Paul Ryan, American Values and Corporatocracy

[Bfgrn]

America needs a "mixed economy," one where a more effective federal government regulates business and invests alongside the business sector. In his review of my book, Congressman Paul Ryan, an avowed libertarian, describes my book as anti-American in its values. Ryan is wrong: my book describes how we can restore politics to the true mainstream of American values, rescuing democracy from the clutches of corporate power that Ryan champions in deeds if not in words.

Ryan claims I would replace "the ideals of individual liberty" with the beneficence of "an intrusive, unlimited government." This is how Ryan sees my call for government to regulate banks, protect the environment from pollution, promote science, tax millionaires and billionaires, and limit the lobbying power of corporations. When one is on the far right of the political spectrum like most of the Republican Party today, even moderate policies look like "unlimited government."

Ryan calls the mixed economy anti-American. History, however, shows otherwise. From the start of the republic, our Founding Fathers and our greatest presidents have championed an affirmative role of government in the economy. Ironically, Ryan turns to Thomas Jefferson for proof, imaging that Jefferson would support Ryan's libertarian views.

Ryan seems to be unaware that Jefferson vigorously opposed the untrammeled actions of commercial banks and corporations that Ryan champions. Jefferson famously wrote, "I sincerely believe, with you, that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies." He declared the need to "crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country."

Ryan also overlooks several obvious facts of American history. From Jefferson to Abraham Lincoln to Teddy Roosevelt to Franklin Roosevelt to now, the federal government has played a vital role in public works (canals in the 19th century, highways in the mid-20th century, and someday a low-carbon energy system in the 21st century). From the founding days 'til now, government has championed public education, such as in 1862 when Abraham Lincoln signed the Morrill Act establishing America's great land-grant universities. From the founding days 'til now, the federal government has championed research, from Lewis and Clark's expedition under Jefferson to the mission to the moon under Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon.

Ryan ignores the extensive evidence in the book showing that Americans support the values of a mixed economy, not of Ryan's free-market libertarianism. Americans today by large majorities support public education, Medicare, Social Security, help for the indigent, stronger regulation of the banks, and higher taxation of the rich. The problem is not with American values, I show, but with the failure of our government to translate American values into American policies.

More - Jeffrey Sachs American economist

 

[Alias]

America needs a "mixed economy," one where a more effective federal government regulates business and invests alongside the business sector. In his review of my book, Congressman Paul Ryan, an avowed libertarian, describes my book as anti-American in its values. Ryan is wrong: my book describes how we can restore politics to the true mainstream of American values, rescuing democracy from the clutches of corporate power that Ryan champions in deeds if not in words.

Ryan claims I would replace "the ideals of individual liberty" with the beneficence of "an intrusive, unlimited government." This is how Ryan sees my call for government to regulate banks, protect the environment from pollution, promote science, tax millionaires and billionaires, and limit the lobbying power of corporations. When one is on the far right of the political spectrum like most of the Republican Party today, even moderate policies look like "unlimited government."

Ryan calls the mixed economy anti-American. History, however, shows otherwise. From the start of the republic, our Founding Fathers and our greatest presidents have championed an affirmative role of government in the economy. Ironically, Ryan turns to Thomas Jefferson for proof, imaging that Jefferson would support Ryan's libertarian views.

Ryan seems to be unaware that Jefferson vigorously opposed the untrammeled actions of commercial banks and corporations that Ryan champions. Jefferson famously wrote, "I sincerely believe, with you, that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies." He declared the need to "crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country."

Ryan also overlooks several obvious facts of American history. From Jefferson to Abraham Lincoln to Teddy Roosevelt to Franklin Roosevelt to now, the federal government has played a vital role in public works (canals in the 19th century, highways in the mid-20th century, and someday a low-carbon energy system in the 21st century). From the founding days 'til now, government has championed public education, such as in 1862 when Abraham Lincoln signed the Morrill Act establishing America's great land-grant universities. From the founding days 'til now, the federal government has championed research, from Lewis and Clark's expedition under Jefferson to the mission to the moon under Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon.

