Education and Defense in the U.S.

OK thinkers, I've got a thought mulling, and I need some help with it, when you're brain has free time. This gets a bit long.

Defense Department vs. National Education levels.

Posit: The government is in the business of providing public goods. Why? Because public goods are those that the market wont supply, or wont supply at an efficient level because of disincentives.

Ergo, National defense: someone providing it gives it to everyone. BUT it's really expensive, and if one can't isolate the benefits, there is no market incentive to provide it. Hence, the federal government takes defense responsibilities from the states, and doesn't allow private military forces to operate within the U.S.

As a government we spend hundreds of billions of dollars on defense every year. Dozens of major companies, and thousands of small ones, compete for major contracts to design new equipment, deliver it, set up logistics, analyze this or that, and basically make a ton of money doing this. They use that money to recruit and pay some of the brightest minds in our country, and keep them engaged in the "business of defense" of our country.

Basically, (and without judgment), the defense industry in this country is the government pouring hundreds of billions of dollars into the economy in order to get companies to provide us with a public good.

Education: education is also a public good. The more educated an individual is, the more capable s/he is to contribute more to his/her society. In intellectual, artistic, economic, and social ways. Well educated people tend to be healthier, have higher paying (and more economically productive) jobs, raise children who are more successful in school and help diversify their local economic base, mitigating the impact of single-sector market swings.

We leave education as a "state-level" public good, with most states devolving the lion's share of educational authority to county, city, or school-district levels. In part because these levels of government are smaller, in part because they are closer to the electorate, and in part because nearly all of them are constitutionally (state-level constitution) barred from running a deficit, have much less money to dole out to those interested in providing a public good than does the federal government.

This general lack of money (as well as the general conception that if one wants a good school, then one should pay the costs of a private education), has led U.S. schools to mediocre performance when compared globally, and is preparing generations of America's children to fail in an ever-changing national and global situation.

With that caveat that I'm not trying to expand government, and if there is a way to improve education with local-level funding, I'm all for it, I want to ask a question:

Why can't we, as a country, do for education what we did for defense?

National defense started as a bunch of guys pulling their muskets of the mantel and assembling in the town square. It has evolved into an enormously complex industry of professional soldiers, statesmen, executives, and lobbyists. It is not necessarily market-efficient, but it is the most effective military force the world has ever known. The thing about military spending is that it is just that: spending. There is minimal investment when it comes to military--and the little actual investment that occurs does so in the form of training received by soldiers and officers. Spending on education can be either spending or investing. And the returns can be enormous. The returns on teaching young children can be 11:1. Not 11%, but 11 times investment.

Why are we, as a society, unwilling to make that kind of investment in our children, but we are in national defense? Is there a compromise that can be reached? A new approach to government and education?

Those sneaky Capitalists...in North Korea

A quick little piece to prove that I'm still around.  Life's been busy, and I haven't seen a lot I've felt like commenting on lately, sorry.

 

But here's a tidbit for you all:

 

Unbeknownst to the world (and likely, even themselves) the DPRK (N. Korea) has become capitalist.  I don't really have much to go on in asserting this.  Only one teeny-weeny little web page.  North Korea's Official webpage--according to the BBC.

 

And it's hosted on a .com server.  Not .org, .net, or even .dprk.  Yup, it's a .com.

 

www.korea-dpr.com/

 

Have fun. Unfortunately, the "buy a souvenir" links don't work. I guess FedEx hasn't opened a Pyongyang branch yet.

Wonk Paradise

I have found it, and it is amazing.  What is most surprising (or maybe not) is that it is run by the Federal Reserve.  If you’re looking for some amazing numbers, give this a look.

A Glimmer of Sunlight

This CBS story suggests a glimmer of sunlight in North Korea-Western relations.  The Associated Press’s TV wing opened a North Korea bureau on Monday.  This is pretty big news.  Actually, it’s huge news.  North Korea—long viewed as the most secretive country in the world, has just allowed a major media outlet to set up a permanent presence in its capital.  I can’t think of a more meaningful step for them to take outside of actually being serious at the six-party negotiations.  Let’s hope there is more of the same on the horizon.

A China Strategy

As a result of where I live, D.C., I've been hearing a lot recently about the U.S.'s China Strategy. Or more specfically, the U.S.'s lack of a China strategy. It's something I harp on from time to time, and usually offer nothing productive on.

Today, I'd like to take a stab at providing a more constructive version of a U.S. China Strategy. President Bush has said that democratization is a goal of the U.S. in the world right now. I think that is admirable, but I don't think it's realistic to believe the U.S. can (or should) impose/instil/implant democracies around the world. What I think is legitimate for the U.S. to do, and is consistent with the message of President Bush's strategy, if not the content specifically, is to work with other countries to make the world one in which all people have the opportunity to pursue their own course. For some this will lead to democracy; for others not. Singapore is a good example of a country that has so far chosen very little in the way of democratic reform, and yet one in which the people are generally supportive of the government.

