After reading my post on America's money shortage, a colleague challenged me to reconcile those ideas with the ideas presented by Bill McKibbon in “Deep Economy”. For those unfamiliar with McKibbon's work, he calls for a comprehensive rethinking of our economy, starting by changing what we value: Preferring local to global, small, sustainable energy footprint to large, activities over possessions, community relationships over isolation. Willing to act on his ideas, McKibbon illustrates what a year of such a life would be like by actually living it. He shops at local markets for fresh produce by season, spends more time interacting with his neighbors (and people he meets at the farmer's markets), and less time relying on mass entertainment. He's busy with tasks from a previous generation: Canning and preserving, working the field on a co-op, attending local functions. He then looks at the energy savings, and cites examples from around the world where such ideas are put into practice, including extensive energy recycling, and calls for us to think about how much richer we would be with more social bonds and local ties and less economic inequality, and the greater security from a dispersed energy and food production network over the current centralized and easily disrupted system.
My observations about the money supply and its relationship to our economic activity is merely a realization of the role a contraction plays in deepening a recession, and how a forced expansion of the money supply may provide the necessary rejuvenation to the economy that restores it to its previous value. It also underscores how the money supply needs to move with the economy – an increasing economy needs a similarly increasing money supply, but too quick on the money creation and inflation becomes a factor.
But implicit in the ideas about expanding the money supply to restore it to a previous value is the acceptance that the previous value was and continues to be desirable. No matter how unsustainable the economy has become, no matter how large and swollen it may have been, mainstream economics would have us attempt to return as quickly as possible to that state, nay, even grow beyond it! For growth is the keyword, both of business and government: grow the company, grow the economy, grow the money supply.
In McKibbon's view, we have enough, more than enough, and further growth does nothing to enhance our experience here on earth. We would need money in McKibbon's world, and although I don't recall him discussing it, I would imagine that it would have to be much more tightly controlled by the government than is current: Controlled to prevent growth beyond the small, sustainable increases in the economy to match increases in population.
And so: Should we embark on restoring the money supply in an attempt to restore our economy? Immediately I think one properly recoils from the injustice of not: Many people, not associated in any way with the run-up or the collapse are finding themselves unemployed. And, it appears very clear that is the path our government is going to attempt to follow. But could there be another way that allows the excesses to deflate, for our economy to shrink to a more sustainable size, that allows us to move towards a more McKibbonesque future, without asking an unfair sacrifice of a few? I don't know. But, I think my colleague has raised a very provocative question by asking.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Monday, February 23, 2009
No. 44, The Mysterious Stranger
As I was lying in bed last night, waiting for sleep to come, and ruminating over the day's events, for some reason I recalled a story by Mark Twain that I had read some time ago: "No. 44, The Mysterious Stranger."
Like all of Twain's stories, this one pulled my along as I read, never seeming to reveal what was promised, but just kept going - and kept me reading. It was fascinating at times, especially to think that Mark Twain had concocted this particular story of visitors from the future - part fantasy and part science fiction in its feel.
But I'm afraid that ol' Mr. Clemens would be sorely disappointed if he were to speak to me today (or even immediately upon my finishing). I'm not certain that I understood the story, or any idea he might be trying to convey.
Anyone else had better luck with this particular story? Perhaps someone can share some insight that I missed...
Like all of Twain's stories, this one pulled my along as I read, never seeming to reveal what was promised, but just kept going - and kept me reading. It was fascinating at times, especially to think that Mark Twain had concocted this particular story of visitors from the future - part fantasy and part science fiction in its feel.
But I'm afraid that ol' Mr. Clemens would be sorely disappointed if he were to speak to me today (or even immediately upon my finishing). I'm not certain that I understood the story, or any idea he might be trying to convey.
Anyone else had better luck with this particular story? Perhaps someone can share some insight that I missed...
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Some Light Reading
I’ve recently been reading “The Accidental Theorist” by Paul Krugman, a collection of essays penned during the Clinton Years. After reading two particular ones last night, a series of thoughts and ideas that I’ve been encountering during the past year suddenly made sense.
In the first essay of interest (by no means the first in the book, it is buried about 2/3s of the way through), Krugman relays a story about a Babysitting combine: Several couples agree to exchange babysitting services for one another. To keep it fair, they issue each couple several pieces of scrip, which they can exchange with another couple for an evening of babysitting. Notice how this forces each couple to exactly reciprocate the number of times they desire babysitting, they must provide it. All works well.
