When doing some research for the previous blog, I came across a New York Times article that cited a very reputable survey [the General Social Survey] that released data showing that the percentage of U.S. households owning firearms has decreased from fifty percent to thirty five percent over the past forty years. Needless to say, the National Rifle Association and others disputed this finding, claiming that since the number of firearms held Americans has increased from something like two hundred million to over three hundred million, there was no way that the number of households holding firearms could have decreased.

And… both the GSS and the NRA happen to be right.  Why?  Because although the percentages are correct, the U.S. population has increased by more than thirty percent, and the number of households has almost doubled [families having fewer children and more single person households are why the percentage increases in population and number of households don’t correspond].  That means that eight million more households have firearms than in 1970, but that the total percentage of households having them is less, and interestingly enough the youngest households have the lowest percentage of firearms, well under thirty percent, while older Republican households have the highest percentage (which just might suggest that Republicans either have more to steal or worry more about it being stolen, if not both).

The same kinds of claims go on in advertising as well.  One truck manufacturer asserts that it has more trucks of a certain type on the road than any other manufacturer, proving durability, while its rival asserts that its trucks stay on the road longer.  The first manufacturer produces and sells more trucks so that in fact it does have more trucks on the road, but the second manufacturer’s trucks do last longer. Assuming the statistics are correct, it does suggest that the first manufacturer is misrepresenting the meaning of accurate facts.

Inflation is measured in a number of different ways, using everything from a Gross National Product (GNP) deflator to various forms of Consumer Price Indices.  In recent years, the government has also used a Core CPI, which excludes “highly volatile” goods, such as food and energy, on the grounds that these items distort overall price patterns.  That may be, but over the last twelve months the price of food has increased [according to BLS measurements] 1.6%, while energy prices have declined.  The problem, as I see it, is that overall food prices, over time, at least over the last seventy years, seldom decline, while energy prices are currently low because the economy is depressed.  As the economy recovers energy prices will rise, and food prices certainly won’t go down, especially given the drought still pervading many U.S. agricultural regions. Likewise, a number of politicians are proposing that Social Security Cost-of-Living Adjustments [COLA] be linked to a Chained CPI instead of the current CPI-W, on the grounds that the Chained CPI is more accurate.  It likely is, but that would mean that benefits would be decreased by some 3% over the next ten years, and three percent adds up to thousands of dollars for each beneficiary. The government is doing its best to present this proposed change in terms of increased “accuracy,” but it would mean Social Security benefits over time will be lower than they would have been.  Of course, opponents claim that the change cuts benefits, stopping there, and ignoring the fact that, over time, the system cannot pay those benefits unless the benefit levels are decreased or taxes are increased.

I could go on, but it all brings to mind the observation attributed to  Mark Twain Benjamin Disraeli:  “There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.”

The other day I was reflecting about various aspects of the world, and it dawned on me that I’d never seen, heard of, or read about a mob rioting in support of anything moderate.  Obvious as that may seem, every incident of mob violence deals with extremism or a reaction to extremism, especially if one especially if one considers hunger, discrimination, or civil repression of form of extremism.

But what lies behind that observation goes much farther than that. One of the greatest “mob” events in U.S. history was the Civil War, and it was generated because the states of the Confederacy insisted on the “right” to enslave other human beings, certainly an extremist belief and behavior. Not only that, but the New York riot in reaction to the first national draft, for the Union army, still ranks as one of the most violent in U.S. history. A great number of mobs and riots in recent U.S. history have also occurred as a reaction to perceived extremism, such as those that followed the death of Martin Luther King or the acquittal of the Los Angeles police officers who beat Rodney King.

Yet… there is a reason behind such “extremism,” and it seems fairly simple to me.  The most obvious example is that of the Civil War.  Slaves were property, and they represented a huge percentage of the wealth of the south.  Those who opposed the abolition of slavery felt that the federal government would confiscate their property – and they “rioted” to keep it, regardless of the ethics of enslaving human beings.  A huge percentage of the various civil rights riots in the United States, and more recently in France and elsewhere in Europe, resulted from resentment that the government and property owners were using their powers to economically oppress others in various ways.  Gun rights’ advocates fear government oppression, regulation, and confiscation – a loss of property and freedom.  Male extremist religious leaders violently dislike anything that will reduce their power – and increase the power of women and educated males, and this is certainly a factor behind anti-American mobs across the Middle East.

Extremism, of course, isn’t always exactly rational, either. Supporters of the individual right to own and bear arms have gotten consistently more violent and rabid in their assertions of those rights, and there’s been a lot of press about whether this represents a trend of some sort.  I’d venture that it does, but it’s not the kind of trend that I find particularly encouraging, not when the reaction is for gun supporters to start toting weapons everywhere and declaring that they’re under siege. Oh?  Despite all the political rhetoric, there are fewer restrictive gun laws today than in half a century, and yet we’re seeing a mob-type reaction to a few modest proposals on assault-type weapons and ammunition clip sizes…which may not even be enacted.

