all the thousands of people and years that came before them. We did not all get here by accident and by methods that were not proven to work. Darwin was there all the time sorting out those methods and people who did not get it right and he did a very good job. Many parents are proud that their kids can operate one of these electronic gadgets at a very young age. They see this as a good thing when, in fact, the valuable parent-child time is being "stolen" by that gadget. I know families who do not allow their kids to watch TV or play with these brain numbing gadgets, but they are few and far in between. I have found their kids very well socialized without the parents being by passed.
The next time that you hear someone make a stupid statement about "socialization", step forward and set them straight that it ranks right up there with Global Warming and Diversity and is only a way to steal you time and money. Tell them that Darwin had it right and that you are "standing with Darwin".
PS---Remember my blog about comfortable shoes and what makes a shoe comfortable? A comfortable shoe is one that requires your foot muscles to do the "least" work. Wearing comfortable shoes eventually will make your feet weaker until you have even more foot problems. It is the same with kids socializing with other young kids their own age. It is the least demanding environment and the kids like it. It is comfortable where the kids learn and develop the least. Hanging with the old fashion extended family is a lot more stressful and like shoes that are not comfortable, they learn more and get stronger. Did you ever hear of a kid who learned how to play the piano by hanging around with young kids their own age? I did not think so.
We now have a new problem and that is "social networking". Our kids and parents too have bought into idea that "social networking" has some value. I think that this whole concept has grown out of the message that our kids have been getting from our public school teachers and administrators. They created a "market" that the electronic gadget makers just capitalized on. If you have not noticed that our kids spend more time on their electronic gadgets socializing with people that they do not even know than with real people including their parents. This is where we need to take a more mature look at what has happened and how it affects other aspects of our lives.
Did you ever hear of the concept, "time thief"? This is something that steals "time". How can you steal time and what difference does that make? We only have so much time and if you shift how you use that time to a new item, it means that you had to "steal" that time from something else that you were spending that time on. Simple concept. What our kids have been doing for thousands of years is hanging around with their immediate family learning their roll. I researched the genealogy of my family and had to dig into a lot of census records. What I found were "families" and these families were made up of a mixture of individuals from children to mothers and fathers and in some cases grand parents. Let's say that the typical family had 6 members made up like this:
(1) One grand parent
(2) Two parents
(3) Three kids from ages 4, 10 and 15
Take the youngest kid who was 4 years old and look at the environment that they socialized in. This 4 year old saw two parents working to earn a living and care for the grand parent and their two older siblings. There was a lot to learn in this environment about the world and how to function in it. Now contrast that to a kid 10 years old who spent most of their family time socializing on an electronic gadget to kids their own age that they never saw. What do you think of the mental growth of that 10 year old of today compared to that 4 year old from the census records? No comparison. For every minute that our kids today are punching their thumbs on those electronic gadgets is a minute that they have taken away from one of the primary methods of historical learning.
I don't know why it is that people today jump to conclusions that they know better how to raise kids or educate them in the fundamentals of life than all the thousands of people and years that came before them. We did not all get here by accident and by methods that were not proven to work. Darwin was there all the time sorting out those methods and people who did not get it right and he did a very good job. Many parents are proud that their kids can operate one of these electronic gadgets at a very young age. They see this as a good thing when, in fact, the valuable parent-child time is being "stolen" by that gadget. I know families who do not allow their kids to watch TV or play with these brain numbing gadgets, but they are few and far in between. I have found their kids very well socialized without the parents being by passed.
The next time that you hear someone make a stupid statement about "socialization", step forward and set them straight that it ranks right up there with Global Warming and Diversity and is only a way to steal you time and money. Tell them that Darwin had it right and that you are "standing with Darwin".
PS---Remember my blog about comfortable shoes and what makes a shoe comfortable? A comfortable shoe is one that requires your foot muscles to do the "least" work. Wearing comfortable shoes eventually will make your feet weaker until you have even more foot problems. It is the same with kids socializing with other young kids their own age. It is the least demanding environment and the kids like it. It is comfortable where the kids learn and develop the least. Hanging with the old fashion extended family is a lot more stressful and like shoes that are not comfortable, they learn more and get stronger. Did you ever hear of a kid who learned how to play the piano by hanging around with young kids their own age? I did not think so.
