He Is Either Purposely Misleading or Writing Poorly

Paul Krugman in his column, The Uneducated American seems to be suggesting that funding for public education has declined and educational performance has correlatively declined:

"The rise of American education was, overwhelmingly, the rise of public education — and for the past 30 years our political scene has been dominated by the view that any and all government spending is a waste of taxpayer dollars. Education, as one of the largest components of public spending, has inevitably suffered.

Until now, the results of educational neglect have been gradual — a slow-motion erosion of America’s relative position. But things are about to get much worse, as the economic crisis — its effects exacerbated by the penny-wise, pound-foolish behavior that passes for “fiscal responsibility” in Washington — deals a severe blow to education across the board."

At Andrew Coulson's CATO blog is a chart of education spending and performance put together by Andrew Coulson from NCES data.

Who is Your Hero? Is Government the Solution or Problem?

Those who believe government is the answer nominate politicians
heroes. Those of us that believe government is the problem, nominate
citizens who make non-coercive contributions heroes. How many issues
of political economy reduce to the two sides, one fighting for
government and the other against government?

To justify government gaining more control over our lives, pro-
government advocates justify the enlargement of government as a
response to some problem. Three rather spectacular problems of
humanity show this split.

Population and Resource Depletion—Back in the 1970s, the pro-
government folks were convinced that overpopulation would destroy the
Earth. Population controls by government were needed, they said, in
order to stave off the population bomb in which starvation would
increase exponentially as the earth's food supply could not keep up
with population growth. It, of course, proved false. Over time, not
only have there not been food shortages but food supplies have
increased and the cost of food has steadily declined. And this has
apparently held true for all of the earth's resources. The heroes here
are not politicians but citizens constant work in improving
productivity and products.

Food Shortage—During the 1950s and 1960s, public health improvements
fueled a population boom in underdeveloped nations, leading to
concerns that agricultural systems could not keep up with growing food
demand.
"Three or four decades ago, when we were trying to move technology
into India, Pakistan and China, they said nothing could be done to
save these people, that the population had to die off," said Norman
Borlaug in 2004.
However, thanks to Borlaug's genetic work in expanding agriculture
productivity at just the moment such an increase in production was
most needed, the green revolution more than doubled world food
production between 1960 and 1990. In Pakistan and India, two of the
nations that benefited most from the new crop varieties, grain yields
more than quadrupled over the period. The hero here is clearly Mr.
Borlaug, not any government.

Global Warming—The verdict isn't in on global warming yet, but some
alarmist predictions have proved false. The world has been getting a
little colder in the last decade and climate models have been failing
to predict the recent past. Moreover, as global warming believer Bjorn
Lomborg points out, it's economically much more sensible to spend
money on pending problems (like lack of safe drinking water) and on
mitigating possible future effects of climate change than it is to
reduce carbon emissions, which choke off the near-term economic growth
needed to address environmental needs. Who will be the hero in global
warming? Al Gore and governmet or the constructive activities
activities of citizens producing wealth and techniques for dealing
with problems?

One of the great heroes of our time who truly advanced the state of humanity

Norman Borlaug from Iowa died Saturday at age 93. He brought about
remarkable advancements for humanity in the Green Revolution that
saved millions of lives.

Thanks to the green revolution, world food production more than
doubled between 1960 and 1990. In Pakistan and India, two of the
nations that benefited most from the new crop varieties, grain yields
more than quadrupled over the period.

The Nobel committee honored Borlaug in 1970 for his contributions to
high-yield crop varieties and bringing other agricultural innovations
to the developing world. Many experts credit the green revolution with
averting global famine during the second half of the 20th century and
saving perhaps 1 billion lives.

Borlaug began the work that led to his Nobel in Mexico at the end of
World War II. There he used innovative breeding techniques to produce
disease-resistant varieties of wheat that produced much more grain
than traditional strains.

He and others later took those varieties and similarly improved
strains of rice and corn to Asia, the Middle East, South America and
Africa.

