This blog stands (primarily) on five pillars:

Global Federal Union : Liberal Christianity : Ethical Economics (I call it Ethinomics) : the Organic & Ecological : Teachers & Teaching

Welcome!

Friday, September 23, 2011

On Grade Inflation, Hype, and Financial Bubbles

I'm no economist, but I couldn't help but notice after reading a recent article on what teachers really want to tell parents, that all of the social mechanisms supporting one's child in misbehavior, for viewing the teacher as a problem in the way of a child's progress, and for pressuring teachers into increasing the child's grade - I couldn't help but notice that the grade inflation looks very much like the economic bubble that is ready to pop. Like anything arbitrary. such as the recent hype about how Facebook's new changes (as a result of competition with Google+) are going to reinvent the way we experience emotion, we build a castle on air and watch its glory fade in the wind. Or worse, burst and crash in disaster.
“The changes Facebook will roll out on Thursday are designed to enhance the emotional connection its users have to each other through Facebook. These changes will make Facebook a place where nearly everything in your life is enhanced by your social graph. These changes will make it so you know your friends better than you ever thought you could.”

There’s a simple curve to all of this. In the image to the right, there is a natural and smooth development of events over time. The horizontal dimension is time, the vertical, the degree of establishment. This is roughly the curve one goes through in establishing oneself in life. One could even describe that the space below that curve is a measure the volume of earned events, a form of experiential authority. 

Take a new company for example. That company has no clout, but it has what it thinks is a good product. But no one else believes this. What does it do? It gets endorsements from people who already do have authority. I (famous person) use this product nobody has heard of yet. Want to be like me? Want to have something so exclusive even I use it? In the case of a human being earning experience through life, we begin, hopefully, with the “endorsement”, i.e., the support, of our parents, that the attempts we make at establishing ourselves as self-sufficient and independent, stable individuals is a positive thing, well worth earning.

Back to the company analogy. At some point, the company gains a reputation for a good product. It gains authority because of the product itself, not the endorsements given it. The fact that more people use it, that it has become something of a norm, speaks for itself. At that point, perhaps those expensive celebrities can be done away with. It’s enough to make T-shirts and let the customers themselves endorse the product.

Wait, what’s that other curve there? The not so smooth curve? Well, right there where that curve jumps up by leaps and bounds at point X, somebody is boasting! And doing so without having gotten to that height of establishment yet. Somehow, a claim was made to unearned authority. What this is is an attempt to reach the high established ends of the graph without having earned it. It is groundless, and it is typical of many a phenomenon in the world. It is revolution vs. evolution. It’s the Zuckerbergs of the world saying “we are going to change the way you experience emotion. Sitting on your computers, you are going to learn more about your friends than you ever thought possible”. And then comes the reality. Well, it was a little better than before, maybe, but not like you stated it.

The curve of establishment falls again, and with the negative consequence of a loss of trust at point Y, the revelation of an empty boast, we find ourselves with a little less clout than we would have had without the hype. Never cry wolf, goes the saying.

So how does all this relate to financial bubbles, parents and student grade inflation? Simple. Student grades, if they are not earned, are castles built out of cloud-stuff. Vapor. And while it may satisfy the pride of the parents for a day that their son or daughter got that better score, the day of the fall will come. What happens next on that curve is pretty clear. More, and further arbitrary means of reinforcing the child will be made. More revolution. More wind. More baseless and groundless getting by. Affectation is rough. It is even habit forming.

The child will not only fail to earn the grades he or she received, but will learn that this is how to behave in life. That getting what you want is not a matter of slow, hard-earned and disciplined effort, but one of quick fixes and shiney promising solutions. How very sad. When the pendulum swings back the other way, though, it swings hard.

There is hope however. Some, but not all, revolutions have a learning curve as well. Take that path and life will be, as the image illustrates, a roller coaster. But it can settle down. Endless revolutions can also act as earned experience of what not to do. Life begins to settle down at point Z.

That is the student-child we are speaking of. The teacher has lost some establishment in the process of that revolution. And every successive parent who comes along supporting that sort of behavior in the student will remove from the teacher, and from the profession, this establishment. Don’t get me wrong, some teachers have no establishment, and to an extent justify the opinion. But on the whole, teachers are those who have to know the law, work within the curriculum, act as both nanny (though they shouldn’t) and psychiatrist not just to one patient, but to 20, and these days 30 puberty-stricken patients at a time(!), all while fending off the stratagems of parents who feel the cloud-castle entitlement of their children to succeed in this competitive world. No wonder qualified teachers go elsewhere, where qualification brings more money and more respect.