When the United States begin to state explicitly that we expect other countries should adopt democractic positions, and that we will act to see that they do, we are terrifying to legitimate state actors around the world. Numerous countries behave in ways that, to an exclusively American perspective, are not democratic--(China, Nigeria, Egypt, Venezuela, Kenya, to name a few)--but for the most part, we have found ways to engage each of these actors in a constructive way.

The more countries we engage with constructively, the more we tie the world together, and the more difficult we make conflict. The less conflict, the more development, the more safety, and the more opportunity for people around the world. We can engage economically (trade, investment), we can engage culturally (artist and performer exchanges), we can engage through education (study abroad and foreign exchange programs for young people and scholars). Each of these makes significant contribution to the real ties that bring countries, people, and cultures together. Having embassies and joint press conferences are not the activities that bring countries together--they are only symbols of a togetherness already knit.

This week marked the final steps in the building of the physical wall that is the Three Gorges Dam in China. Any time a government invests in a project, it is an indication of the government's priorities. The Three Gorges Dam, as one of the largest public-construction projects of the past 100 years, is a big indicator of China's priorities: energy, water, control of the environment. When one couples this 16 year project with China's upsurge in diplomacy and contract-acquisition in international energy and commodity markets, it becomes clear that China views its economic growth as a paramount issue, and that steady, secure sources of energy and resources to facilitate this growth are fundamental to China's government.

Many in the U.S. see this as a form of Chinese expansionism. They're right. China is far more cognicent of the economic concept of the growth-limitting factor: growth is limitted by whatever factor is the most scarce. It is a country that has almost 25% of the world's population and only 6% of the world's arable land. The U.S.? Almost the inverse. We have something like 6% of the world's population and about 20% of the arable land. China knows what it is to be stuck between a rock and hard place. And they aren't willing to be crushed without giving it a fighting chance.

Those in the U.S. that see China as a strategic competitor, or a strategic threat are making a reasonable and logical assessment of where China is and where it wants to go. But I believe they are also locked into a zero-sum view of profits, the world, and resource availability. Even if the U.S. and China were fighting over the last available barrel of oil in the world, it could become a shooting war, or it could become an opportunity to bring the countries closer together.

China is a country, like the U.S., with numerous vast and deep problems. In fact the two countries share many of the same problems: We are countries addicted to resources we do not control, and whose prices are skyrocketing. We are countries experiencing major crises of confidence in our political leadership. We are countries with significant public-debt problems threatening to bring down decades of carefully crafted economic growth. We are countries with major economic and educational opportunitiy variance between distinct regions.

All of these issues should make it easier for China and the U.S.'s leadership to understand each other more effectively. This frequently doesn't happen, however, because there are major cultural differeneces between the U.S. and China that continue to get in the way with how things are done. These differences provide the basis for the opportunity to turn the last barrel in the world into a cooperative endeavor instead of a shooting war.

One of America's great advantages is the ability to absorb things. Ideas. Concepts. Peoples. Customs. There is a reason that it's hard to get a good hot dog in Germany. The German's might have turned sausage-eating into a national cuisine, but Americans have turned Bratwurst and Kielbasa into an Oscar Meyer Wiener. We've taken small plaza cafes and turned them into a worldwide octopus: Starbucks. We've stolen words: C note; hors de'vours; long time no see; gringo; and made them American. This is something Chinese have not yet become adept at--nor has any of our European counterparts.

So what? Is this pertinent? Yes. Because it is this adaptability, and the creativity that is part of it, that can allow the U.S. and the Chinese to cooperate and grow closer together, even as the competition for resources becomes more intense. Seem crazy? Just crazy enough to work.

Without significant shocks to the economic system, the world's apetite for energy and resources is going to continue to grow over the next 10-15 years. Without significant changes in technology and resource utilization, this means the cost for resources and energy will go through the roof, and only the very wealthy will be able to grow at the pace they need to satisfy internal political conditions.

No one will be wealthy enough for that to work. So, if the U.S. wants to start cultivating China as a colleague instead of a competitor, it needs to start harnessing the ingenuity and sophistication inherent in a people who can memorize decades of baseball statistics, and who know enough about mechanics and engineering to design car-performance modifications on the back of a budweiser label. If we put these skills into using resources smarter, and getting more with less, we'd reduce our own demand for resources and energy, and at the same time, we could sell this technology to China who would love to have it, in order to reduce their own dependence on international commodities.

So why don't we start working together?

One nation, under Lock and Key

One Nation, under Lock and Key, Indevisible with chain-links and barriers to protect us all.

Read the Rahhhsian soliloquoy first, because this is follow-up to that.

President Bush will be addressing the country on Monday to lay out his plan to stem the tide of illegal immigration. And it looks as though he will be taking a page out of Nikita Kruschev's playbook, and inverting the great rhetoric (and reality) of his political forebearer, Ronald Reagan, "Mr. Gorbechav, tear down this wall," and his actual forebearer, George H. W. Bush, who was president when the wall actually came down.

Instead of "tearing down this wall," President Bush, it is expected, will use a prime-time statement on Monday to help establish a human wall comprised of the National Guard on the Southern border in order to help keep out all the illegals.