"We got this thing going quite rapidly," Borlaug told The Associated
Press in a 2000 interview. "It came as a surprise that something from
a Third World country like Mexico could have such an impact."

His successes in the 1960s came just as books like "The Population
Bomb" were warning readers that mass starvation was inevitable.

"Three or four decades ago, when we were trying to move technology
into India, Pakistan and China, they said nothing could be done to
save these people, that the population had to die off," he said in 2004.

Americans Believe in Biologic and Economic Creationism?

Americans Support Stimulus, but Many Want Major Changes: A strong majority of Americans (75%) want Congress to pass some version of President Obama's economic stimulus plan, but this group is split down the middle on whether it should be passed as is or with major changes.

Surveying the opinion of Americans also shows between 9% and 13% believe that man evolved, but with no guidance from God. President Obama receives a 67% approval rating for his handling of the government’s efforts to pass an economic stimulus bill, compared to 31% for the Republicans in Congress. A majority of Americans (51%) agree that passing such a bill is critically important to improving the nation’s economy. Apparently, President Obama is no less than the source for intelligent design of the economy. Evolution and development of anything whether biological or economic system as per most citizens is dead.

On Darwin’s Birthday, Only 4 in 10 Believe in Evolution

Consider this latest Gallup poll: On Darwin’s Birthday, Only 4 in 10 Believe in Evolution. On the eve of the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth, this current Gallup Poll shows that only 39% of Americans say they 'believe in the theory of evolution,' while a quarter say they do not believe in the theory, and another 36% don't have an opinion either way. These attitudes are strongly related to education and, to an even greater degree, religiosity."

As explanatory theories go, evolutionary theory still is weak. We do have descriptions of morphological changes in various species' genotypes but not the specific mechanism producing those change.

What we can agree on is that some kind of evolutionary process is producing changes in the species. What we can't agree to is that this is due to chance mutation, or creationism, or intelligent design, or some other theory. So long before we begin discussion of exactly how a species changes and develops its hereditary structures, we first need to agree that there is a long filiation of various forms each species has undergone up to their present forms. Once we have descriptions of the stages of these changes, then we can ask the deeper question of how exactly those morpholgcal structures were transformed, i.e., changed from a less adaptive form to one more adaptive.

So a question about whether one believes in evolution is a bit vague. Do we mean the appearance of various forms of species leading up to the present or do we mean the mechanism by which those changes are produced? If someone asked me if I believe that the species of undergone constant transformation of their hereditary structures, I would say, "yes." If the question is do I believe the mechanism producing this gradual morphological change over time is chance mutation and selection I would say "no". I do not believe our best scientific explanation of the mechanism of evolution is chance mutation that is then selected by the environment any more than I believe that any other progress is due to random chance trials that are then confirmed by some outside agencies. But do I believe that the species are evolving. My answer would be, "Of course." So to refer to "believe in evolution" simply isn't very clear.

Does Media Coverage Help Substantiate Myths?

There is no reason the President's economic understanding might be somehow more advanced than common notions of economic theory held by ordinary citizens. However, the President and perhaps all politicians and famous public figures can no doubt lend credibility to certain misconceptions. The media aid the sanctification of beliefs by providing coverage that makes the believes seem true. We do not ever hear of any of the big media raising doubts about the naivete of Presidential understandings and it seems that reporters hold some of the same misconceptions. How would reporters know how to critique economic understanding if they themselves remain rather primitive in their thinking, particularly considering that the form of economic conceptions and misconceptions operates at a subconscious level? Since they take for granted that Presidential understandings are true and only policies lead to disagreement, policies are not anchored in advanced economic understanding. As a result, policies are not challenged from the point of view of an advanced understanding of economic science, only from the common sense policy point of view, and any misconceptions that lie hidden and embedded in policy talk remain hidden and unconsidered. The overt policy choices then become the sum total of the reporting and analysis, choices that appear to be decidable only on the basis of which political party one belongs to.