Tuesday, March 11, 2014
What Happened To The Hippies?
I think that I blogged on this topic before, but I have a new slant. Do you remember the 60's? That is when we had the "Hippie" movement. Much was related to the war in Vietnam, but there was a lot more. The kids of the 60's were the first generation of Americans that were really spoiled. Their parents came thru the Great Depression, WWII and the boom after. They had more wealth than anyone could remember and they lavished that wealth on their kids. We got richer over the next few years, but this was the start. Most parents wanted their kids to go to college and "not" have to work as hard as they had too. Parents felt that these good times would continue and their kids could enjoy a good life by not having to work so hard. The problem with all this was that it was a "one time" deal that was not going to go on and on. The USA economy would eventually tend back to "normal" and the rest of the world would rebound. That is exactly what did happen. Now what about the Hippie kids.
Many of these kids did go onto college, but they did not work as hard as their parents. I noticed back in the 60's that "zero" of these hippies went into the STEM's like engineering. They went into easy majors like Political Science, Psychology or Teaching. A few went onto Law School because they saw this as a path to "get even" for many of the"bad" things going on in their world. This is the start. I have tracked many of the hippies as they have grown older. To this day, they still hang around with the same hippie groups from their youth. Some even wear the costumes of the times at their advanced ages. It looks strange, but they just can't change their "spots". Once they bought into the Hippie mental state, to change now would mean that they would have to admit that they were conned and most do not have the honesty of character to do that. I would go even farther and state that most are aligned with the socially active Democrats. They did not like their world back in the 60's and still are working to change it. Obama tapped into their mental state when he said that he wanted to "change" the USA. Since Obama did not define how he wanted to change the USA, the old Hippies used the image that they had in their heads from the 60's.
The other side of all this is the fact that those Hippies who went into teaching have ended up in the class rooms with our children. They have a "open season" on the minds of our kids and we don't even know it. Why else do parent find that their kids have such strange ideas. Their kids spend more time being brainwashed by old hippies than they do with their own parents. With the addition of the little personal computers or electronic games, the ratio of influence has gotten even worse. Kids now spend the time that they used to spend with their parents punching the buttons on their electronic games, but the hippie teachers have your kid's minds without the distraction of the electronic games. Never thought about that did you? This is what I call a "double whammy". Parental influence on their own kids was greatly reduced while good teachers retired and hippie teachers took over.
I try my best to find the "cause" of problems so that I know what needs to change to cure the problem. This concept applies to things like minimum wage, health care and the decline in SAT scores. Think about it. What changed and when did it start changing?
Many of these kids did go onto college, but they did not work as hard as their parents. I noticed back in the 60's that "zero" of these hippies went into the STEM's like engineering. They went into easy majors like Political Science, Psychology or Teaching. A few went onto Law School because they saw this as a path to "get even" for many of the"bad" things going on in their world. This is the start. I have tracked many of the hippies as they have grown older. To this day, they still hang around with the same hippie groups from their youth. Some even wear the costumes of the times at their advanced ages. It looks strange, but they just can't change their "spots". Once they bought into the Hippie mental state, to change now would mean that they would have to admit that they were conned and most do not have the honesty of character to do that. I would go even farther and state that most are aligned with the socially active Democrats. They did not like their world back in the 60's and still are working to change it. Obama tapped into their mental state when he said that he wanted to "change" the USA. Since Obama did not define how he wanted to change the USA, the old Hippies used the image that they had in their heads from the 60's.
The other side of all this is the fact that those Hippies who went into teaching have ended up in the class rooms with our children. They have a "open season" on the minds of our kids and we don't even know it. Why else do parent find that their kids have such strange ideas. Their kids spend more time being brainwashed by old hippies than they do with their own parents. With the addition of the little personal computers or electronic games, the ratio of influence has gotten even worse. Kids now spend the time that they used to spend with their parents punching the buttons on their electronic games, but the hippie teachers have your kid's minds without the distraction of the electronic games. Never thought about that did you? This is what I call a "double whammy". Parental influence on their own kids was greatly reduced while good teachers retired and hippie teachers took over.