Ryan ignores the extensive evidence in the book showing that Americans support the values of a mixed economy, not of Ryan's free-market libertarianism. Americans today by large majorities support public education, Medicare, Social Security, help for the indigent, stronger regulation of the banks, and higher taxation of the rich. The problem is not with American values, I show, but with the failure of our government to translate American values into American policies.

More - Jeffrey Sachs American economist

Let's start with public education. I think most Americans see a problem with our public education system. Why are so many kids dropping out and why are the grade and test scores dropping in comparison to other nations despite the fact we spend so much money on "the children"?

 

[Bfgrn]

Let's start with public education. I think most Americans see a problem with our public education system. Why are so many kids dropping out and why are the grade and test scores dropping in comparison to other nations despite the fact we spend so much money on "the children"?

I think it has a lot to do with being taught to score on tests, instead of learning whole theories, learning how to think and problem solve.

And why not look at the most successful nations?

The Finnish way to education excellence

WHEN FINLAND’S 15-year-olds recently placed No.1 in math and science on the recent Program for International Student Assessment, the news of the coup was received in Helsinki with characteristic reserve. For the Finns, whose schools are considered the best in the world, the scores stood as a redundant confirmation of the success of their policies.

But in the U.S., the frustration was palpable. Despite persistent attempts to bring equity to the wildly uneven quality of our schools, reformers have not been able to produce the intended results. That’s why they’ve begun to look even more closely in this presidential election year at Finland for lessons that can be applied here. What they will find in the end serves as a cautionary tale for strategies that we proudly consider cutting edge.

At the heart of Finland’s stellar reputation is a philosophy completely alien to America. The country of 5.3 million in an area twice the size of Missouri considers education an end in itself – not a means to an end. It’s a deeply rooted value that is reflected in the Ministry of Education and in all 432 municipalities. In sharp contrast, Americans view education as a stepping stone to better-paying jobs or to impress others. The distinction explains why we are obsessed with marquee names, and how we structure, operate and fund schools.

The headlines notwithstanding, misconceptions about Finland’s renown as an educational icon abound. The Finns spend a meager (compared to the U.S.) $5,000 a year per student, operate no gifted programs, have average class sizes close to 30, and don’t begin schooling children until they are 7. Moreover, Finland is not the homogeneous nation of lore. While still not as diverse as the U.S., the number of immigrant students in Helsinki’s comprehensive schools is exploding, with their numbers expected to constitute 23.3 percent of the city’s schools by 2025. At present, about 11 percent are immigrants, compared with just 6 percent in 2002. According to the City of Helsinki Urban Facts, by 2015 there will be schools with more than half of the student body from abroad.

Not surprisingly, in a land where literacy and numeracy are considered virtues, teachers are revered. Teenagers ranked teaching at the top of their list of favorite professions in a recent survey. Far more graduates of upper schools in Finland apply for admission to teacher-training institutes than are accepted. The overwhelming majority of those who eventually enter the classroom as a teacher make it a lifelong career, even though they are paid no more than their counterparts in other European countries.

One of the major reasons for the job satisfaction that Finnish teachers report is the great freedom they enjoy in their instructional practices. As long as they adhere to the core national curriculum, teachers are granted latitude unheard of in the U.S. The scripted lesson plans that teachers here are increasingly being expected to follow would be rejected out of hand as an insult by teachers in Finland and by their powerful union, which has a growing membership of some 117,500 members.

If none of these facts are enough to raise doubts about the policies the U.S. has in place or on the drawing board, Finland’s testing practices should raise a final red flag. The Finns do not administer national standardized tests during the nine years of basic education. Instead, the National Board of Education assesses learning on the basis of a sample representing about 10 percent of a stipulated age group. Individual school results are strictly confidential, and schools are neither ranked nor compared. The data collected are available only to the schools in question and to the National Board of Education, which use them to help improve instruction. The naming and shaming that No Child Left Behind relies on in its obsession with quantification would be unthinkable.