Economist can recognize how this naive public dicussion comes to be led by the President and prominent politicans who easily obtain widespread media coverage. Not only do economists see this myth making at work in the media coverage of politicians, some are also aware that this has occurred at all times in history. For example, Don Bourdreaux wrote a Dear Washington Times: Rhetoric of 'Doom' letter citing H.L. Mencken:

…President-elect Obama predicts doom if a new 'stimulus' plan isn't enacted… Alas, Mr. Obama is simply following his profession's code of conduct. What H.L. Mencken astutely observed back in 1918 is no less real in 2009: "Civilization, in fact, grows more maudlin and hysterical; especially under democracy it tends to degenerate into a mere combat of crazes; the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary." (H.L. Mencken, In Defense of Women, New York: Knopf, 1918), p. 53.)

So, we seem to have a public policy myth making process that appears necessary, at least to the politician, for the public support and political success of a government program. The process draws not on economic science but on economic misconceptions that are held by the politicians and the media. Since the vast majority of citizens have no possible intellectual ability to recognize this myth making process but themselves use misconceptions in their own economic reasoning, it takes little to sell a massive government program such as the stimulus package. Since among the tiny percentage of the population that are economists, if some of those scientists disagree, it is easy for the politicians to imply there is widespread agreement among scientists. Who would ever know there is not since the media certainly are not interested and don't seek out those who disagree. How would an obscure economists ever make the news? The relationship is so asymetrical the politicians and media can ignore it.

However, perhaps there is some hope from one of the media, the blogosphere, in which serious disagreements do get a hearing. Some economists are concerned about the public's economic misconceptions since increasingly areas of private activity become taken over by government and pushed into the sphere of public policy. Not only is the difference in coverage between advanced economic thought and the politicans' notions asymetrical, the process of increasing government take-over of private activities seems to be a one way process that is supported by the myth-making process.

Does Learning Occur at the Macro Level?

Macro level analysis of living systems such as economies have often used aggregated data to compile and quantify descriptors of trends and the variables presumed to determine them. However, systems aren't static in their variables, and the short-run sloping and long-run vertical Phillips curve illustrates how decision making in the aggregate changes over time. The economic system as a whole seems to learn what to do when their is a change in government policy.

For example, Nobel Economist Robert Lucas demonstrated that The Phillips Curve doesn't work in the long run. Others such as John Muth who originally formulated the hypothesis of rational expectations had also taken exception to notions of static variables and permanent descriptors of people's economic decision making that had been commonly used in macro economics.

In the late 1960s, there was considerable empirical support for the Phillips curve; it was regarded as one of the more stable relations in economics. It was interpreted as an option for government authorities to increase employment by pursuing an expansionary policy which raises inflation. Milton Friedman and Edmund Phelps criticized this interpretation and claimed that the expectations of the general public would adjust to higher inflation and preclude a lasting increase in employment: Only the short-run Phillips curve is sloping, whereas the long-run curve is vertical. This criticism was not quite convincing, however, because Friedman and Phelps assumed adaptive expectations. Such expectations do in fact imply a permanent rise in employment if inflation is allowed to increase over time.

The conclusion seems to be that over time a macro system does figure out the long term consequences of policy changes and as a result, changes its decision-making in response to its emerging rational expectations of the future. With continued experiences, living systems, in effect, "learn" just as organizations, businesses, and people do as they adjust and fine tune their behavior to accommodate their improving view of the future.

Of course, if government policy is erratic and unpredictable, their can't be much learning nor can rational expectations of the future arise. Apparently, the erratic, frantic government activity during the Great Depression created uncertainty in the economic system that hampered rational decision-making necessary for recovery.

Should Schools Help or Hold Parents?—The Policy Choice is Give Parents Either School Choice or School Assignment

Compare how differently business and public school systems treat their clients. The Adaptive Path points out how relinquishing control works as a business model (shades of Macy's in Miracle on 34th Street).

