Considering that China has approx. 850 trillion people, they should be. It will still take them some time however. Last year, the annual growth of the US economy was greater than the entire Chinese economy.

If there is a country which should be worried, it is Japan.

No. We could have private associations which could do a better job of setting standards, benchmarks and measures. Plus, education should really be molded by parents. It is arrogant that the government believes it can do a better job of eduating our kids than we can.

Interesting what you say about the Chinese vs. American economies. What is the basis for the comparison? If it is "per capita" then, yes, China will always get short-changed. But the growth in virtually all sectors in China boggles the mind. If the US runs short of cash, they just print more money regardless of what that might do to inflation. I'm not sure how the Chinese do it. What we are seeing is their massive investment in construction. It has a direct - and quite negative - impact on us oddly enough.

Not per capita. The amount of growth in the US economy last year was larger than the entire Chinese economy. It is difficult to believe because: (i) the media constantly reminds us how poorly our economy is doing and (ii) we hear nothing but wonderful things about the Chinese economy. But it is a fact. It puts it in perspective.

So is the US media reporting nonfactual data?

Japan does have a problem but it is not recent. They are suffereing from outsourcing as is the rest of the developed world. They practially rebuilt South Korea all by themselves. Now South Korea is outsourcing. In another 30 years, Bangladesh will be the richest nation on the planet. How fortunes change. I am thinking of investing heavily in Bhutan!

Nah. That outsourcing is a problem is yet another myth perpetuated by labor unions and the all too willing American media. For some bizarre reason, even the whacko environmental groups are jumping on the bandwagon. The mantra today is: if it generates revenue, do it in-house; if it is an expense, outsource it. Why? Because expense driven departments within corporations take on some of the characteristics of the government and become stodgy and inefficient.

Back to China, its government reports a rate of 30% non-performing loans. The US believes it is closer to 50%. The GDP growth statistics of China are as reported by the Chinese. Not surprisingly, we believe that their numbers are fudged. The Chinese, perhaps better than anyone, know that perception is reality.

Another perfect example of media bias and deliberate inaccuracy in reporting earlier this week. The AP ran a story listing and discussing the 10 myths about hybrid cars. One of the “myths” is that hybrid cars are expensive compared to their gasoline counterparts. The AP offered the Honda Accord as an example of a hybrid car that was not materially more expensive than its gasoline cousins. Being one to develop my own facts, I researched it. The MSRP of a 2007 Honda Accord Lx is $21,520. A 2007 Honda Accord hybrid retails for $31,685. Okay, blame it on my having been educated in Southern schools, but that seems like an extremely large difference to me. Without turning the calculator on, it looks like a 50% premium for the hybrid. Why did the AP lie? To support is platform of saving the world from “global warming”.

Can you envision the time when national governments will no longer be necessary? Defense is just about the only "value added" that the government can provide any longer and they are becoming increasingly ineffective at that. Schools? Go private. Social Security? Go private. Welfare? Privatize. The thing about government is that they cost more while offering progressively less in terms of service. What businesses follow this model (besides airlines)? Not many. This is where the disconnect is. I never understood the word "disenfranchised" until I moved overseas. But I see it now. My government no longer represents my interests and has no desire to do so.

All governments have been really capable of doing the past few decades is control of information. Technology is outpacing government's ability to control it. Where I live, they have essentially given up the effort and instead have chosen to profit from it.

So in your ideal system, governments should earn their revenue (i.e. taxes). What are the key services that they should offer in return. Regarding labor unions, I had the experience of working for two different companies in the same business - one with a union and one without. The one with the union went from first place to last place due to high manufacturing cost, poor quality and low productivity. It wasn't like automobiles where we could just keep raising the sticker price. That's because the company without the union was more than happy to get 40% EBITA and didn't need more.

If I do a material balance on the planet, the only true form of renewable alternative energy is solar radiation or a byproduct of it. I saw an article about a guy who invented a car that could run thousands of miles on a gallon of water. Somebody is not seeing the big picture here. Let's not forget that within the generation, water may well cost more than crude oil.

In my system, the federal government has two functions: national defense and a judicial system. And national defense means defense so I would bring the troops home from Germany, Japan, etc. It is not a coincidence that we have troops in those two counties. And for the judicial system to flow smoothly, I would remove all unncecessary laws from the books. The only acts which would be illegal would be those that threaten life, property or liberty. All the laws designed to protect us from ourselves or promote morality would go away. So, if ToddAC wanted to buy a bottle of MM, he could do so. If I want to gamble, I would be free to do so. Prositution would be legal as would drugs. BTW, my libertarian positions are not endorsements of the foregoing; simploy that an individual should be free to do what he or she desires so long as he doesn't interfere with the life, property or liberty of another.