I try my best to find the "cause" of problems so that I know what needs to change to cure the problem. This concept applies to things like minimum wage, health care and the decline in SAT scores. Think about it. What changed and when did it start changing?
Monday, March 10, 2014
Argentina Vs USA
You have all heard the expression, "history repeats itself" or "what goes around comes around". What does this have to do with any comparison between Argentina and the USA? That is the point of this blog. I used to live in Buenos Aires and know more than a little about Argentina. I have a friend here in the USA who I was surprised was born in Argentina. As it turned out his parents immigrated from Europe wanting to come to the USA, but could only get a ship to Argentina. I have another good friend in California whose grandfather settled in Chile. The reason was that at the time, Buenos Aires was half way between New York City and San Francisco. Now, Buenos Aires is far off the normal path. In 1945, Argentina had the highest per capita income of any country in the world. There was a common expression, "as rich as an Argentine" and they were rich. Many people played polo on a regular basis and took frequent trips to Paris for holiday. Argentines lived "high on the hog". The country was so rich that the government could hand out money to the people to maintain their "high style" and still have money left over. What this did was to create an "attitude" in the Argentine people which turned out to really have been a "curse".
Now, how does the USA stack up against what happened in Argentina? For several years now we have been borrowing 20% of our federal budget rather than funding it all with out taxes. We are spending this money as though it was money that we earned or produced when, in fact, it is money that our children will have to eventually pay back. What Argentina did was to spend money that was a "one time" wind fall, much like winning the lottery. Argentina was neutral during WWII and traded with all sides earning fabulous wealth. When the war was over and other countries had been rebuilt, the previous flow of wealth stopped flowing into Argentina. The people of Argentina got used to living high on the hog and no one wanted to be the one who had to give up the good life that they had gotten used too. Down deep, the Argentine mentality was that they were "rich" regardless of the actual financial situation. Argentines who owned large farms out in the country side "all" had fancy villas in Buenos Aires where they could enjoy the arts and finer aspects of life. Many city people in Buenos Aires own their own horses that they kept in private stables in the city so that they could take Sunday rides in the large parks through out the city. In terms of fashion, Argentines felt that they enjoyed the highest European fashions because they were 6 months ahead of the season in Europe. Europe got the new styles after they had been first shown in Buenos Aires. When I lived there, I had several custom tailored suits made for me. The custom was to pick the style you wanted from a current issue of one of the top fashion magazines. I wore suits styles 6 months before you could purchase the same style in New York City.
The above is to set the stage for what I feel is most likely to happen here in the USA. We are living beyond our means at all levels just like Argentina. We now feel that we "deserve" the high level of living that we enjoy and thus will not give it up. If you watch what has happened in Argentina for the past 50 or 60 years, you can easily see the same thing happening here. I don't think that Argentina is in the top 100 countries in terms of per capita income and they are still going down. They have to stop going down before they can start going up.
Look at us. We are dropping like a rock in terms of education. Our government spends money that we do not have to under write mortgages on homes that are too expensive for us to afford. We have over a trillion dollars of out standing debit in student loans that our kids can not earn or produce enough wealth to pay back. Obama just installed a "better" Obamacare medical system that will cost our percentage of GNP from 17% to at least 25%. Argentina also passed a minimum wage law similar to that being proposed by Obama. They even add a 13th months bonus pay for workers every year. How is that? Add to this all the Green and Global Warming mandates that will have to be paid for out of our sick GNP. The formula here is exactly the same as we have seen in Argentina. We are going down the tubes and before we can get better, we have to stop getting worse. After over 50 years, Argentina is still getting worse.
PS----What does Argentina mean? Silver. Does the USA mean "Gold"?