Abortion is another issue that generates great emotional reactions, and even though something like seventy percent of the American people believe that at least some form of abortion should be legal, those who oppose its legality create violent protests and have even murdered doctors.

Yet in most of these cases, those who struggle to keep their “rights” and “property” – or to gain them – seem to be in the position of asserting that their “rights” trump everyone else’s.  Property owners declare that they don’t want to sell to people of another ethnic group, even if the buyers meet their price.  Extremist gun owners seem to want the right to own and use pretty much any form of weapon ammunition or magazine that is available, despite the death toll on others.  Religious extremists insist that their views trump any other rights that might conflict with their views.  And the “civil rights” rioters think that their “grievances” allow them to trample all over the property rights of others.

It seems to me that a little more moderation on all sides would be in order, but then, that would be rational, and mobs don’t seem to form on a rational basis. I certainly don’t see any mobs forming to support moderation.  I wonder why not.

The Dow Jones recently surpassed its all-time high and has contined to climb, and the various other market indices are also near historic highs… and yet unemployment is still hovering just under eight percent; the real estate market in much of the United States is still languishing; economic growth is sluggish, to say the least; hiring hasn’t picked up much; there’s still been an inflation of percent over the past four years; and interest rates are at all-time lows [which is good for borrowing, and lousy for saving].

So why is the stock market roaring to new highs?

Because for anyone who is trying to save for the future there’s nowhere else to put the money without almost immediately losing some of its value.  If you put the money in a bank or under the mattress, it will lose almost two percent of its value every year… and for someone who might be trying to build up savings for a child’s college education or retirement, that’s not a pleasant thought.  Investing in bonds is even worse, because with interest rates as low as they are, bond values can only hold steady, if inflation remains low, or decrease in value drastically if inflation picks up.  Real estate is still depressed, and investing there is anything but flexible, since it’s hard to find buyers without taking a loss in the short-term, and it’s likely to be years before many markets recover.  But… many stocks do pay dividends, and the stock market has shown a remarkable recovery since 2008… so much so that many investment professionals worry that many stocks are now overpriced, but people keep buying.

Am I saying that the stock market will crash?

I’m not about to go out on that limb, not while the federal government is pouring billions of dollars into the various money and equity markets through quantitative easing (essentially a practice of buying financial assets to inject money into the economy and maintain the prices of those monetary assets)  and other indirect efforts.  So far, because of the comparatively depressed state of the economy, all that federal funding has not generated inflation, but it has given many professional money and fund managers the sense that the Federal Reserve will not permit any significant loss of value in those financial assets.

The question is just how long the Fed can keep doing this before the economy recovers enough for inflation to start increasing… and what will happen then?  Will the Fed be able to time the phase-out of QE so that we don’t have runaway inflation?  Or are we in a permanently depressed post-technological, high automation economy that will always require such monetary stimulation?  Or… has so much money been poured into the economy that a future runaway inflation is almost impossible to avoid?

As some readers may know, I was trained as an economist, and worked as one for a time, and I do follow financial trends fairly closely.  So do many others, many of them far more skilled than I am, but whether many of them will admit it or not, we all have great concerns about the long-term implications of this policy.  The problem, of course, is that without the Fed’s intervention, we’d still be mired in what would have turned into a second Great Depression – but then, if the Congress hadn’t totally deregulated the financial sector, we might not have been in such a huge mess in the first place.  In any case, what’s done is done, and we have to deal, as we can, with what lies ahead.

First, that means recognizing that the various stock market indicators are far more indicative of the fact that the other “investment” opportunities are currently only opportunities, in general, to lose money, although there are always some good opportunities in any sector, and that the equities market is the only place in the world where large sums of money can be invested with any hope of a positive rate of return… at least, for now.  But the market indices do not indicate robust economic health, and are, in some respects, more of an indication of desperation on the part of investors.

And that concerns me… especially since I – and many others – don’t see any viable alternatives, almost a damned if you do and damned if you don’t situation… and one which the politicians are studiously ignoring.  But then, that’s what politicians do best.

Last week, I attended a university performance of Mozart’s opera Don Giovanni, considered by most scholars in the field to be one of his finest.  It was a university performance, but a good solid university performance with a full orchestra. An opera of this scale isn’t often performed in small university towns, especially ones in rural areas… for many reasons, and it was an ambitious performance with slightly “edgy” and colorful [but not scandalous or skimpy] costuming that evoked the feel of the period, but did not follow it precisely.  The opera was presented uncut, and with no “modernization” except for the not-precisely period costuming… and no special effects except for standard theatre lighting.

I’m not about to summarize the plot, except to say that it’s Mozart and Da Ponte’s [the librettist’s] take on Don Juan/Casanova, and that in addition to the glorious music, it’s a morality play, in that Don Giovanni gets what he deserves in the end. It’s a fairly long opera, if not nearly so long as Wagnerian operas, with two acts and an intermission running over three hours. It was also presented in two versions, alternatively with an English version on one night, and the original Italian on the next.  The audience, as it usually is for university productions, consisted of university students, some faculty, some high school students, presumably musically inclined, and a number of townspeople.