At the linked website is the DoD list of all the countries where the US have military personnel. Admittedly, most of the numbers are very small, but it still begs the question: why are we there?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2005/hst1205.pdf

Okay Todd. Stop wasting my time then. I project you with a maximum of 113 electoral votes and that's only if you don't make any major screw-ups. You simply are not electable.

So there's only one marine in Samoa? Does he order himself around? What if he goes AWOL? Who reports it? That's too strange.

You are quite right of course. The year 2008 will be the year of Hillary. Giver her eight years and our electorate will vote for me. Heck, they would vote for anyone after eight years of Hillary. And Bill. And Buddy.

Clinton, Duff or Swank?

The smart one....

Hey, what is wrong with this article? Written by AFP, the french.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061201/ts_alt_afp/uscompanyfraudceo_061201173321

Oh...Swank.

Hey I've given this more thought. At even half that number of electoral votes, you would qualify for federal matching campaign funds. This could be quite profitable. You might even get that dollar back you've been giving every year.

Your concept of a benevolent government provokes thought. I have a question. Before I ask I will comment that I detest cigarette smoking and cannot stand to be around it. I avoid certain airlines because of it.

I struggle with why the govt would want to impose bans on cigarette smoking. Supposedly the govt is only interested in banning things that cost it money. So how does cigarette smoking drain govt cofers? Taxes on cigarettes generate govt revenue. I can see how cigarette smoking costs business money but isn't that their problem? If that is the only motivator, why couldn't the govt simply pass a law that businesses have the right to not hire or dismiss employees for cigarette smoking if that is their wish without fear of litigation? Seems like it would solve everyone's problem. Second-hand smoking lawsuits would be limited to the individual guilty of the infraction rather than the cigarette company who made the cigarette guilty of the secondhand smoke or the plastics company that made the packaging to protect the cigarette so that it could reach the end-user in a good enough condition to cause the secondhand smoke or the trucking company that delivered to cigarette package to the store or the store that sold the package that caused the secondhand smoke or the match company who made the product that lit the cigarette taht caused the secondhand smoke - damages limited to the guy inconsiderate enough to pollute the air so that we cannot enjoy the fresh smell of diesel or other fossil fuel emissions.

Does smoking increase health care costs? Isn't that good for doctors and nurses who make more money to pay more taxes? Or is medicare the issue? Restrict smoking-related illnesses from medicare coverage. Again - go right to the source of the problem rather than simply try to make it such a nuisance to smoke that people will give it up.

Please explain to me in dollars and cents what the govt has invested in this debate because I don't understand it. Smoking is only an example. Helmet laws also fall under this umbrella.

Actually what started me thinking about this was your stance on prostitution since someone could make the argument that passing along STD's was not a harmless event where nobody was hurt. Even so, what is the govt's stake in this?

Well this is just an update on the hamster situation. Mama hamster was begining to get fiesty with the 6 babies who aren't really babies any more. In the other cage, one of the three fought with the other two. So WW was taking mama out and putting her in the carrier as solitary confinement. She put the other troublemaker in a separate carrier. Okay mama chewed a hole in her carrier because it was tapestry. So WW decided to put her and papa in a plastic bucket. Plastic bucket went into garage so maid could clean the kitchen. At some point the garage door was left open. Cutting to the chase, there was no chase. For the neighborhood cat, it was like shooting hamsters in a barrel. So now we are down two hamsters on the count. I am a little upset with WW. I admit she did solve a growing problem but I just don't like the way it was handled. I told her she has to explain this to the DDs. It's not my problem.

Eek! Pio! Very grisly end to the rodent problem. Did G intentionally, or perhaps secretly, wish for the hamsters to run off?

Todd, I'll say this about education. I do think our government, meaning our tax dollars, should be spent on education.

I'll agree the government has bungled the job & should find successful models (Japan for one, some private, some charter type) & learn from them. If we need to privatize education to ensure better educated citizens, fine. However, tax money ought to be used. We can't ensure a well educated citizenry if a big segment of our population can't afford it. It behooves us to place more importance on education & the right sort of education, that which will allow us to excel in the global environment.

Just like Pio, I don't have the answers, but I suspect they may be complex & not one size fits all. As you pointed out communities shape their schools. How do we get the communities, in which poverty & the daily struggles that come with that, to put education in the forefront for their children?

Oh, forgot this.

