Nannies...

GOP a joke

Ron Paul was a breath of fresh air for the Republican party. So was Gary Johnson until he switched to the Libertarian Party. Those guys got it right more often than not. They represented true limited government and real market based capitalism - not the crony capitalism or other political nonsense that pervades both parties.

Paul and Johnson were fighting for the soul of the Republican party - fighting against the crony capitalists (big government in the economy Republicans) and social conservatives (big government in the bedroom Republicans). They lost and now we are left with a Republican party that is virtually indistinguishable from Democrats except on meaningless social issues.

Sadly, with Romney, we are left with yet another election between a Giant Douche and a Turd Sandwich...

Obama is pretty bad, there is no doubt, but why would I want to vote for Romney after this silly GOP convention? Why is there a need to pretend all Republicans like or even want Mitt Romney as their candidate? In this day and age - with camera phones, twitter, blogs - why bother with such BS?

Why block delegates for a candidate that doesn't have enough to even come close to threatening Mitt Romney's nomination?

Why block one man's sign then confiscate it?

Why would I vote for a candidate when his party operates like that (see video below)?


The video above reminds me a lot of the petty tyrant attitudes that are prevalent among the bureaucrats running institutions of "higher" education.  Block and ban all opinions you disagree with... Sigh...

I wouldn't support Romney and Ryan anyway. I'd rather have four more years of Obama ruining the progressive brand than Romney and Ryan ruining the free market capitalism brand...like Bush.

Lean startup nonsense

The "lean startup" model could indeed help government run better. Under lean startup, a business (or government) creates small "minimum viable products" and tests them with consumers.

The object is to test the hypothesis that consumers will enjoy/purchase X product. Lean startups want to iterate, release and test products quickly, all the while using the knowledge gained from testing user behavior to make a better product. Basically you're testing to find out what consumers want (and why they want it) and quickly drop whatever doesn't work for the consumer. The result is a successful business that produces products people want at a lower cost.

Sounds great and the concept of applying the lean startup method to government has Pando Daily writers and Eric Ries (the guy who coined the term lean startup) excited about the prospects.

An article by Hamish McKenzie in Pando Daily provides minimal detail on how government is using lean startup, but basically a former executive level administrator at Health and Human Services is pairing entrepreneurs with government bureaucrats to produce "results" in six months.

McKenzie writes,

The White House was applying Lean Startup concepts in the Innovation Fellows program, which pairs top entrepreneurs from the private sector with top innovators in government to collaborate on key tasks that aim to deliver significant results in six months. The teams work to build products that address needs such as making government data more useful and accessible to the public, improving awareness around public health records, and personalizing the government’s online services.

[Todd] Park was effusive about the merits of the Lean Startup way. “The government in and of itself isn’t a startup, but change instincts inside the government absolutely are,” he said. “And Lean Startup works.” He described it as a “perfect fit” with how the government has to change.

Forgive me for being skeptical, but I don't see the lean startup model working in a virtual monopoly where politicians and bureaucrats have no skin in the game (nothing to lose by spending other people's money). There are also associated problems with concentrated interests and dispersed costs (government beneficiaries - read special interest groups - are highly vocal, taxpayers less so). This issue with concentrated interests results in decisions on policy prescriptions being political, not based on science. Finally, government has a problem with how it earns revenue. You see (Eric, Hamish, Micheal, Todd et. al) government earns revenue regardless of whether the programs are successful or not. Government has the power to tax and to take what it needs whether the services are good or bad (little to no incentive to do good).

Examples abound, but I have one for you that is rich with irony.

Todd Park (government CTO quoted above) worked for Health and Human Services, the same department which suppressed a study for 3 years on the Head Start program. The study found no long term statistical impact on students in the program. This despite spending over $150 billion on the program since its inception 40 years ago.

Head Start still exists and the government still spends billions on the program. If that is lean startup, I will eat my underpants.

If that wasn't bad enough, during the same time HHS was suppressing a study on how they wasted billions producing no results, the Democrat controlled congress voted to eliminate the DC Opportunity Scholarship program which, at worst, produced a 20 point improvement in graduation rates among low-income students in DC.