I've written about this topic before, and I'm not a big fan of illegal immigration. But there are economic realities at play here that creating a wall (human, corrugated metal, or simply recreateting the Berlin Wall) will not alleviate. If a 12 foot tall concrete wall with barbed wire and gun-toting guard yelling scary things in German at those getting too close to the Berlin wall didn't stop 5,000 East Germans from fleeing into West Germany (also illegal immigration), is it really concievable that simply having a lot of American patrol the border is going to stop illegals from entering this country? (Remember, unlike Berlin, we have a coastline too...and how likely is it that the California and Texas beach-communities will welcome National Guard sitting in the middle of their volleyball court?)

Immigration to this country from many parts South is that there are greater economic opportunities here than there are at home. If the U.S. isn't doing anything to address those, we're going to be faced with continued immigration regardless of how high of a wall we build.

There is another significant component to the immigration debate, and it is just as significant to the Republican hopes of holding the House/Senate this fall, and the Presidency in 2008: small business owners. One of the great benefits of tons of illegal immigration into this country is that it helps keep wages down--especially for low-skilled jobs. We have cleaning crews, painting crews, window washers, car mechanics, and lawn mowers who are working under the table. And if you can get away with paying someone $5-6 bucks an hour without benefits and without paying taxes, or you have to pay someone $12-15 an hour, plus you have to pay social security and other taxes on top of that, which do you think helps you bottom line more?

Even though aggregate economic numbers are still growing very well, much of it is being driven by higher productivity and longer hours from the people already in the system. Interest rates are creeping up (in my opinion, teetering on the edge of going up at a faster pace), most individuals in this country have debt-levels that preclude them from taking on more debt (to, say, start a business) and are at the mercy of rising interest rates. If, all of the sudden, the supply of cheap labor is cut off to this country, small businesses will be faced with declining profits and the spectre of bankruptcy. Just what any incumbant wants when running head-long into a major election: an economy that is in the tubes, a foreign policy that has left us without allies or victory, and action on issues that lead to more problems than solutions.

They feel our pain, but aren't afraid

Cue Patriotic theme, vaguely reminiscent of TV News theme.

Enter, stage right (far right), Prime Minister Ivanovichicov. Walks downstage to podium. Backdrop of flags, flag-waving, weapon wielding true-believers in the foreground.

"Friends. Countryman. Rahhhsians."

"Today we embark on a dangerous and difficult undertaking. We have to secure the Motherland from dangerous adversaries. We face a new threat to our security. To our Prosperity. To our very way of life."

But I'm will not try to scare you. I will not try to play on your fears. You should not be afraid.

This new threat is dangerous. It is scary. It is worse than the terrorists in Chechnya. It is more terrifying than the possibility of Ukraine diversifying its energy suppliers. It has me up at night worried sick.

But we have nothing to fear. There is no cause for alarm.

This new threat, this dangerous foe we are facing. He is invading us every hour of every day. He comes with the most dangerous and un-Rahhhsian attitude of all. His weapons? A job application, and a willingness to do backbreaking labor for very low wages. The danger? He is willing to work longer and harder and for less than we Rahhhsians. And this is not acceptable!"

[Cheers from true-believers; rifle shots fired into the air]

These are the people who are trying to weaken Mother Rahhhsia. Trying to erode our way of life. Trying to take away our Vodka, and steal our caviar. If they want to work harder than we do; if they want to work for less money than we do, fine. But they should do it in their own countries so we can simply outsource the work. There has been to much of this "insourcing" of cheap, hard working, unregulated labor. That strikes at the very heart of the problem. We are Rahhhsians. Everything must be regulated!

[Louder cheers from true-believers; more rifle shots into the air]

And we will not be afraid.

Beginning today, the great and loving government of Mother Rahhhsia will provide every man, woman, or child who is willing to walk the border with a Rahhhsian-made Kalishnikov, 30 rounds, and a letter granting permission to use it, so long as the bullet lands across our border. It is time we send a clear and unmistakable message to these pesky Finns, troublesome Latvians, and derisive North Koreans, that they are no longer welcome to just saunter in here and steal jobs that, without their presence, would drive up our costs and erode our profits. That is simply un-Rahhhsian. And we aren't going to take it any more.

[Loudest cheering yet, attempts to fire rifles into the air; rifles clicking because they are out of ammo.]

[Prime Minister Ivanichicov, exit stage right.]

Those who do not learn from History

The saying goes, "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it."  That is why I find the history of China since 1949 such a fascinating topic.  As would happen to any continent-sized country with a huge population, China is awash in contradictions.  Not only that, but it seems that many in China are losing the ability to distinguish reality from hype.  There is a sobering piece today in the Times (UK) about the woman who is credited with creating the spark that started the cultural revolution 40 years ago this month.

"With the gap between China’s rich and poor growing steadily wider, and anger rising among tens of millions of impoverished peasants, they [the Chinese government] are acutely aware of the danger of another extremist movement. Thus they have ordered a complete news blackout on the anniversary next Tuesday."

In spite of over 5,000 years of history from which to draw lessons (which happens liberally), the Chinese seem to cling obstinately to certain ways of doing things--like attempting to control information and a population--which can lead to nothing but the chaos trying to be averted.