My last post was about how wrong it is to say education is the only way to solve poverty. I said that changing the distribution of income is the only and best way. But there is also some trouble in the language of “solving” poverty. When you say you want to “solve” poverty, you generally… Continue reading One other note on “solving” poverty
Education and poverty, again
Erik Loomis wrote about the Diane Ravitch v. Michelle Rhee stuff. I don’t care about the majority of the content of this conflict. More arts funding? Ok I guess. I don’t know. I didn’t particularly like arts classes. I liked gym class. How about more of that? I don’t know: leave it to some pedagogy… Continue reading Education and poverty, again
Strike Debt calls for increasing inequality, again
I’ve kept tabs on the whole Strike Debt thing since its beginning. Those that read David Graeber and subsequently decided debt is the big thing are an interesting lot. In reality, debt is positively associated with income: the richer you are, the more debt you have. Needless to say, a focus on debt is pretty… Continue reading Strike Debt calls for increasing inequality, again
That TFA Study
A Teach for America study came out last week. At the time, I couldn’t figure out what any of the fuss was about. There are a sizable number of these things already, and this one was basically within the range of the prior ones. So what ground has been broken? I have no idea. A… Continue reading That TFA Study
Man complains about poor economic indicators while smashing things
This is an old video, but it’s one I occasionally want to pull up. So figured I would post it here. That is, after all, what a web log is for. I would describe his economic philosophy as squarely in the realm of nativist populism. Obviously, I do not endorse all his views.