Lean startups don't spend billions on projects that don't work and cancel projects that do. Lean startups also don't have the ability to take, by force, revenue from their customers...


Consumers of the scholarship program wanted it (see the video above), but the teacher union (a powerful and influential special interest group) feared the program threatened union power and control over education. The union pushed Democrats to kill the scholarship program despite overwhelming evidence that school choice programs work.

The fundamentals of government (how government ACTUALLY operates) doesn't allow for the lean startup method. Its a nice thought, but it just doesn't work out that way right now... For now, we'll get platitudes from government bureaucrats and the journalists who believe, without question, everything they say.

The end is near... for the university!

Online education startup Udacity now allows students to take proctored exams to earn course certification. The courses themselves are free, certification is just $89.

Udacity focuses on computer programming (a field that currently doesn't require professional licenses which makes it a ripe field for disruption!). I'm currently taking the CS101 course in computer science and I have to admit, its a lot of fun to learn computer programming.

I'm looking forward to the day when startups like this can put an end to the medieval model of higher education that currently dominates academia. Specifically the four  five eight year under graduate degree.

I'm also looking forward to proof that a classroom of 100,000 students works just fine.

Roots of education never changed

All fluff

Francisco Dao, founder of 50 Kings and columnist for Pando Daily (tech/start-up blog), writes another fluff piece that pretends to have deep insight...this time about how to fix education.

Dao writes,

While efforts have targeted higher education because of the spiraling costs, the most important part of the learning process happens at the grade school level. Here is where students are taught to learn, or at least they should be. But unfortunately K-12 education has become mired in an imprudent curriculum that drives most students away from intellectual curiosity.

Notice I said “taught to learn” and not “learn.” This is an important distinction because what happens during these developmental years is what sets us on our paths for the rest of our lives. Instead of teaching students what to learn, students and society would both be better served if we taught them why they should learn. A child who is instilled with the tools of critical thinking and an appreciation for learning will become an adult who seeks knowledge as a lifelong pursuit, regardless of the specific mechanics of how it’s found.

Basically, Dao thinks we can only reform education if we teach students critical thinking, to love learning, and how to think.

Sigh....

There are many theories about how to improve education - most are contradictory with each other - but everyone, from theorists to practitioners, already agrees about the importance of critical thinking and teaching people how to think and learn. In fact, for all educations failures, WE HAVE ALREADY BEEN DOING THIS Mr. Dao!

This isn't the first fluff piece by Mr. Dao. I'm not sure if Mr. Dao fails to take a meaningful stand on subjects to avoid controversy, or if he isn't a deep thoughtful thinker to begin with.*  I don't know him so I can't tell -- all I have are his blog posts which demonstrate he writes shallow pieces about important topics. This is disapointing to me...and a bit ironic... because he founded 50 Kings an organization of allegid tech/business elites  who gather together to discuss important issues of our time. If Dao's Pando Daily writings are as deep as the conversation goes, well....

*and where no one takes a bold stand with policy prescriptions

Bold statements and controversial stands on important issues should not be avoided if we want to make real progress and advance policy and society forward... especially if you have the emperical evidence to back you up.

Want real solutions, not fluff?...Read more of my blog, or better yet, read the work of people much smarter than me like Dr. Jay P. Green, Dr. Eric Hanusek, Dr. Paul Peterson, Dr. Caroline Hoxby (and many more) on proper education reform.


* UPDATE - it is also possible Mr. Dao doesn't know enough about education and education reform to offer meaningful insights. It is also possible he wants people to think of solutions themselves, but he offers to hint or invitation for his readers to do so.

Republicans are just as bad at math as Democrats

 
I'm inspired to write this after a debate with some Romney/Ryan tribe members. Without providing an ounce of evidence, they were convinced Romney and Ryan would slash government spending and return sanity to Washington.

Sadly, the math begs to differ. The fact is, Ryan's budget would actually increase government spending.

Reason Magazine has written some articles on the issue and I recommend taking a look at them here, here and here. The libertarian Cato Institute is a nicer (too nice) to Ryan's budget and fine with not balancing the Federal budget until 2040... but make no mistake, Ryan is NOT cutting government spending.

