When I was a student I viewed an exam as a competition at which I would try to excel. For the first time in my 16-year teaching career students in several classes have been trying to get me to delay or cancel my exam. My practice is to wait until very late in the semester to give an exam, and I warn the students from the first day of class that the exam will be competitive. There is only one week left to the semester. I received the following seven e-mails today all from different senders in three different classes. Are our educational system and culture on the right track?
I. Saturday, May 03, 2008 3:16 PM
Hello Professor Langbert,
The reading for the exam has been little much for me, because I'm taking 6 classes this semester and I'm also interning for 20 hours a week. I feel like I need more time and I want to ask if there is any chance you would consider moving the exam date later in May? We can present our papers this Sunday instead of having the exam now. I hope you understand, but if not, I certainly do understand.
Thank you professor,
II. Saturday, May 03, 2008 7:25 PM
Good morning professor Langbert,
How are you? I was wondering if you might be kind enough give the class an extention on the exam? I have 4 other classes and the materials are a lot to cover.
Thank you!
III. Saturday, May 03, 2008 8:57 PM
is there any way of postponing our exam tomorrow ???
wouldnt your rather see 80s and 90s than have to curve the exam ??
please advs
Saturday, May 03, 2008 11:11 AM
IV. Hi Prof. Langbert, this is...and I wanted to know if I can please have an extension on my paper and the exam on May 4. I wanted an extension because i have not finish all my reading.
Saturday, May 03, 2008 12:43 AM
V. Professor,
How are you doing sir?
I got email from the classmates and I found out that some of us are having a hard time preparing for the exam.
I would greatly appreciate if you could post-pone the exam for us.
Thank you very much for your understanding.
Best regards,
VI. I received an email from ... indicating that you may post pone the exam tomorrow. Since I did not see an announcement on blackboard, I was just wanted to confirm that the exam is tomorrow May 4th.
Thank you,
VII. Prof. Langbert -
A few of us were wondering if you would consider postponing the exam.
My response:
The exam is tomorrow at the stated time and place, and it is going to be hard.
Saturday, May 3, 2008
Progressives and the Cone of Silence
The very phrase "cone of silence" evokes hilarity, and anyone old enough to have watched Get Smart will agree. Tom Elia notes on Ann Coulter's blog (hat tip Larwyn) that Progressives have been calling for Democratic candidates who appear on Fox News to only do so when the Cone is down:
"Washington (Rooters) -- Angry over appearances of prominent Democrats on the Fox News Channel, some netroots 'progressives' are demanding that Democrats now use only the 'Cone of Silence' when speaking out.
"In response to the report by The Politico's Mike Allen outlining the disgust in the 'progressive' community over the recent appearances by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama on Fox, as well as DNC Chair Howard Dean's scheduled appearance Sunday, some 'progressives' are demanding that Democrats speak only when using the 'Cone of Silence' made famous by secret agent Maxwell Smart...
Good idea, Tom. Maybe the Democratic networks (CBS, NBC, ABC, HBO, etc.) might benefit from applying the cone full time!
"Washington (Rooters) -- Angry over appearances of prominent Democrats on the Fox News Channel, some netroots 'progressives' are demanding that Democrats now use only the 'Cone of Silence' when speaking out.
"In response to the report by The Politico's Mike Allen outlining the disgust in the 'progressive' community over the recent appearances by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama on Fox, as well as DNC Chair Howard Dean's scheduled appearance Sunday, some 'progressives' are demanding that Democrats speak only when using the 'Cone of Silence' made famous by secret agent Maxwell Smart...
Good idea, Tom. Maybe the Democratic networks (CBS, NBC, ABC, HBO, etc.) might benefit from applying the cone full time!
Friday, May 2, 2008
Herbert Hoover as the Pardigmatic Progressive-liberal
Most people who have not read a biography of Herbert Hoover do not know that he was among the most assertive of the Progressives, and in many ways his ideas set the tone for much of progressive-liberalism in the eight decades that have ensued since his election to president. When he ran for president in 1928 almost all progressives supported him, including social worker Jane Addams, Ida Tarbell, Herbert Croly, Walter Lippmann, Franklin Roosevelt (before Hoover declared himself a Republican), and many progressive magazine and newspaper editors of the time. Hoover's ideas were quintessentially progressive: an elitist, he proclaimed his belief in democracy. He believed that firms should be motivated by social responsibility and individual interest. He argued for voluntary national planning and that progress depends on the establishment of trade associations that establish voluntary ethical codes. He believed strongly in efficiency and the importance of cooperation and associations. He advocated expansion of public works. He believed in tariffs and protectionism. Hoover's biographer Joan Hoff Wilson notes (p. 69)*:
"Where the classical economists like Adam Smith had argued for uncontrolled competition between independent economic units guided only by the invisible hand of supply and demand, he talked about voluntary national economic planning arising from cooperation between business interests and government. The aim was to eliminate waste through greater production efficiency, lowering prices, raising wages and controlling business cycles. Instead of negative government action in time of depression, he advocated the expansion of public works, avoidance of wage cuts, increased rather than decreased production--measures which would expand rather than contract purchasing power....'We are passing' he told the United States Chamber of Commerce in 1924, 'from a period of extreme individualistic action into a period of associational activities.'"
