I have a quick question regarding the global yield curve that you mentioned a while back. This subject is of particular interest to me because I believe it is currently driving the strong world economy. I know that Japan’s low interest rates have had quite a large impact on offsetting the rising US interest rates in the global yield curve (or at least I think that is correct). Do you know of anywhere that I can get information/charts regarding the global yield curve as I think it is a very important measure and would like to find a source that can consistently provide this information?

thanks in advance

In peggysues post she spoke of cuts to education. She did not specify what kind. I assume she meant public education at all levels.

His comment on wheather he favored big govt or small govt always struck me as typical politician bs His reply “”I favor smart govt” As if everyone else favored stupid govt. What an illuminating response to an incredibly difficult question. I’m sure we will see more of this as the campaighn progresses.

But, like Obama himself, these comments are just platitudes and short on specifics.

Have you ever heard ANYONE suggest that we should “hang on to useless cultural trinkets” or that when it makes sense to change, we shouldn’t change? Is there some candidate or party that has those as its platform?

Obviously the debate is about WHAT we should change, and in what way. And I have not noticed a substantial generational divide in that respect. War in Iraq? National debt? Maintaining a competitive, properous economy? Climate change? Health care costs? Et Cetera? Can you cite any positions on these issues that distinguish Obama from the boomers in this forum? My biggest complaint about Obama is that the way he’s avoiding specifics makes him look like a much more experienced politician than we thought he was.

Lydon “Obama as a generational candidate against the boomers”

I was born in 1967. I’ve never felt that I’m a ‘Y-er’ or anything ‘generational much at all – but those are handy tags.

But .. yes. I keep reading and seeing things from ‘Boomers’ that astound me; as if you’re stuck in the 60s and you just don’t get that – maybe – things have changed.

I’m not arguing that we should throw everything old overboard – that way lies, well, the mistakes the Youth Movement from the 60s made. What came before has value.

But we shouldn’t hang on to useless cultural trinkets and conventions. When it makes sense to change, change.

Check out what per-pupil spending includes.

Privatization of schools widens the gap between rich and poor, already a problem with the way schools are financed ( through property taxes).

It’s not what it costs to educate an individual child which might vary wildly, but the average to educate a community, a nation of children with varying needs ( including “special education”). The problem is equity; the per pupil spending figure averages poor districts with the wealthy. The wealthiest districts can spend double the amount spend in the poorest. No doubt there is need for reform.

Interesting article refuting your POV:

Why Money Matters

See also recent review of California K-12 school funding:

http://www.sacbee.com/293/story/119775.html

This is off topic. and I do not want to continue.

I made my point which you have not acknowledged instead side-stepping, morphing the discussion to funding education for K-12.

Peggy Sue was referring to college costs prompting kids to sign up for military service, war-making, in the name of national security ( choke), taking money and attention away from solving problems at home.

probably Howard Dean

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d02/dt166.asp

I believe Peggy Sue was referring to college costs prompting those who cannot afford it to go into the service.

I will not get into this discussion with you again RC21… you know the one about state schools raising tuition and appealing to the wealthy. Peggy Sue’s point is another facet of that topic…

It is much easier toj ust promise them everything for free and then slowly and in small increments tax and fee them into submission.

Even when things are free people want more. Read Peggysues above comment . She laments that education is being cut. When in reality nothing could be further from the truth. Spending for public education has been on a steady increase for several decades. But it sure sounds nice and makes us miserly evil people look bad for even suggesting money earmarked for education is, and has been wasted for years with no appreciable educational gains being made. That is why your company has seen an influx of foreighn workers. I’m going off on a tangent so I will cease. But I wonder how much spending is enough ? My guess is to PeggySue and others like her there can never be enough government spending on social programs.

That’s right, and thank God for them because they’re keeping the economy going.

I would guess a third of the new hires (scientists and engineers) at the company I work for are from India and China. And some people we hired a few years ago have already left to start new companies of their own. The Indians and Chinese have a great entrepreneurial spirit, both in their own countries and here in the US.

But the problem with most Americans not knowing basic economics is that they are easily duped by politicians who promise them that they can do everything for free – increase government programs and spending while cutting taxes AND eliminating the deficit. My guess is you may be able to do any 2 out of 3.

The thing is we don’t ALL find success and prospeity. With vast resources being diverted to war, critical services (health, education ect.) get cut. We are now even cutting vetern’s services just while we are creating a great need for them.

Historian Howard Zinn (of the “great” generation) says “All war is class war”. He is correct because the wealthy profit when wars are fought to protect their interests. But the interests of the wealthy are being protected at the expence of the common good and particularly the poor suffer. For the most part (with the rare ivy league execption) those who join the service are those who can not afford to go to school. Those who, for whatever reason need to rely on societal support find it lacking.

They must be having way too much fun.