As time goes on, more couples are admitted to the combine, but interestingly, the amount of babysitting goes down! The amount of scrip in circulation per couple has been reduced, and couples tend to hoard their scrip for very special occasions – with reduced opportunity to gain new scrip, very little exchanges hands. The combine has placed itself in a recession.
Eventually, the answer is found, more scrip is created, and the instances of babysitting returns to a more normal pattern. Since scrip is no longer in short supply, couples are willing to exchange it more frequently for a night out, knowing that they will have many opportunities to earn it back before the big occasion.
The second essay that I read last night concerned Japan in the 1990’s, and discussed their economic problems. Low demand, excess capacity, economic stagnation….and click!
America doesn’t have enough money!
Go back a few years. The economy is doing fine, in fact, housing is booming. New construction has soared to levels not before seen. As people purchase their houses, many people previously out of the market are coming in. Not only that, with the rising values, people are able to tap into their equity to purchase things: Furniture, upgraded interiors, exterior landscaping, electronics, even cars.
Making loans for houses increases the money supply. Consider: A bank doesn’t have to actually have on deposit amounts equal to the loans they make, they only need 10-30% in deposits to back the loans. The excess of the loan over the actual deposit is essentially an increase in money – it is pretty much just the same as if the US Mint had printed an amount equal to the difference. (I’m hedging a little here because there are some trivial differences – real, but not germane to the story or the issues at hand.)
As the US money supply increased, so did the capacity of the economy. New production facilities where opened, car lines were expanded, more restaurants and other services where built; in short, everything necessary to prevent inflation occurred. Imports went up to fill the gaps, and everyone exclaimed over the wonderful increases in the standard of living, and that perhaps inflation had been conquered.
But then, some of the loans went bad. Not surprising, it happens all the time. But then this whole intertwining of CDS and CDO’s changed the dynamics, large banks and insurance companies found themselves insolvent, the DOW plummeted 40% - we know the history.
What really happened, though, is that the real and perceived money supply of America also plummeted – how much I’m not sure, but it certainly is large enough: 10, 20, 30%? (I’ve seen estimates of $10 to $15 Trillion Dollars.) The very real outcome is that there is no longer enough money in circulation to purchase all of the output of our economy – and so output must (and does) fall. As output falls, workers are laid off, money is no longer circulated through payroll, a further contraction in the money supply occurs, more production and services are canceled…
America needs more money. There are two basic ways that money can be created. The US Mint can print money, and banks can make loans. The Federal Reserve, to a degree, has control over both. It can control loan making through interest rate setting: The lower the Federal Interest Rate, the more attractive borrowing is, and, essentially, the more money will be created through that avenue. Raise interest rates if the money supply appears to be getting too great (rising inflation) to slow the money supply, and theoretically, at least, it all works. The Federal Reserve uses the insights of interest rates and inflation rates to gauge the amount of money for the Mint to print.
Using this tried method, the Federal Reserve has lowered interest rates in the hopes that loans will be made, money created, demand raised, and the economy restored. But, we’ve seen that they are actually up against a wall, the banks still don’t have enough reserves to make many loans, and, due to the failing economy, the desire of rational people to borrow has been curtailed. Interest rates are near zero (Fed to banks) – they are against the stops.
So, this leaves the other avenue: The US Mint simply prints more money, and attempts to get that into circulation. Now, many will worry about inflation – “Increasing money will lead to inflation!” But, remember: Currently, the economy’s capacity exceeds the money supply. As long as the increase in money doesn’t exceed current capacity, there is very little reason to expect that inflation will occur. Just like in the babysitting combine: As more money enters circulation, more economic exchanges take place – the increase in activity restores the demand for the goods and services America produces, people are called back to their jobs, further increasing activity, and so on.
The original TARP was a direct attempt to move more money into circulation. TARP II and the ARRRA (! Or stimulus package to the rest of us!) are attempts to do the same. Now, there has been a lot of talk about pork, but we have to keep our sights on the ultimate goal: Getting more money into circulation to restore the demand for the goods and services our economy can provide. Now, I’m not advocating that we turn a blind eye: Certainly, projects with long term benefits are superior to short term benefits or no benefits, and we should punish our lawmakers who advocated overall low return spending at the polls (if we can determine who!)