What ultimately emerges from studying Finland is the realization that the reform movement in America is based on a business model fundamentally at odds with the education model used by a country with the world’s finest schools.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

I wonder how many of Ryan's rabid rightwing rooters have really read his reactionary recipe for America?

 

[cawacko]

I think it has a lot to do with being taught to score on tests, instead of learning whole theories, learning how to think and problem solve.

And why not look at the most successful nations?

The Finnish way to education excellence

WHEN FINLAND’S 15-year-olds recently placed No.1 in math and science on the recent Program for International Student Assessment, the news of the coup was received in Helsinki with characteristic reserve. For the Finns, whose schools are considered the best in the world, the scores stood as a redundant confirmation of the success of their policies.

But in the U.S., the frustration was palpable. Despite persistent attempts to bring equity to the wildly uneven quality of our schools, reformers have not been able to produce the intended results. That’s why they’ve begun to look even more closely in this presidential election year at Finland for lessons that can be applied here. What they will find in the end serves as a cautionary tale for strategies that we proudly consider cutting edge.

At the heart of Finland’s stellar reputation is a philosophy completely alien to America. The country of 5.3 million in an area twice the size of Missouri considers education an end in itself – not a means to an end. It’s a deeply rooted value that is reflected in the Ministry of Education and in all 432 municipalities. In sharp contrast, Americans view education as a stepping stone to better-paying jobs or to impress others. The distinction explains why we are obsessed with marquee names, and how we structure, operate and fund schools.

The headlines notwithstanding, misconceptions about Finland’s renown as an educational icon abound. The Finns spend a meager (compared to the U.S.) $5,000 a year per student, operate no gifted programs, have average class sizes close to 30, and don’t begin schooling children until they are 7. Moreover, Finland is not the homogeneous nation of lore. While still not as diverse as the U.S., the number of immigrant students in Helsinki’s comprehensive schools is exploding, with their numbers expected to constitute 23.3 percent of the city’s schools by 2025. At present, about 11 percent are immigrants, compared with just 6 percent in 2002. According to the City of Helsinki Urban Facts, by 2015 there will be schools with more than half of the student body from abroad.

Not surprisingly, in a land where literacy and numeracy are considered virtues, teachers are revered. Teenagers ranked teaching at the top of their list of favorite professions in a recent survey. Far more graduates of upper schools in Finland apply for admission to teacher-training institutes than are accepted. The overwhelming majority of those who eventually enter the classroom as a teacher make it a lifelong career, even though they are paid no more than their counterparts in other European countries.

One of the major reasons for the job satisfaction that Finnish teachers report is the great freedom they enjoy in their instructional practices. As long as they adhere to the core national curriculum, teachers are granted latitude unheard of in the U.S. The scripted lesson plans that teachers here are increasingly being expected to follow would be rejected out of hand as an insult by teachers in Finland and by their powerful union, which has a growing membership of some 117,500 members.

If none of these facts are enough to raise doubts about the policies the U.S. has in place or on the drawing board, Finland’s testing practices should raise a final red flag. The Finns do not administer national standardized tests during the nine years of basic education. Instead, the National Board of Education assesses learning on the basis of a sample representing about 10 percent of a stipulated age group. Individual school results are strictly confidential, and schools are neither ranked nor compared. The data collected are available only to the schools in question and to the National Board of Education, which use them to help improve instruction. The naming and shaming that No Child Left Behind relies on in its obsession with quantification would be unthinkable.

What ultimately emerges from studying Finland is the realization that the reform movement in America is based on a business model fundamentally at odds with the education model used by a country with the world’s finest schools.

It says Finland is not homogenous as others claim because it grew from 6% immigrants in 2002 to 11% immigrants today? And who cares what it is projected to grow to in 2025? Show us the test scores then and if they perform the same with all the new immigrants then ok they can argue their system is much better. But very much apples to oranges otherwise. (which is not to say we shouldn't look to their country or any other country for best practices that we could implement and improve our system just speaking as a whole)