Now, gen-x:

////He’s not gonna solve global warming but he’s gonna convince everyone else that we have to\\\\

Lots of people (boomers) are working on global warming – it didn’t happen overnight and it won’t be solved overnight.

Gore’s role is to bring it into priority – this facilitates getting more support to those working on it and makes the concept politically acceptable.

Gen-x-ers are mercenaries?

Obama is sooooooo my guy.

Yes. I’m genX.

I think a great book that explores these generational interactions is from the social science / marketing duo of Strauss & Howe. Their book The Fourth Turning lays it out very nicely.
http://www.fourthturning.com/html/generations___archetypes.html

They use archetypes to explain how the different generations interact with each other and how they respond to the world. They argue that the generations behave in a consistent way throughout their lives. As a result they argue for recurring cycles in US history that can be predicted according to the behavioral aspects of the generations. They can’t predict events but they do predict how the generation will respond to events.

The Boomers are a “Prophet” generation.
http://www.fourthturning.com/html/archetypes_0.html
What they’re really good at is creating a vision and believing in it no matter what happens. What they’re not so good at is making that vision a reality – because they won’t compromise on their vision. Usually because they’re so busy trying to convince everybody else to believe what they believe. Al Gore doing the “Inconvenient Truth” thing is the perfect embodiment of the Boomer world view. He’s not gonna solve global warming but he’s gonna convince everyone else that we have to! Go Al! George Bush? He believes his Iraq policy is right no matter what anyone says or what contrary evidence is presented! Now that’s a Boomer! Traditionally the best leaders in America shared this archetype. Sadly, we got a bunch of duds this time around.

GenX is a “Nomad” generation.
http://www.fourthturning.com/html/archetypes_1.html
Their perspective can be described as “nothing matters and what if it did?” They’re not joiners, they’re pragmatic and happy to do tough work but don’t expect them to “believe” in it too. They do it things because they need to be done or they’re grtting paid. Of course they’re just as happy to work on “good” issues as “bad”.

All “astrology” and pseudo-science comments will be happily ignored.

Exactly. That’s the important news. Most newspapers bury it in the back somewhere. It’s also AMAZING how little most Americans know about anything to do with money. The average American can’t name the top 5 items in the federal budget; they don’t know the difference between a budget deficit and a trade deficit; they don’t know the difference between the deficit and the national debt; they can’t read an annual report; they don’t know what “earnings” mean, etc, etc.

Fiscal and economic policy is CENTRAL to choosing a candidate.

Regardless of what people think of its far-right op-ed positions, I have long argued that the Wall Street Journal contains more real news than any other big daily newspapers.

Most newspapers and all TV news networks will lead with dramatic stories about train crashes and plane crashes and bombings in Baghdad and eight feet of snow in Buffalo and who won the Super Bowl. But none of those stories have a DIRECT effect on the lives of more than a handful of people who see them.

But boring financial news about interest rates and commodity prices and exchange rates and the money supply and employment levels and all that other dry financial stuff has a bigger impact than any of the “if it bleeds it leads” stories.

The question is how to solve this crisis or potential crisis in a way that is by the people and for the people (globally speaking) and not by the special interest groups and for the special interest groups.

Any politician that addresses this question is right for the job. Let the campaign begin.

I think that is a pretty darn big IF!

Because he is the first black man to run for president and then There have been others before Senator Obama; most recently Alan Keyes and Jesse Jackson.

Don’t forget Al Sharpton not to mention Shirley Chisolm and Angela Davis (not only black but female). Davis was on the communist ticket. I’m sure if you counted all the communists and socialists there would be lots more black candidates.

Assume everyone else followed suit after his polls numbers went up.

This is an example where you have to understand power – McCain could do it, Hillary or Obama couldn’t.

Feeling good about what your candidate says, doesn’t work in this example.

The selling of that perception is the tricky part and where the politics comes in. It may be an appeal to idealism, the sense that the candidate is member of the larger group with which we identify, or that they are the only one with a chance of winning, or the only one with viable ideas to solve the challenges that confront us or the nation. This is largely accomplished by fallacious appeals, misdirection, ambiguity (weasel wording) and constant high visibility, repeating the message like a mantra. As plnelson stated above, people in general do not want to reflect on what may be seen as Al Gore put it: An Inconvenient Truth, they want to believe that there is a magic bullet answer to the seemingly insurmountable challenges and who can blame them?

The candidate who best convinces the electorate by whatever means, that they have the magic is the one who will win. Obama is no liberal, but neither is Hillary or Edwards. Kucinich is probably the most liberal but he has the proverbial snowball’s chance of either getting the nomination or winning the general.

Whoever becomes the Democratic Candidate regardless of experience in foreign or domestic affairs, they are to me, far preferable to the likes of Romney, McCain, or Giuliani, or Gingrich and would be hard pressed to be worse than who we’ve had for the last two terms.

Peace