From all of this discussion it should be obvious that tax cuts provide no stimulus. Taxation is a transfer payment from individuals and groups to the government: By itself, taxation creates no money. During good economic times, a reduced tax load frees money for individuals and groups to invest, which can be borrowed against to increase the productive capacity to meet the increased demand. However, we are not in such a situation: We have excess capacity, so placing more money in the hands of individuals and groups that already are hoarding money (not investing or borrowing) changes nothing. Transferring the money to the government (perhaps even in greater quantities) gives the government the ability to move that money (through unemployment payments, transfers to state governments) to places where it will be used to increase demand. To that end, we can see that any spending in the stimulus package is good – it creates to a degree the desired result of entering more money into circulation. We can disagree about the value of the end product itself, but the money entered will go somewhere and have some positive effect on demand.
Please notice what I am not saying in all of this. For one, I have avoided all references to the Free Market, with good reason. Those who pull out the mantra of “Let the Market Decide!” as an opposition to government intervention are purposefully (if they actually understand) obfuscating the issues. It should be clear that the available money supply is not an artifact of the Market; it is instead a necessary (and influencing) condition. Money is created and managed by governments, not the Market. The Market uses the available money to set wages, invest for production, and transfer wealth. The Market cannot decide.
Second, I’m not advocating for specific winners and losers – surely there will be some of each. Although we might conceptually like it if everyone shared equally in the money outlays, or if each shared according to their personal culpability (some maintaining their relative increases, others losing a portion of theirs), such an outcome is beyond the coarse tools of money supply the Fed has. Although we might prefer if everyone shared in the reduction of the economy, what really happens is that 80% maintain, 10% lose some wages, and 10% lose 100% - their jobs, their houses, everything. It falls disproportionally on the already poor and the elderly. Certainly that is not fair. And, there are strong forces, highly controlled by those most culpable, to prevent them from seeing the large reductions in personal and business wealth they amassed during the recent run-up.
Those are the basics. They are important to understand, because they are the backdrop against which the current actions are being taken. It is also important because we hear and read debate about the relative effects of various proposed solutions, but without an understanding of the basics, we cannot independently evaluate the discussion. Without the context, we can easily be swayed by false arguments, taken in by specious reasoning, diverted into advocating counter-productive outcomes that benefit Wall Street lobbyists rather than America as a whole. Worse, we can be pulled into a blame-game that benefits those most culpable, instead of working post-stimulus to re-write the non-Market Government created rules that govern borrowing, lending, investing, and money supply.
Hope my insight has helped – it is your Light Reading for the day. If you are still interested, don’t take my word for it: This is properly a synthesis of my understanding of the economic writings of Milton Friedman, J. K. Galbraith, Robert Heilbroner, J. M. Keynes, Dean Baker, Paul Krugman, and others. Have Fun!
In the first essay of interest (by no means the first in the book, it is buried about 2/3s of the way through), Krugman relays a story about a Babysitting combine: Several couples agree to exchange babysitting services for one another. To keep it fair, they issue each couple several pieces of scrip, which they can exchange with another couple for an evening of babysitting. Notice how this forces each couple to exactly reciprocate the number of times they desire babysitting, they must provide it. All works well.
As time goes on, more couples are admitted to the combine, but interestingly, the amount of babysitting goes down! The amount of scrip in circulation per couple has been reduced, and couples tend to hoard their scrip for very special occasions – with reduced opportunity to gain new scrip, very little exchanges hands. The combine has placed itself in a recession.
Eventually, the answer is found, more scrip is created, and the instances of babysitting returns to a more normal pattern. Since scrip is no longer in short supply, couples are willing to exchange it more frequently for a night out, knowing that they will have many opportunities to earn it back before the big occasion.
The second essay that I read last night concerned Japan in the 1990’s, and discussed their economic problems. Low demand, excess capacity, economic stagnation….and click!
America doesn’t have enough money!
Go back a few years. The economy is doing fine, in fact, housing is booming. New construction has soared to levels not before seen. As people purchase their houses, many people previously out of the market are coming in. Not only that, with the rising values, people are able to tap into their equity to purchase things: Furniture, upgraded interiors, exterior landscaping, electronics, even cars.