What made Hoover the prototypical Progressive-liberal was his belief (1) that rational planning guided by the state rather than markets can best solve problems and (2) that the state's role includes the positive inculcation of moral belief. In particular, Hoover pioneered the use of mass propaganda, not only as Warren G. Harding used it in campaigns, but as part of his political strategy. In 1920, Hoover became a moderate advocate of collective bargaining. Hoover believed that workplace conflict was an engineering problem. He was a supporter of scientific management, which was linked to the Progressive movement. Quoting Wilson (p. 56):
"The socioeconomic system [Hoover's ideas] represented could not accurately be described by such words as progressivism, laissez faire capitalism, communism, statism, socialism, corporatism, guildism or syndicalism. The absolute laws of progress that he believed in required a new and superior synthesis that he simply called the American system. What he had in mind was a pragmatic utopianism that defied standard economic and political classifications and was, in truth, progressive in the broadest sense--it was forward looking. Perhaps it could best be characterized as an informal brand of liberal corporatism.
"...idealism could be balanced with self-interest and technological innovation to counter the equally enervating system of state socialism or monopoly capitalism..."
(p. 59)"...Hoover hoped to change values at the grass-roots level by propagating an ideology of cooperative individualism and playing down materialism. Massive education and propaganda campaigns could transform traditional attitudes about private property and profit into a new sense of social responsibility..."
Hoover's elitism came from his background as an engineer who had achieved dramatic success in international mining. He seems to have believed that engineering principles could be applied to reforming society.
Now, what was the outcome of Hoover's presidential administration? What was the result of his elitist belief of his ability to outhink markets and to be able to reform society according to his values (which were very nice, by the way).
The result was the Great Depression. The result of the Depression was the New Deal (which Hoover opposed because he found it too statist). Thus we see the end result of Progressivism. Increasing coercion, government programs that stall progress, and inflation that supports wealthy speculators at the expense of productive workers.
Progressivism begins as an assertion of value superiority by an elite. The value superiority is moral or expresses a belief in democracy, as does Peter Levine. Government action (e.g., Wilson's establishment of the Fed in 1913) is taken to encourage the belief. Smart people (Hoover was very bright) are selected to implement the vision. But they blunder. The blunders are blamed on the people, on freedom and on markets. In turn, coercive statist violence attacks democracy and freedom further, institutionalizing Progressive-liberal neuroticism.
*Joan Hoff Wilson, Herbert Hoover, Forgotten Progressive. Prospect Heights, Ill.: Waveland Press, 1992 (Original Publication: 1975).
"Where the classical economists like Adam Smith had argued for uncontrolled competition between independent economic units guided only by the invisible hand of supply and demand, he talked about voluntary national economic planning arising from cooperation between business interests and government. The aim was to eliminate waste through greater production efficiency, lowering prices, raising wages and controlling business cycles. Instead of negative government action in time of depression, he advocated the expansion of public works, avoidance of wage cuts, increased rather than decreased production--measures which would expand rather than contract purchasing power....'We are passing' he told the United States Chamber of Commerce in 1924, 'from a period of extreme individualistic action into a period of associational activities.'"
What made Hoover the prototypical Progressive-liberal was his belief (1) that rational planning guided by the state rather than markets can best solve problems and (2) that the state's role includes the positive inculcation of moral belief. In particular, Hoover pioneered the use of mass propaganda, not only as Warren G. Harding used it in campaigns, but as part of his political strategy. In 1920, Hoover became a moderate advocate of collective bargaining. Hoover believed that workplace conflict was an engineering problem. He was a supporter of scientific management, which was linked to the Progressive movement. Quoting Wilson (p. 56):
"The socioeconomic system [Hoover's ideas] represented could not accurately be described by such words as progressivism, laissez faire capitalism, communism, statism, socialism, corporatism, guildism or syndicalism. The absolute laws of progress that he believed in required a new and superior synthesis that he simply called the American system. What he had in mind was a pragmatic utopianism that defied standard economic and political classifications and was, in truth, progressive in the broadest sense--it was forward looking. Perhaps it could best be characterized as an informal brand of liberal corporatism.