Federal outlays for 2012 will be somewhere around $3.6 to $3.8 trillion for 2012. Ryan's budget proposal would actually increase spending to $4.9 trillion by 2022.  For the record 4.9 is bigger than 3.8.  In fact, Ryan's budget would increase Federal outlays by about 29 percent.

Contrary to what the media, Republican and Democrat leadership state, Ryan's budget doesn't cut a dime in Federal spending. Ryan is only proposing to cut imaginary spending. That is, money the government has never spent (it doesn't even exist!).

By contrasts, Obama wants a ridiculous 45 percent increase in spending... something we certainly cannot afford. By debating about imaginary spending cuts Republicans treat the Democrats desired spending as a baseline. This allows Democrats to make the argument that their budget is NECESSARY to MAINTAIN government programs. Thus, imaginary budget cuts, they argue, hurt the government programs ... and thus the poor, elderly, disabled...

(Republican budget strategy)

So the difference between Republicans and Democrats is whether to increase spending by 29% or 45% AND NOT a difference between "slashing spending" and just "barely maintaining government programs" as each respective party base (and media) believes.

By treating imaginary spending as real spending, Republicans are handing the budget debate to Democrats on a silver platter. Now Democrats get to set the tone and they get to argue their budget  merely maintains government programs...with a 45 percent increase in spending.

We need honest budget policy. Republicans: Admit the budget proposal actually increases spending nearly 30 percent. Drop the idea that your proposals are "radical" and take up the mantle of "moderate." Finally, lambast the opposition's unrealistic 45 percent increase budget demands.  Just don't pretend you actually cut the budget.

That strategy may not excite your political base but at least we can move the ball forward on sensible budget policy.

(Full Disclosure: I am not, nor ever have been, a member of ANY political party. I do consider myself a small "l" libertarian).

Boldly Boring

Francisco Dao, founder of 50 Kings and columnist for Pando Daily wrote a column titled "Looterism: The Cancerous Ethos That is Gutting America."

What a bold column title, certainly something interesting or profound must follow? Unfortunately, no.

Dao writes,

Capitalism is supposed to be a system that rewards people for creating value, but it has been perverted into “Looterism,” where the mantra of maximizing one’s self interest is spoken like an incantation, and people believe that this is the only thing that matters. In the transformation from capitalism to looterism, our economy has mutated from one that believes in “private benefit from value created” to simply “private benefit, regardless of damage.”

Putting self-interest (greed or whatever you wish to call it) above creating value is bad for America. Great. This is a reasonable position hardly anyone can argue against. The problem is Dao defines and asserts NOTHING to move the argument forward.

What is self-interest? What examples can we provide? What is being damaged?

Why is self-interest bad? Does Mr. Dao get up for work in the morning for the betterment of human kind or is he motivated by his own self interest (to feed and cloth and house him and his family for example)?  I doubt Mr. Dao works for free, so he must work for his own self-interest. If self-interest isn't inherently bad, can it be corrupted? If so, how?

Mr. Dao provides a small hint but fails to explore this problem any further. He writes,

It has turned us into a nation obsessed with the measure of wealth but with no regard as to how said wealth is acquired [emphasis added]. In a looterist nation, a bailed out banker fat from the trough of graft and public funds is held in the same regard as an entrepreneur who made her fortune creating a product that improves people’s lives.

How wealth is aquired is a very important distinction. If it is aquired by free and open competition, great! If it is aquired by force, then bad!

Self-interest bounded by free market competition and volunteerism would then be good. Self-interest exploiting the monopoly of government power must be bad. This is an excellent conversation that needs to be explored further rather than condeming capitalism and self-interest wholesale.

I've asked for clarification and maybe he'll respond. In the meantime, I suggest reading Milton Friedman's essay on social responsibility for free-enterprise. Friedman's intelligent and well reasoned answer is that corporations have only one responsibility in a free market: to make a profit. Of course, Friedman reasons this is only good in an open market (the invisible hand), not one dominated by the strong and very visiable backhand of government.