Making loans for houses increases the money supply. Consider: A bank doesn’t have to actually have on deposit amounts equal to the loans they make, they only need 10-30% in deposits to back the loans. The excess of the loan over the actual deposit is essentially an increase in money – it is pretty much just the same as if the US Mint had printed an amount equal to the difference. (I’m hedging a little here because there are some trivial differences – real, but not germane to the story or the issues at hand.)
As the US money supply increased, so did the capacity of the economy. New production facilities where opened, car lines were expanded, more restaurants and other services where built; in short, everything necessary to prevent inflation occurred. Imports went up to fill the gaps, and everyone exclaimed over the wonderful increases in the standard of living, and that perhaps inflation had been conquered.
But then, some of the loans went bad. Not surprising, it happens all the time. But then this whole intertwining of CDS and CDO’s changed the dynamics, large banks and insurance companies found themselves insolvent, the DOW plummeted 40% - we know the history.
What really happened, though, is that the real and perceived money supply of America also plummeted – how much I’m not sure, but it certainly is large enough: 10, 20, 30%? (I’ve seen estimates of $10 to $15 Trillion Dollars.) The very real outcome is that there is no longer enough money in circulation to purchase all of the output of our economy – and so output must (and does) fall. As output falls, workers are laid off, money is no longer circulated through payroll, a further contraction in the money supply occurs, more production and services are canceled…
America needs more money. There are two basic ways that money can be created. The US Mint can print money, and banks can make loans. The Federal Reserve, to a degree, has control over both. It can control loan making through interest rate setting: The lower the Federal Interest Rate, the more attractive borrowing is, and, essentially, the more money will be created through that avenue. Raise interest rates if the money supply appears to be getting too great (rising inflation) to slow the money supply, and theoretically, at least, it all works. The Federal Reserve uses the insights of interest rates and inflation rates to gauge the amount of money for the Mint to print.
Using this tried method, the Federal Reserve has lowered interest rates in the hopes that loans will be made, money created, demand raised, and the economy restored. But, we’ve seen that they are actually up against a wall, the banks still don’t have enough reserves to make many loans, and, due to the failing economy, the desire of rational people to borrow has been curtailed. Interest rates are near zero (Fed to banks) – they are against the stops.
So, this leaves the other avenue: The US Mint simply prints more money, and attempts to get that into circulation. Now, many will worry about inflation – “Increasing money will lead to inflation!” But, remember: Currently, the economy’s capacity exceeds the money supply. As long as the increase in money doesn’t exceed current capacity, there is very little reason to expect that inflation will occur. Just like in the babysitting combine: As more money enters circulation, more economic exchanges take place – the increase in activity restores the demand for the goods and services America produces, people are called back to their jobs, further increasing activity, and so on.
The original TARP was a direct attempt to move more money into circulation. TARP II and the ARRRA (! Or stimulus package to the rest of us!) are attempts to do the same. Now, there has been a lot of talk about pork, but we have to keep our sights on the ultimate goal: Getting more money into circulation to restore the demand for the goods and services our economy can provide. Now, I’m not advocating that we turn a blind eye: Certainly, projects with long term benefits are superior to short term benefits or no benefits, and we should punish our lawmakers who advocated overall low return spending at the polls (if we can determine who!)
From all of this discussion it should be obvious that tax cuts provide no stimulus. Taxation is a transfer payment from individuals and groups to the government: By itself, taxation creates no money. During good economic times, a reduced tax load frees money for individuals and groups to invest, which can be borrowed against to increase the productive capacity to meet the increased demand. However, we are not in such a situation: We have excess capacity, so placing more money in the hands of individuals and groups that already are hoarding money (not investing or borrowing) changes nothing. Transferring the money to the government (perhaps even in greater quantities) gives the government the ability to move that money (through unemployment payments, transfers to state governments) to places where it will be used to increase demand. To that end, we can see that any spending in the stimulus package is good – it creates to a degree the desired result of entering more money into circulation. We can disagree about the value of the end product itself, but the money entered will go somewhere and have some positive effect on demand.
Please notice what I am not saying in all of this. For one, I have avoided all references to the Free Market, with good reason. Those who pull out the mantra of “Let the Market Decide!” as an opposition to government intervention are purposefully (if they actually understand) obfuscating the issues. It should be clear that the available money supply is not an artifact of the Market; it is instead a necessary (and influencing) condition. Money is created and managed by governments, not the Market. The Market uses the available money to set wages, invest for production, and transfer wealth. The Market cannot decide.