Now, how does the USA stack up against what happened in Argentina? For several years now we have been borrowing 20% of our federal budget rather than funding it all with out taxes. We are spending this money as though it was money that we earned or produced when, in fact, it is money that our children will have to eventually pay back. What Argentina did was to spend money that was a "one time" wind fall, much like winning the lottery. Argentina was neutral during WWII and traded with all sides earning fabulous wealth. When the war was over and other countries had been rebuilt, the previous flow of wealth stopped flowing into Argentina. The people of Argentina got used to living high on the hog and no one wanted to be the one who had to give up the good life that they had gotten used too. Down deep, the Argentine mentality was that they were "rich" regardless of the actual financial situation. Argentines who owned large farms out in the country side "all" had fancy villas in Buenos Aires where they could enjoy the arts and finer aspects of life. Many city people in Buenos Aires own their own horses that they kept in private stables in the city so that they could take Sunday rides in the large parks through out the city. In terms of fashion, Argentines felt that they enjoyed the highest European fashions because they were 6 months ahead of the season in Europe. Europe got the new styles after they had been first shown in Buenos Aires. When I lived there, I had several custom tailored suits made for me. The custom was to pick the style you wanted from a current issue of one of the top fashion magazines. I wore suits styles 6 months before you could purchase the same style in New York City.
The above is to set the stage for what I feel is most likely to happen here in the USA. We are living beyond our means at all levels just like Argentina. We now feel that we "deserve" the high level of living that we enjoy and thus will not give it up. If you watch what has happened in Argentina for the past 50 or 60 years, you can easily see the same thing happening here. I don't think that Argentina is in the top 100 countries in terms of per capita income and they are still going down. They have to stop going down before they can start going up.
Look at us. We are dropping like a rock in terms of education. Our government spends money that we do not have to under write mortgages on homes that are too expensive for us to afford. We have over a trillion dollars of out standing debit in student loans that our kids can not earn or produce enough wealth to pay back. Obama just installed a "better" Obamacare medical system that will cost our percentage of GNP from 17% to at least 25%. Argentina also passed a minimum wage law similar to that being proposed by Obama. They even add a 13th months bonus pay for workers every year. How is that? Add to this all the Green and Global Warming mandates that will have to be paid for out of our sick GNP. The formula here is exactly the same as we have seen in Argentina. We are going down the tubes and before we can get better, we have to stop getting worse. After over 50 years, Argentina is still getting worse.
PS----What does Argentina mean? Silver. Does the USA mean "Gold"?
Sunday, March 9, 2014
Honor Roll Scam
I was driving down the highway the other day and saw a bumper sticker that said, "My dog is smarter than you honor roll student". How may other bumper stickers have you seen that said, "Honor roll student on board"? It seems that parents put a lot of weight on having their kids on the "Honor Roll". Like a lot of things from the past, being on the honor roll used to be a big deal. It showed to the world that you were "smart" and a "hard worker". The problem with the honor roll now is that it has been scammed. In the past, only about 10% of the kids made the honor roll, but today it is up to at least 50%. I know kids who took easy classes in high school in order to get higher grades so that they could be on the honor roll. I know that you also knew kids and parents like this too.
Look at it this way. About 50 years ago the kids here in the USA ranked in the top 5 in terms of educational performance, but now we are not even in the top 25. Now at the same time, the percentage of our kids who made the honor roll has gone up from about 10% to 50%. What do you think just might be wrong with these numbers? For starters, having 50% on the honor roll is bull shit.
50 years ago, 90% of the students in our major universities who earned Masters or PhD's were born here in the USA and graduated from our high schools. Today it is the other way around when it comes to the important STEM advanced degrees. 90% were born outside the USA and attended high schools outside the USA. Are you starting to see the "scam"?
When I was about 13 years old, I got my first slide rule. It was one of those cheap plastic things. It was a little complicated, but it could do calculations that the electronic calculators our kids have today could not do. It could also do most of the calculations faster than many electronic calculators. That was because is was an "analog" calculator that gave you instant results. The slide rule also had all the "Trig" functions on it too. Very few of the electronic calculators that most of our kids use now can handle "Trig" functions. A good plastic slide rule costs less than $5.00 and can do much more than most electronic calculators and can also give your kid needed mental exercise at the same time.
I think that if we can ever find the person who started "new math" or allowed calculators and computers into our class rooms that we will have found the cause of the decline in the quality of education in the USA. I know a lot of good intentioned educators thought that the calculation of the answer to a math problem was just a bunch of "busy work" that wasted student's time that they could apply to "real" learning. Their mistake was that the "work" to calculate the answer was a major part of the learning. Do you think that "spell check" on one's computer makes one a better speller? I think that you have your answer.