Parents, make this assumption. Teachers WANT to give your child a good grade. But their hands are tied. They measure, and shame on them if they cave in and don’t!, the earned effort and achievement of your child. If you find your student’s grades rising substantially after you have a hard talk with the teacher, as opposed to one with your child, expect that hard times are ahead. The bubble is going to pop. But hey, you earned it!

Monday, September 19, 2011

As a compliment to Andrew Duff's "Federal Union Now"

Andrew Duff recently published a good work entitled Federal Union Now, on the reforms that the European Union desperately needs, and which would create a "United States of Europe". I could not help but notice the title's resemblance to Clarence Streit's great work on federal union between the leading democracies of the North Atlantic at the time he wrote it in 1939, Union Now. I support that cause. And so I want to complement Mr. Duff's work with my own thoughts on aspects of federalism as they relate to the citizen and the citizen's perspective. How is this relevant to me? What will I gain from it?

Historically, the United States Constitution is the first document (spelling out a principle) that creates peace between separate nations (California and Arizona, New York and New Jersey, for example). It is for my children that I support that Constitution, and any form of it's practical outworking elsewhere in the world. I am not a nationalist, and I only promote the US Constitution to the extent that it helps others in the solution of the problem of mediation. Nationalism would have me celebrate the 4th of July, when the Declaration of Independence was signed, and whatever other self-determinism that the nation demands. But it was just chance however that I was born there. I celebrate instead the 17th of September (the anniversary of 1787), when a Convention produced in less than two days the Constitution. It is my only TRUE obligation as a citizen of that nation of nations to defend the Constitution. It is the only oath I have taken to any state, and the only oath I consider valid. I believe that the best defense of the Constitution is to make it universal.

Though I mention the Constitution, other states (and I'm speaking here of Europe) must ratify their systems in their own ways, and according to the wisdom they find in their own citizenry. Federalism, while it has a historical model in the US, is a principle. I have seen too often the tendency for federalists to argue for what their own nation has done to contribute to federalism. I would avoid that. It is nationalism within our federalist ranks. Let me make it clear that, not only did I happen to be born in the US, but it happened to be the US that discovered the principle of federalism first. It so happens that Europe is also discovering that principle, in their own time and in their own way.

It is ethical to be a federalist. Federalism is good for our nationalisms.

Mr. Duff gives a great outline of the economic problems and the structural changes that are necessary for a successful Europe. While reading his eBook, I asked myself however how much of this the layman might understand. If the federal argument is to succeed it must appeal to and have the support of the people, that much is sure. Therefore, this post, while supporting the economic and legal aspects of Duff's work, and with only respectful criticism and disagreement on some aspects of it, emphasizes federalism from the standpoint of the citizen, philosophically and ethically.

My qualifications to write on the subject? Practically none, I suppose. I'm a guy from L.A. who believes in the federal principle. My qualifications are definitely meager, at best, compared to Duff's. I am neither a political science or economics major education-wise (Education, History and English are my forte) and I lack a great deal of knowledge, admittedly, in the European system of government and law. I have no political experience as Duff does. I am a citizen (originally) of the City of Norwalk (where I was born) and of the County of Los Angeles (of which Norwalk is a part), and I remain a citizen of California, and of the United States. I have residency in Sweden, and so, the fate of Europe affects me and my family.

So what is federal union? Mr. Duff has one answer in the following:
"A more federal union will enjoy only the competences conferred on it in the constitution by its member states[.]"
I agree with this, but while it is good and right that the states, as collective bodies of citizens, should determine aspects of the constitution, competences should also be conferred upon the federal constitution by the citizens of the member states, for that, above all else, is what makes federal union actually federal.

There is a tendency here to see the state as the foundational entity. I've written on this before, that European democracy has evolved through a "Hobbesian" channel of thinking, as opposed to a Lockean paradigm, that causes the State to grant law to the people, rather than that the people restrict the state to certain aspects of law. This mindset above all creates the culture of state rights and state sovereignty, previous to the real and foundational sovereignty of the people. The State determining the law is, however, the state of affairs Europe is in now. It is the current self-determination and meddling mentality. Of nations, by nations, and for nations is the nationalist system of alliances, treaties, handshakes and agreements. None of which is binding. There is no sovereign federal law in such a case, nothing to ensure that such agreements become more than just praiseworthy and sentimental but powerless injunctions of what ought to be. We ought to unite, here it is on paper, but just now Germany is going to do its own thing. I'm in this for me, all over again. But I'll pressure you, and resist pressure from you, when problems arise again. 