Now… I’ve more than occasionally noted the short attention span of all too many young people, particularly those of college age, and I’ve also expressed concern about their tendency to be, shall we say, occasionally somewhat less than ethically rigorous in certain areas. So… I wasn’t exactly shocked when, after intermission of the opening night of the English version, I noticed that several previously occupied blocks of seats were vacant as the orchestra began to play the opening to the second act.  Except then it struck me that those who had left were not college students, or high school students, or faculty, but older townspeople, many of whom are regarded as more “culturally” inclined.  They were the ones who either had the short attention spans, the lack of interest in a morality-based opera, the distaste for non-traditional costuming, or were bored by the glorious, but definitely long and intricate music. This is, alas, not something new. Reportedly, even the Emperor Josef, who was Mozart’s patron, complained that his operas had “too many notes.”

What was also most encouraging was that, when the English version of the opera ended, the students were the ones who leapt to their feet and gave the cast a standing ovation… and that’s something I’ve seldom seen in over twenty years of watching university opera programs. Incidentally, the music and theatre faculty who saw the opera thought it was a very good and solid performance (although they felt that the Italian version performed on Saturday was close to outstanding).  And, not surprisingly, the younger members of the audience actually raved about the costumes.

Watching all this not only gave me hope, but confirmed a number of things, at least for me.  First, for music and the arts to reach and move people, especially young people, doesn’t always require all the technological bells and whistles.  Second, closed minds and short attention spans exist in all age groups.  And third, any politician who thinks the arts should be eliminated from education has no business in politics and should be removed forthwith.

One of the most pernicious aspects of the change in secondary and even undergraduate college education over the past generation has been the emergence, and even dominance in some areas, of the “cheerleader” school of teaching.  The devotees of this approach to teaching seem to believe that all it takes for student success is unbridled enthusiasm and support for students, reinforced by liberal amounts of praise, whether deserved or not [and of course, many feel that no amount of praise is excessive… or if they don’t feel that way, still act as though praise cannot be overdone].  I read recently about one highly placed individual in the education world who was appalled by a poster/sign in a school that observed that success also required application and dedication by the student.

The problem with this “ultra-positive” approach is that students leave secondary school with vastly overinflated ideas of their own importance, and their own abilities and levels of competency.  The majority also lack any understanding of what intellectual work really is. These observations are not mine alone, but the results of scores of studies over the past ten years, and the findings, as I’ve noted earlier, are not a reflection on the innate intelligence of students, but upon their ability to apply that intelligence in a constructive and focused manner.

Every year that has passed over the last decade has seen a greater and greater percentage of students entering college who are, as one psychologist termed them, “teacups” who shatter when faced with difficult tasks, demanding courses, or just plain accurate constructive criticism of their work.  Almost inevitably, many of these “teacups” complain that teachers who insist on their doing college-level work competently and on time are unfair, even “bullies,” and that there are “better ways” to teach – meaning that they don’t want to be reminded in any fashion of their shortcomings or to be informed of how to improve.

Education is not only about learning to think, or learning the basics of society, or the skills that will lead to the student’s ability to function economically in society, but it’s also about learning that in the “real world” most people are supposed to do their jobs well without praise, that praise only comes, if then, from going beyond the expected.

I’m not saying that the enthusiastic cheerleading form of education doesn’t have a place.  It does, and that place is in kindergarten and first and possibly second grade, roughly.  But cheerleading as an overall teaching style needs to be phased out through elementary school. Again, this is not a rant against praise or encouragement; it’s a rant against teachers and parents who create unrealistic expectations on the part of students by cheering them on regardless of circumstances and the students’ own abilities and determination.

I’m also opposed to the total gloom and doom outlook – now often manifested, interestingly enough, by the proponents of “hard” education, i.e., math and science and computers, to the virtual exclusion of anything else, who insist that education must be practical and that students should not be taught the arts and disciplines in which jobs are scarce, or that students should pay more for such fields of study.  That narrow-minded approach ignores one basic thing – not all students are the same, and not all of them have great ability in those fields.  It’s one thing to point out realistically the difficulties faced in attempting a career in any field of art or music or even writing or other fields where there are far more graduates than jobs. It’s another to decide that certain subjects shouldn’t be taught because they aren’t currently that economically rewarding.  The one thing that is certain is that economics and politics and society change, and channeling education too narrowly is just as much a road to disaster as blindly encouraging students to believe that any of them can do anything, and that everything they do is wonderful.

I’m considered a fairly successful writer, but I can guarantee that, if most college students had their work criticized by teachers the way some readers criticize mine, or assessed accurately by employers, those students really would shatter.  Cheerleading has its place, and it’s in the sports arenas and early childhood education, not in high school or college courses… and it seldom, if ever, occurs  in the world  beyond education.