Not sure where you're going with the charts on SAT scores, number of master's degrees & the quality of education, but from what I see the majority of our teachers have the desire, knowledge & the ability to teach & can do it well.

Perhaps it's the system trying to do too much? For better or worse, our schools have taken on the challenge of trying to educate those, who at one time, would have been left behind. From my view this bogs down the rest. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying there are un-educatable kids, just that the current approach seems to be slowing the process for other, more capable kids.

The schools are now also forced into roles they may not be best suited for & those are of social worker & police. Unlike private schools or charter schools where you have a high degree of parental involvement & the school can often choose who they will take, public schools have everyone they must educate. There was a time when kids deemed too disruptive or not capable enough were shipped off to a classroom by themselves where not much learning took place. The trend now is to include them in the regular classroom. This takes away from the kids with middle level & higher abilities. Again, I don't have the answers.

Hi Nams,

Hope you are well today.

In no way am I critical of teachers. We have been told for years the ingredients necessary to ensure a good education for our kids. Now, is there a cause and effect relationship between higher teacher salaries and lower SAT scores. Not directly, I don't believe. Did smaller classroom size lead to a lowering of SAT scores? Nah. What is evident however, is that SAT scores have dropped while we have done all the things that experts told us we need to do. What would be government's solution to this problem? Throw more money at it. Just like Bush did with his "No Child Left Behind" program. While I have no doubt that he had good intentions, the program is folly. And BTW, when I see teachers striking and picketing at the beginning of what otherwise would be the start of a school year, something is wrong.

My sons went to what is one of the three best high schools in Georgia. A few years ago, US News and World Report conducted a study of HS in America. They named six as the best. Our HS was one of the six. A local television station has an annual show entitled "High Q". It is the high school version of the old College Bowl. Every year, 600 HS are invited to participate. Those are chosen on the basis of academics. It has been held 19 years. Our HS has won 12 of the 19 competitions. Every year, our HS has more Merit Scholarship winners than any other school in the state, including the elite Atlanta private schools. Highest SAT scores, etc. Do I think it is a decent school, yes. Could it be better with less "help" from the federalales? Yes.

The northern "arc" of suburban Atlanta is the area which has experienced the most population growth. Our school system and the two next door are the best around. These are the areas which attract corporate transferees. Most - yes most - students who transfer into one of these schools is put back a grade because testing shows that they cannot perform at their current grade level. This includes schools from the northeast, midwest, west and elsewhere in the South. I had neighbors who moved here from Minnesota which has an excellent school reputation. All three of their kids were put back a grade. They were livid. They were also insulted. This is Georgia, after all. But, guess what? Two of the three still had problems performing at their former grade.

Our HS is a charter school. Does it outperform because it is a charter school? No, I believe it became a charter school because of the same reason it was a good school in the first place: the community.

Nams, you mentioned socio-economically disadvantages students. If there has ever been a disadvantaged student, it was I. I grew up in a public housing project and we lived on $73.00 monthly and went to schools on the "wrong side" of the tracks. Yet, I made straight A's all the way through school, scored in the upper 1% nationwide on all achievement tests (well, except the aforementioned reading comprehension) and did well on the SAT. Why was I able to excel in school? My parents, despite how poor we were, valued education. They correctly saw education as my ticket out of the neighborhood. It worked. This used to be a country about individual responsibility. The primary job of ensuring kids have a good education, are taught values, etc., belongs to the parents. When government attempts to be the surrogate for this job, it guarantees mediocrity. Still, there are parents who don't see the need. Am I in favor of helping them? You bet. I simply don't want the government to do it. Private charity in this country leads the world. I do my part. If the government would stop taking so much money from me each year, I could/would do more.

I should add that one of the reasons that I have a hunch that SAT scores have declined is because we have so many kids taking the SAT these days, compared to decades ago. We also have kids going to college who should not be. When I see colleges accepting kids with 700-800 SAT scores, something is wrong. Those kids could go to tech school and learn a trade and do very well. In this high tech world, you can do a lot worse than get a two year tech school diploma in computer programming. One of the kids in my HS was a not-so-smart guy who took every shop class known to man. After HS, he didn’t even pretend to want to go to college. He opened an automobile body shop. But, his love was taking a normal car and add custom body panels, spoilers, dams, etc. He is filthy rich today and loves his work. Can you imagine this guy being a desk jockey?

Beginning in 1965, the government started using our schools as social experiments. I believe that is the primary problem with our schools in addition to government “help” in general. Cause and effect in such matters is very difficult to prove; I believe I will at a minimum be able to demonstrate a positive correlation.