Put simply, when there is a decision that involves more than just myself, be it the wider sphere of my children or my wife, personal decision is overridden by collective decision-making. The group, in that case, must supersede the individual. But this does not in any way eliminate the fact that such groups still, and always, at their foundations, consist of individuals. My sovereign right to determine my own fate however is now bound up with another's. And so, I willingly hand over, and hand UP, a portion of my sovereignty, my right to determine my fate, to a higher entity in our family structure. Self-determination at all cost is totalitarian, on any level (whether familial, communal, state, federal, or even global). This "at all cost" self-determination happens every time collective problems are acted upon alone by the individual (or state), without the consent of the collective involved. It happens when a group decides what should be an individual decision as well. To pass off as liberty some supposed right of self-determination when anyone else is directly involved is immoral. On the contrary, it is the highest form of democratic behavior to act federally. It is in fact ethical to be federal.

We practice it every day of our lives, in fact, when we set aside a portion of our own personal will so that collective problems can be deliberated on by the collective. Note that it is only a portion of our sovereignty that we set aside (and in reality shift). I make individual decisions involving me. The family makes decisions involving the family. The state, consisting of the people, makes decisions involving the state. The EU makes decisions involving Europe. I'll come back to that shift further down.

Certainly, when making collective decisions, one or the other viewpoint in any disagreement will prevail, but it is in the participation, and in the belief that even if I lose the argument, that we abide by the winning view, that we practice federalism. Federalism is not for sore losers, in other words. It is not for those who say, "I'll play the game. But if I lose, I will withdraw and go somewhere where I will win." That philosophy is for those who demand to win continuously, and again is self-determination. It is not liberty, but licence. It is selfishness. Federalism says, "What the group decides on this group affair, even if it disfavors my personal view, yet will I abide by it."

Every time we enter a courtroom, or ask for someone impartial to mediate between ourselves and another disputant, both parties agree to abide by the decision of the court, the arbiter of our case. And it is exactly this situation that is being proposed on the European level by federalists such as Andrew Duff. He points out rightly that a federal Europe is not the superstate of Union detractors. I will emphasize the fact that a federal court will only be arbiter of interstate and state to federal affairs, such as arbiter between a citizen of Germany of one of France, or a citizen or state disputing with the EU itself. It is not, again, the superstate fear that people envision, but simply an inter-state mechanism for resolving disputes, for instance between the citizen of one state and that of another.

At present, monetary issues that involve the EU are being arbitrated and solved by dominating states, and alliances and treaties of states. Some rules are being imposed (to weaker state frustration) by the current form of the EU, which is dominated by certain strong states, some of which aren't even fully participating in the EU, and are outside the Eurozone. But who would ever agree to go to court with someone over a dispute, if a third party, not involved in the dispute, got to have a say in influencing the decision? And who would go to court over a dispute if one party, because of circumstance, had the judge's ear? That is how things are today, in the EU.

A case in point is a recent article published by Carl Bildt and Anders Borg of Sweden, entitled The dangers of two-speed Europe. The concern is that, with talk of a federalized Euro, that Europe will be split into two separate zones, a federal Euro-region and a European Union with some nations not using the euro. While it pleases me to see Swedish politician's acknowledging the fact that a federal Europe would operate at a faster pace, I disagree with the following sentiment:
"Let us not forget the deep and mutual interdependence between the Euro-zone and the rest of the EU, with large flows of investment, trade, capital, and labor. For instance, the Greek sovereign debt crisis has lead to a crisis of confidence in financial markets across the Union, not only in the Euro-zone. Solutions to Europe's common problems should therefore be discussed, negotiated, and agreed on in fora where all EU-27 states are represented."
I could equally argue that this problem and its resolution also affects the United States or China, and therefore, the US and China should have a say in what transpires. It is an example of nations not using the Euro deciding the fate of the Euro. This is the cause of the problem, not a solution. There is a fine line between solving collective problems collectively, and assuming that because a problem affects a larger group, that it should have a say in the solution. Mr. Bildt and Borg are arguing for meddling. They are arguing for members not fully participating from having a full say. They want the same ol' "negotiations" between sovereign states, and done in "fora" rather than in one forum. This, again, is the situation where we, you and I, go to court to resolve a dispute, and find a third party there saying the decision affects them too because they are our neighbor. "Don't forget about me. Even if I don't participate in the thing that you are disputing over." A federal Europe, with a federal Euro, eliminates the possibility of non-Euro states from interfering in the affairs of the Euro. That is exactly what is needed. It is exactly what Mr. Duff argues for when discussing "the British problem" (see Duff, p. 25), which is also "the Swedish problem". Collective government is weak because there is no clearly defined border between who is in and who is out. Look at the United States as an example. California and Sweden do not decide by pressure how New York shall spend and administer its money. With federalism, the problem is nil. Those who use it, decide upon it.