"...idealism could be balanced with self-interest and technological innovation to counter the equally enervating system of state socialism or monopoly capitalism..."
(p. 59)"...Hoover hoped to change values at the grass-roots level by propagating an ideology of cooperative individualism and playing down materialism. Massive education and propaganda campaigns could transform traditional attitudes about private property and profit into a new sense of social responsibility..."
Hoover's elitism came from his background as an engineer who had achieved dramatic success in international mining. He seems to have believed that engineering principles could be applied to reforming society.
Now, what was the outcome of Hoover's presidential administration? What was the result of his elitist belief of his ability to outhink markets and to be able to reform society according to his values (which were very nice, by the way).
The result was the Great Depression. The result of the Depression was the New Deal (which Hoover opposed because he found it too statist). Thus we see the end result of Progressivism. Increasing coercion, government programs that stall progress, and inflation that supports wealthy speculators at the expense of productive workers.
Progressivism begins as an assertion of value superiority by an elite. The value superiority is moral or expresses a belief in democracy, as does Peter Levine. Government action (e.g., Wilson's establishment of the Fed in 1913) is taken to encourage the belief. Smart people (Hoover was very bright) are selected to implement the vision. But they blunder. The blunders are blamed on the people, on freedom and on markets. In turn, coercive statist violence attacks democracy and freedom further, institutionalizing Progressive-liberal neuroticism.
*Joan Hoff Wilson, Herbert Hoover, Forgotten Progressive. Prospect Heights, Ill.: Waveland Press, 1992 (Original Publication: 1975).
6 Ways Greenspan Caused the Current Economic Crisis
Fiona King of CurrencyTrading.Net just forwarded an excellent blog that she posted concering Alan Greenspan's role in the current economic crisis. I disagree with her policy prescription, but most of her analysis is accurate. Her policy prescription (which is to increase financial regulation) will lead to more of the same problem. But King's blog is excellent.
The problem with more regulation is that, as Enron demonstrated, regulation is an infinite regress. Unscrupulous actors (be they government officials or corporate executives) find ways around the regulation, and the regulator (if not corrupt, which they usually are) has to increase control. But increasing control terminates economic actors' freedom and flexibility. Freedom and flexibility are necessary to growth. Without the ability to respond to market change and to innovate, the economy stagnates. The end result is a controlled system that is like North Korea's or Cuba's at worst and Europe's at best. Stagnant growth is associated with innovation's being forestalled by regulators, corruption, exclusion of people of low socio-economic status from economic opportunity and declining living standards. Regulation solves nothing. It creates poverty.
Moreover, King accepts the explicit purpose or ideological rationale for the Fed and misconstrues its underlying purpose. The Federal Reserve is a wealth transferral device that serves financial interests at the expense of workers (see Howard S. Katz's book Paper Aristocracy for a detailed discussion of this point). The idea that a small amount of inflation will help workers but a large amount of inflation will hurt them is fallacious. A small amount of inflation will transfer a small amount of wealth from producers to investors and bankers, and a large amount of inflation will transfer a large amount of wealth from producers to investors and bankers. Greenspan inflated alot, and alot of wealth has been transferred. Warren Buffett, George Soros and the folks who have bought up Greenwich, Connecticut and the Dakotas have grown wealthy while the average worker has seen flat wages. That is what the Fed will do so long as it is permitted unrestrained freedom to inflate the money supply.
It is the Fed that needs to be regulated through a metallic standard. Any other system leads to abuse and wealth transferral from poor to rich. How many decades of this do progressive-liberals need before they accept that their idea has failed?
The Greenspan Fed has done what the Fed does in a big way. In the 1920s, the Hoover Fed reacted stupidly to the banking crisis of that era, and the depression resulted. In the post World War II period, the Fed has generated inflation, and the result has been flat real earnings since the mid 1970s and reduced innovation. As the federal government responds by transferring even more wealth from producers to Wall Street and commercial banks, such as respecting the Bear Stearns bailout, the public becomes poorer and the assets of multi-millionaires and billionaires are protected.
There is no other purpose of the Fed. The idea that the few percent reduction in unemployment that results from short term stimulus really is the Fed's purpose is naive.
King points out that in response to the technology stock bubble (which, I add, also resulted from the Greenspan Fed):
"The Fed, under the leadership of Dr. Greenspan, moved quickly to slash its bechmark Federal Funds Rate to 1%, the lowest level in nearly 50 years. At the time, Dr. Greenspan was acclaimed by economists for mitigating business cycle volatility and returning the economy back into a period of rapid growth. In hindsight, however, this period of easy money may have enabled the run-up in housing prices that caused the current housing crisis...This in turn resulted in a weak dollar..."