I hate to keep bad mouthing our public school teachers, but it has been my personal experience that the average teacher of today is far below those of 50 years ago in almost every way. The teachers of 50 years ago were much "smarter" than those of today. This has been proven by SAT scores and IQ testing. It does not matter how many years the teachers of today spent in college. Most today do not graduate with real academic degrees like those in the old days. Today, our teachers graduate with "teaching" degrees from isolated "teachers" colleges or departments. Teachers of today do not have to compete with the smarter "regular" students in Math, Science or Physics classes. I have no idea how low their GPA's would be if they did. The USA is one of the few counties in the world who get out school teachers from dumbed down teachers colleges. Every where else, teachers have to get real college degrees.
Because the Honor Roll concept has been scammed so bad, we need to eliminate it and switch to some kind of "percentile" system. This is a system where grades are used to calculate a GPA, but is then normalized against the whole school population from "zero" to 100. If there are 500 kids in your school and you have the 450th highest GPA, then you have a "percentile" score of "90". It may take a while before people figured out that if you had the 250th highest GPA, it would only be a "percentile" score of 50. That means your kid is just "average" in a pool of kids who rank about 25th in the world. Conclusion, you kid is not very smart. Think about if your kid were normalized against the rest of the world with the 250th highest GPA in your school and it resulted in a "percentile" score of "27"? Now, you kid is not average anymore. He is well below average. We may even conclude that your kid is "dumb".
There is an old expression that we all need to remember and that is, "It maybe OK to bull shit the world, but don't bull shit yourself". Our kids are below average. This is not Lake Wobegon.
Look at it this way. About 50 years ago the kids here in the USA ranked in the top 5 in terms of educational performance, but now we are not even in the top 25. Now at the same time, the percentage of our kids who made the honor roll has gone up from about 10% to 50%. What do you think just might be wrong with these numbers? For starters, having 50% on the honor roll is bull shit.
50 years ago, 90% of the students in our major universities who earned Masters or PhD's were born here in the USA and graduated from our high schools. Today it is the other way around when it comes to the important STEM advanced degrees. 90% were born outside the USA and attended high schools outside the USA. Are you starting to see the "scam"?
When I was about 13 years old, I got my first slide rule. It was one of those cheap plastic things. It was a little complicated, but it could do calculations that the electronic calculators our kids have today could not do. It could also do most of the calculations faster than many electronic calculators. That was because is was an "analog" calculator that gave you instant results. The slide rule also had all the "Trig" functions on it too. Very few of the electronic calculators that most of our kids use now can handle "Trig" functions. A good plastic slide rule costs less than $5.00 and can do much more than most electronic calculators and can also give your kid needed mental exercise at the same time.
I think that if we can ever find the person who started "new math" or allowed calculators and computers into our class rooms that we will have found the cause of the decline in the quality of education in the USA. I know a lot of good intentioned educators thought that the calculation of the answer to a math problem was just a bunch of "busy work" that wasted student's time that they could apply to "real" learning. Their mistake was that the "work" to calculate the answer was a major part of the learning. Do you think that "spell check" on one's computer makes one a better speller? I think that you have your answer.
I hate to keep bad mouthing our public school teachers, but it has been my personal experience that the average teacher of today is far below those of 50 years ago in almost every way. The teachers of 50 years ago were much "smarter" than those of today. This has been proven by SAT scores and IQ testing. It does not matter how many years the teachers of today spent in college. Most today do not graduate with real academic degrees like those in the old days. Today, our teachers graduate with "teaching" degrees from isolated "teachers" colleges or departments. Teachers of today do not have to compete with the smarter "regular" students in Math, Science or Physics classes. I have no idea how low their GPA's would be if they did. The USA is one of the few counties in the world who get out school teachers from dumbed down teachers colleges. Every where else, teachers have to get real college degrees.