The problem above becomes more visible if we speak again of shifting, rather than taking away, state responsibility over the Euro. As Mr. Duff writes:
"Enlarging the size of the EU budget on this scale can be achieved by transferring some items of expenditure from the national to the EU level, thereby saving national treasuries money." [emphasis mine]
In the current system, a state's ability to administer the Euro is sovereign, and pressure from other states is the  only real means of getting such states (Greece for example) to administer money in a way that favors those other states. This fosters the mentality of "don't forget about me". In that case, the US and China should be involved, pushing their weight around too. This is precisely how Europe works currently. A federal Europe however means states don't pressure other states at all. They all (all that are fully involved at least) shift their decision-making process and mechanism upward to a federal government. The old mechanism of pressuring other states to act in a certain way is eliminated. 

Just now, a European currency is being administered, not by a united Europe, but by individual states. Imagine a family bank account that was being administered by all members of the family, without that family having any singular mechanism agreeable to everyone for how the money in that account was to be used. Well, you would get the northern-states-bailing-out-the-southern-states situation in the family. You would get one individual telling the others, "It's my money too, and just now, I'm doing my own thing." And you would get in return other family members PRESSURING that wayward member. It is a disregard for interdependence, yet there is nothing in such a situation to guarantee that obligations to others involved in one's own decisions are respected. The British/Swedish problem on the other hand is someone in the family who has a separate income, having nothing to do with the dispute over the bank account, but, because they are still a part of the family, think they should have a say in that account.

So back to government of by and for the people. If states are the determiners of affairs, they will always act in their own interest. Britain and Sweden are not exceptions but standard. Nationalism is the name of every state's game. Always. People even mistakenly give up their rights for the sake of their states, as these encroach upon them! Yet there must be some mechanism or sovereign power that binds the states to the federal system. That sovereign power is, again, the people.

I want to emphasize the necessity of the European federal system being answerable to the people, not only sentimentally, but actually spelled out in the constitution. The nation-states must be held accountable and answer to the people. The federal level as well must be in the hands, ultimately, of the people. The Euro is the European citizen's money (though it isn't the British or Swedish citizen's money!), rather than the individual European State's money, somehow graciously distributed to the people. Now a two chamber parliament ensures that both the states and the citizens are represented. But the Constitution is, and should be, the people's.

Before closing, I would make one crucial objection to Andrew Duff's book. Again, this is a contention placed within the context of praise for the work he has written. My criticism is leveled at his statement that "Others will disagree [with the federal solution], and they must make their own case for less radical solutions." What I disagree with is framing federalism in terms of "radicalism". It is a disservice to the movement, and to a promotion of the principle. As I've stated above, we do this every day. Federalism is an every day phenomenon, only that we have thus far applied it only to a portion of the spheres of our lives, not yet to the inter-national level of the EU. What is radical is the refusal to do so, the refusal to apply it consistently to all levels of our interactions with others, familial  as well as inter-state, to remain in the deadlock of the system of pressuring others into acting in our favor, of acting on our own in matters directly involving others. What could be more insane - and radical - than selfish determination and meddling in others' disputes? Federalism is simply a mechanism of mediation, of solutions on the level of collectivity that problems take place at.

Not only is federalism not radical, it is already proven to work. The 50 nation-states that make up the United States do not pressure one another to manipulate their budgets so that neighbors won't experience crisis. Such pressure is tantamount to war. The states are largely independent of one another. Yet they are intertwined in one another's fate. When one suffers, they all suffer, when one is pressured (from outside the US), they are all pressured (as the US). This isn't radical. It is ethical. It is human beings, and the states they belong to, sticking together. And it is what Europe and Europeans need more than ever.