"In the days before Google, search engines like Excite, Hotbot, and Altavista larded themselves up with content in a desperate effort to delay users beyond the two pages of a search activity — search box and results. The goal was “stickiness,” discouraging people from leaving your domain. When Google launched, one reason it shocked the Web community was its focus on getting you to where you actually wanted to go. How could there be a successful business model in actively sending people away from your site?

Seven years and a $75 billion market capitalization later, that question has obviously been answered. The other search engines attempted to control your behavior. Google recognized that users maintain control, and to win they had to become users’ preferred choice."

So what would happebn if schools actually attempted to help rather than hold their clients?

Do Living Systems Have Inherent Properties of Self-Improvement?

Here's a writer responding to Chris Anderson who apparently doubts the necessarily self-improving properties of living systems. Nicholas Carr is not sure that systems like Wikipedia necessarily contain a vector of improvement: "I confess: I'm an unbeliever. My mammalian mind remains mired in the earthly muck of doubt. It's not that I think Chris is wrong about the workings of 'probabilistic systems.' I'm sure he's right. Where I have a problem is in his implicit trust that the optimization of the system, the achievement of the mathematical perfection of the macroscale, is something to be desired. To people, 'optimization' is a neutral term. The optimization of a complex mathematical, or economic, system may make things better for us, or it may make things worse. It may improve society, or degrade it. We may not be able to apprehend the ends, but that doesn't mean the ends are going to be good."

The Long Tail - Wired Blogs

Why is the tendency to use overly vague generalizations so common? Chris Anderson and his concept of The Long Tail idea is useful here. As an example, instead of lumping blogs into an institution and referring to it in the singular, it is far more powerful to think of blogs as "a Long Tail, and (therefore) it is always a mistake to generalize about the quality or nature of content in the Long Tail—it is, by definition, variable and diverse."

What is misleading is that the head of a long tail composed of the most popular products based on common appeal but often the tail products by being specialized or uncompromising often have higher quality.

Using vague generalities seems to come from intellectual laziness in developing concise and precise definitions of specificities.

Explanatory Models of Living Systems Across the Social Sciences

If all the scholars in social sciences, in all the living sciences, do, in fact, necessarily activate some model of the living system of which they are studying or observing, then we might fruitfully attempt to abstract, compare, and study the general form of each of the various models the scholars use to identify isomorphisms. For example, we might compare the model of economic systems various writers use in analyzing government intervention. As I understand it the Keynesian model believes that demand can be increased by government spending and that will stimulate the economy to increase its production and employment. If the economic system is ailing, it is fixed by providing government spending to which it then responds and improves in its employment and production.

That model of a living system rests on the notion that the economic system is directly affected and responsive to environmental inputs, that it copies or reproduces something received; it may be isomorphic with the behaviorist model of cognitive development used by the Direct Instruction folks. The DI model seems to rest on the notion that cognitive development is the sum total of learning effects. In neither model is there the idea of some internal, constructive processes that follow their own internal self-regulations such that external factor are possible triggers for their activity but in no way controlling nor to be copied.

Of course, we want to know what other genral explanatory models operate in the social sciences before we begin to trace their developments and attempt explanations of the sources of their change and development across time. Such is my hypothesis regarding isomorphisms across the social sciences, and of course much empirical and theoretic work is needed before I can speak of any confirmation.

What I have in mind is that the study of political economy is one source of these models of living systems at work in the explanations of people since political economy confronts the effects of government on the economy. The economy as a living system may be forced to confront problem that government as an outside factor presents o it. Government from the point of view of the economic system is a challenge or external problem presented by its operating environment. Thus, problems of political economy as such, could be used to the study how Congressmen and others use some explanatory model to justify their positions on government and legislation. The current stimulus proposals would seem to present a source of interesting problems of explanation and justification that could be posed to politicians to reveal politicians' thinking that would lay bare the underlying model organizing their thinking.

The economy as an object of study is a living system entailing the propeties of living systems in general. The Behaviorists appear to see cognitive systems as accommodations, that is, merely as the effects of teaching and education.