King adds that Greenspan failed to stop incompetent lending strategies by the financial community that had been authorized by the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act of 1994. As well:
"the inability of the financial system to absorb the shock from the unexpectedly high default rate on subprime loans. This failure to anticipate can be traced back to 1998, if not earlier, when the Federal Reserve spearheaded a bailout of Long Term Capital Management (LTCM), a large hedge fund which lost nearly $5 Billion trading complex securities. Some would say that this created a moral hazard situation, whereby banks became comfortable taking larger risks because of the foreknowledge that they would be bailed out if their bets went sour."
King adds that Greenspan was indifferent to asset bubbles. All of this is accurate. Although this analysis is accurate, I am concerned that the prescription that results is more of the same policy pattern that caused this problem. Regulation created the Fed. The Fed caused the asset bubble because of inflation. American workers have seen decreased opportunities and flattening real incomes because of the Fed's inflation and because of regulation.
King's prescription is even more regulation. I disagree.
The problem with more regulation is that, as Enron demonstrated, regulation is an infinite regress. Unscrupulous actors (be they government officials or corporate executives) find ways around the regulation, and the regulator (if not corrupt, which they usually are) has to increase control. But increasing control terminates economic actors' freedom and flexibility. Freedom and flexibility are necessary to growth. Without the ability to respond to market change and to innovate, the economy stagnates. The end result is a controlled system that is like North Korea's or Cuba's at worst and Europe's at best. Stagnant growth is associated with innovation's being forestalled by regulators, corruption, exclusion of people of low socio-economic status from economic opportunity and declining living standards. Regulation solves nothing. It creates poverty.
Moreover, King accepts the explicit purpose or ideological rationale for the Fed and misconstrues its underlying purpose. The Federal Reserve is a wealth transferral device that serves financial interests at the expense of workers (see Howard S. Katz's book Paper Aristocracy for a detailed discussion of this point). The idea that a small amount of inflation will help workers but a large amount of inflation will hurt them is fallacious. A small amount of inflation will transfer a small amount of wealth from producers to investors and bankers, and a large amount of inflation will transfer a large amount of wealth from producers to investors and bankers. Greenspan inflated alot, and alot of wealth has been transferred. Warren Buffett, George Soros and the folks who have bought up Greenwich, Connecticut and the Dakotas have grown wealthy while the average worker has seen flat wages. That is what the Fed will do so long as it is permitted unrestrained freedom to inflate the money supply.
It is the Fed that needs to be regulated through a metallic standard. Any other system leads to abuse and wealth transferral from poor to rich. How many decades of this do progressive-liberals need before they accept that their idea has failed?
The Greenspan Fed has done what the Fed does in a big way. In the 1920s, the Hoover Fed reacted stupidly to the banking crisis of that era, and the depression resulted. In the post World War II period, the Fed has generated inflation, and the result has been flat real earnings since the mid 1970s and reduced innovation. As the federal government responds by transferring even more wealth from producers to Wall Street and commercial banks, such as respecting the Bear Stearns bailout, the public becomes poorer and the assets of multi-millionaires and billionaires are protected.
There is no other purpose of the Fed. The idea that the few percent reduction in unemployment that results from short term stimulus really is the Fed's purpose is naive.
King points out that in response to the technology stock bubble (which, I add, also resulted from the Greenspan Fed):
"The Fed, under the leadership of Dr. Greenspan, moved quickly to slash its bechmark Federal Funds Rate to 1%, the lowest level in nearly 50 years. At the time, Dr. Greenspan was acclaimed by economists for mitigating business cycle volatility and returning the economy back into a period of rapid growth. In hindsight, however, this period of easy money may have enabled the run-up in housing prices that caused the current housing crisis...This in turn resulted in a weak dollar..."
King adds that Greenspan failed to stop incompetent lending strategies by the financial community that had been authorized by the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act of 1994. As well:
"the inability of the financial system to absorb the shock from the unexpectedly high default rate on subprime loans. This failure to anticipate can be traced back to 1998, if not earlier, when the Federal Reserve spearheaded a bailout of Long Term Capital Management (LTCM), a large hedge fund which lost nearly $5 Billion trading complex securities. Some would say that this created a moral hazard situation, whereby banks became comfortable taking larger risks because of the foreknowledge that they would be bailed out if their bets went sour."
King adds that Greenspan was indifferent to asset bubbles. All of this is accurate. Although this analysis is accurate, I am concerned that the prescription that results is more of the same policy pattern that caused this problem. Regulation created the Fed. The Fed caused the asset bubble because of inflation. American workers have seen decreased opportunities and flattening real incomes because of the Fed's inflation and because of regulation.
King's prescription is even more regulation. I disagree.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