Because the Honor Roll concept has been scammed so bad, we need to eliminate it and switch to some kind of "percentile" system. This is a system where grades are used to calculate a GPA, but is then normalized against the whole school population from "zero" to 100. If there are 500 kids in your school and you have the 450th highest GPA, then you have a "percentile" score of "90". It may take a while before people figured out that if you had the 250th highest GPA, it would only be a "percentile" score of 50. That means your kid is just "average" in a pool of kids who rank about 25th in the world. Conclusion, you kid is not very smart. Think about if your kid were normalized against the rest of the world with the 250th highest GPA in your school and it resulted in a "percentile" score of "27"? Now, you kid is not average anymore. He is well below average. We may even conclude that your kid is "dumb".
There is an old expression that we all need to remember and that is, "It maybe OK to bull shit the world, but don't bull shit yourself". Our kids are below average. This is not Lake Wobegon.
Saturday, March 8, 2014
Student Loans, Are They A Good Investment?
It has been very difficult to get good numbers on the federal student loan program and how it has affected our national education needs. As tax payers, we need to know if the programs is "worth it" or not. Obama keeps talking about the federal student loan program like it is an investment, so why don't we get a report from him about the "profit" that we are "earning" as a result of the program. Well, I have dug out some of my own numbers that I will share with all of you.
I could only find good comparable data for the period from 1966 to 1993. I don't know why it is so hard to get better current data on something as important as this. Here are my numbers for Bachelor degrees issued by all colleges and universities in the USA. The first number is the total and the second is just those for engineering. I want to keep this simple.
(1) 1966 Total---------524,000 Engineering---------36,000 Percentage Engr----- 6.8%
(2) 1985 Total------1,000,000 Engineering---------78,000 Percentage Engr------7.8%
(3) 1993 Total------1,179,000 Engineering---------63,000 Percentage Engr------5.3%
What do you conclude from the numbers above? Here is my take. From 1966 to 1993, we increased the number of Bachelor degrees by 125% while at the same time only increasing the number of engineering degrees by only 75%. Notice that in 1985 we hit our high point in engineering degrees and have gone down from there. At a time when the world is getting more technical, fewer and fewer of our kids are earning engineering degrees. We are spending more money than ever on college degrees while it appears that we are buying (investing in) more and more worthless degrees. Do you think it is some kind of mystery why so many of our new college graduates can not find jobs? Do you think that we have wasted too much tax money supporting the student loan program and "investing" in worthless degrees?
PS---The kids who graduated with engineering degrees in 1985, graduated from 8th grade in about 1975. It was in about the 8th grade that most kids decided for or against getting a technical degree like engineering. What changed about our kids, their parents and the schools about 1975? There had to have been something or we would not have seen such a decline in engineering degrees while at the same time we had such an increase in worthless degrees. Do you think that it was the decline in the quality of our school teachers that started back in the 1960's and it took that long for the old good teachers to retire and have the schools taken over by the teachers who graduated in the 1960's? Do you think that it was because of unionization that started in the 1960's, or the shift toward more "feel good" type education? It had to be something that happened between about 1960's. Was it the "liberation" of women where the smart ones left teaching and went into other fields? If one of these or a combination of all these that caused the decline, how do we fix it? I don't think it is more pay for teachers or spending more on education. So what is it? How about better parents? We know that most of the good parents are having fewer kids and the worst parents are having more kids. Is that it?
I think that the facts are clear, but the more important problem is how this all happened? If we don't know why it happened, how do you think we can ever turn it around? The problem for the USA in the area of education is that it is a "long lead time" investment. That means that what you do today will not have an affect until many years into the future. Take pre school. The kid is 4 years old and any investment that we put into this kid will not start to pay back until they are at least 34 years old. It will take at least that amount of time before they pay back the investment and it is not until after that that we start getting real "profit" from our investment. My point is that we are looking at about a 30 year lead time on that investment. If you are going to become an engineer, you need to start early and if you get off the technical track, it is almost impossible to ever get back on. How many people do you know who did not take math seriously in high school who ever went onto get a degree in engineering? I don't know any.
The point of the above is to point out that we "have bought the farm" as far as the next 25 or 30 years are concerned. If we all got on the band wagon right now and started preparing our kids for the more difficult engineering degrees, we would not see any significant benefit for 25 or 30 years. What we have done in the past 25 or 30 years is to have dug ourselves into a deep hole that we will now have to dig ourselves out of. Pure and simple. Looking back, why didn't we put more strings on the student loan program and not allow our kids (and parents) to spend all of our tax money on worthless degrees? Were we all that stupid? I guess that I have to say that we were. The least that we could do now would be to stop being stupid and clean up the federal student loan program or eliminate in completely. Looking at history, we did better without the federal student loan program.
PS---I know that most school teachers think of themselves as being "smart". They do not realize that, as a group, they have been cut from poor cloth. The fact that they graduated from some kind of college gives them a phony confirmation that they are "smart". Most think that going to college makes one "smart". Further, they hang around with other teachers and have little intellectual contact with really "smart" people. How stimulating intellectually do you think the atmosphere is in an average 4th grade class room? They do not grow. All this combines to give teachers the impression that they should be paid as much as other professionals who graduated in the more difficult majors. We know why education worked in the past, but we don't know how we can ever get back there! This may be another example of the "Darwin Limitation" for which there is "no" solution.
PS---Obama's mother had her degree in Anthropology which is rated as one of the 5 most worthless degrees. Do you think that has shaped our President in any way?
I could only find good comparable data for the period from 1966 to 1993. I don't know why it is so hard to get better current data on something as important as this. Here are my numbers for Bachelor degrees issued by all colleges and universities in the USA. The first number is the total and the second is just those for engineering. I want to keep this simple.
(1) 1966 Total---------524,000 Engineering---------36,000 Percentage Engr----- 6.8%
(2) 1985 Total------1,000,000 Engineering---------78,000 Percentage Engr------7.8%
(3) 1993 Total------1,179,000 Engineering---------63,000 Percentage Engr------5.3%
What do you conclude from the numbers above? Here is my take. From 1966 to 1993, we increased the number of Bachelor degrees by 125% while at the same time only increasing the number of engineering degrees by only 75%. Notice that in 1985 we hit our high point in engineering degrees and have gone down from there. At a time when the world is getting more technical, fewer and fewer of our kids are earning engineering degrees. We are spending more money than ever on college degrees while it appears that we are buying (investing in) more and more worthless degrees. Do you think it is some kind of mystery why so many of our new college graduates can not find jobs? Do you think that we have wasted too much tax money supporting the student loan program and "investing" in worthless degrees?
PS---The kids who graduated with engineering degrees in 1985, graduated from 8th grade in about 1975. It was in about the 8th grade that most kids decided for or against getting a technical degree like engineering. What changed about our kids, their parents and the schools about 1975? There had to have been something or we would not have seen such a decline in engineering degrees while at the same time we had such an increase in worthless degrees. Do you think that it was the decline in the quality of our school teachers that started back in the 1960's and it took that long for the old good teachers to retire and have the schools taken over by the teachers who graduated in the 1960's? Do you think that it was because of unionization that started in the 1960's, or the shift toward more "feel good" type education? It had to be something that happened between about 1960's. Was it the "liberation" of women where the smart ones left teaching and went into other fields? If one of these or a combination of all these that caused the decline, how do we fix it? I don't think it is more pay for teachers or spending more on education. So what is it? How about better parents? We know that most of the good parents are having fewer kids and the worst parents are having more kids. Is that it?
I think that the facts are clear, but the more important problem is how this all happened? If we don't know why it happened, how do you think we can ever turn it around? The problem for the USA in the area of education is that it is a "long lead time" investment. That means that what you do today will not have an affect until many years into the future. Take pre school. The kid is 4 years old and any investment that we put into this kid will not start to pay back until they are at least 34 years old. It will take at least that amount of time before they pay back the investment and it is not until after that that we start getting real "profit" from our investment. My point is that we are looking at about a 30 year lead time on that investment. If you are going to become an engineer, you need to start early and if you get off the technical track, it is almost impossible to ever get back on. How many people do you know who did not take math seriously in high school who ever went onto get a degree in engineering? I don't know any.
The point of the above is to point out that we "have bought the farm" as far as the next 25 or 30 years are concerned. If we all got on the band wagon right now and started preparing our kids for the more difficult engineering degrees, we would not see any significant benefit for 25 or 30 years. What we have done in the past 25 or 30 years is to have dug ourselves into a deep hole that we will now have to dig ourselves out of. Pure and simple. Looking back, why didn't we put more strings on the student loan program and not allow our kids (and parents) to spend all of our tax money on worthless degrees? Were we all that stupid? I guess that I have to say that we were. The least that we could do now would be to stop being stupid and clean up the federal student loan program or eliminate in completely. Looking at history, we did better without the federal student loan program.
PS---I know that most school teachers think of themselves as being "smart". They do not realize that, as a group, they have been cut from poor cloth. The fact that they graduated from some kind of college gives them a phony confirmation that they are "smart". Most think that going to college makes one "smart". Further, they hang around with other teachers and have little intellectual contact with really "smart" people. How stimulating intellectually do you think the atmosphere is in an average 4th grade class room? They do not grow. All this combines to give teachers the impression that they should be paid as much as other professionals who graduated in the more difficult majors. We know why education worked in the past, but we don't know how we can ever get back there! This may be another example of the "Darwin Limitation" for which there is "no" solution.
PS---Obama's mother had her degree in Anthropology which is rated as one of the 5 most worthless degrees. Do you think that has shaped our President in any way?
Wednesday, March 5, 2014
Obama's Federal Minimum Wage Mandate
Our boy, Obama is out there pitching his federal Minimum Wage and he seems to be getting the attention of a lot of "retards". The point of this blog is to shed a little light on the subject. First, what is the objective of our economy? This is a real easy question. It is go "produce" as much wealth as possible. Notice, the word is "produce". Now a little example of how things work.
Let's say that we have an economy where there are 10 people. Of these people, only 7 have jobs. With your 4th grade math, that leaves 3 without jobs. Of the 7 people who have jobs, let's say that 2 are below Obama's proposed minimum wage. Now if our objective is to "produce" more, how does Obama's minimum wage fit into this?
Of the 2 people who are now below Obama's proposed minimum wage, one is going to get a raise and the other is going to lose his job or be replaced with a machine. This will leave a total of 4 people without jobs. Of the 6 people who will keep their jobs, they will all have to pay more for the things that they buy. The quality of life for the original 7 people who had jobs will go down. Do you follow that?
Next, let's look at what our 10 people "produced" after Obama's minimum wage went into affect. Before, we had 7 people producing and after, we only have 6 people producing. It has to be clear that if our objective was to "produce" the most, that Obama's minimum wage reduced the amount we "produced".
What Retards think is that what one gets paid is what one produces, but as you can see from above, is that pay is "not" the same as "production". If Obama printed a bunch of college graduation diplomas and handed them out to high school drop outs, would that make those people "smart"?
PS---Another point. Notice that the Minimum Wage is not paid for directly with tax money. It is a "mandate" where we all pay and Obama does not have to raise any taxes to buy his votes from "you know who".
Let's say that we have an economy where there are 10 people. Of these people, only 7 have jobs. With your 4th grade math, that leaves 3 without jobs. Of the 7 people who have jobs, let's say that 2 are below Obama's proposed minimum wage. Now if our objective is to "produce" more, how does Obama's minimum wage fit into this?
Of the 2 people who are now below Obama's proposed minimum wage, one is going to get a raise and the other is going to lose his job or be replaced with a machine. This will leave a total of 4 people without jobs. Of the 6 people who will keep their jobs, they will all have to pay more for the things that they buy. The quality of life for the original 7 people who had jobs will go down. Do you follow that?
Next, let's look at what our 10 people "produced" after Obama's minimum wage went into affect. Before, we had 7 people producing and after, we only have 6 people producing. It has to be clear that if our objective was to "produce" the most, that Obama's minimum wage reduced the amount we "produced".
What Retards think is that what one gets paid is what one produces, but as you can see from above, is that pay is "not" the same as "production". If Obama printed a bunch of college graduation diplomas and handed them out to high school drop outs, would that make those people "smart"?
PS---Another point. Notice that the Minimum Wage is not paid for directly with tax money. It is a "mandate" where we all pay and Obama does not have to raise any taxes to buy his votes from "you know who".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)