Second, I’m not advocating for specific winners and losers – surely there will be some of each. Although we might conceptually like it if everyone shared equally in the money outlays, or if each shared according to their personal culpability (some maintaining their relative increases, others losing a portion of theirs), such an outcome is beyond the coarse tools of money supply the Fed has. Although we might prefer if everyone shared in the reduction of the economy, what really happens is that 80% maintain, 10% lose some wages, and 10% lose 100% - their jobs, their houses, everything. It falls disproportionally on the already poor and the elderly. Certainly that is not fair. And, there are strong forces, highly controlled by those most culpable, to prevent them from seeing the large reductions in personal and business wealth they amassed during the recent run-up.
Those are the basics. They are important to understand, because they are the backdrop against which the current actions are being taken. It is also important because we hear and read debate about the relative effects of various proposed solutions, but without an understanding of the basics, we cannot independently evaluate the discussion. Without the context, we can easily be swayed by false arguments, taken in by specious reasoning, diverted into advocating counter-productive outcomes that benefit Wall Street lobbyists rather than America as a whole. Worse, we can be pulled into a blame-game that benefits those most culpable, instead of working post-stimulus to re-write the non-Market Government created rules that govern borrowing, lending, investing, and money supply.
Hope my insight has helped – it is your Light Reading for the day. If you are still interested, don’t take my word for it: This is properly a synthesis of my understanding of the economic writings of Milton Friedman, J. K. Galbraith, Robert Heilbroner, J. M. Keynes, Dean Baker, Paul Krugman, and others. Have Fun!
Friday, February 13, 2009
Ever Notice... (Part 2)
It appears that someone has noticed, notably Dean Baker at the Center For Economic Policy Research (CEPR):
View his complete entry here.
It is most unfortunate that even the reporters at NPR have bought into the idea that Market Principles shouldn't be fully applied to the wealthy. Where's the Liberal Media when you need them?
...NPR concluded with a quote telling listeners that, "We're really just trying to figure out who bears the loss. Do we want the government to bear it all, or do we want some of it to be pushed onto investors?"
Of course, that's the question. Investors can't be expected to know what they are doing, the little boys and girls need the government to help them out. After all, that is why we have the government. No one would want to leave wealthy investors' fate to the market. The only question is whether we bail them out completely, or maybe force them to suffer some loss due to their bad investments.
View his complete entry here.
It is most unfortunate that even the reporters at NPR have bought into the idea that Market Principles shouldn't be fully applied to the wealthy. Where's the Liberal Media when you need them?
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Ever Notice...
Ever Notice….
Ever Notice that ‘Free Market Principles’ are something inflicted upon the poor and
middle class, and that the upper, moneyed classes are exempt?
While the economy slows, it isn’t those who are making the most that see a like reduction in their income, instead, many in the rank and file pay the complete price of losing their jobs. While we see our housing wealth shrink as the bubble deflates, the federal, state, and local governments cut services that we all depend on, and furlough state workers, again, asking them to bear the cost of the ‘Free Market’.
Meanwhile, the financial institutions, those at the heart of the economic problems, are able to go to the government and get money to stay afloat, instead of being subject to market principles which would force them into Chapter 11 or 7 bankruptcy filings. Notice how this saves high paying jobs – can’t have the leaders whose policies created the problem actually be held accountable. Sure, their bonuses may be reduced, but let’s face the truth here: Financial Services do not produce anything, so the incomes of these people come out of the surplus of the economy created by others. Their jobs should not be sacrosanct: They could be cut free to produce something useful, to the benefit of all!
Even the scrutiny levied on the Auto Industry bears this out: Although the companies in Detroit have made some bad decisions, the real problem they face is a huge downturn in demand brought about by the failure of the Financial Sector. But, we wouldn’t want to pass on a chance to drub the autoworkers for asking for a reasonable salary or health care or a modest pension: No! The Market Applies! Your business is down; many of you must sit idle with no pay!
Meanwhile, we learn that Wall Street bonuses are down 36% - which is better than it
appears, since the financial sector’s employment has been cut 44%! The cuts again have come in the lower level workers, those who did the day to day work, but were not responsible for formulating policy. The ‘Market’ applies to them, but not the leaders.
In his response to the emerging problems last fall Henry Paulson showed himself to be an unapologetic kleptocrat, intent, it appears, on shielding his friends in the Finance Industry from anything that resembles Market Principles, stealing from the Treasury (thus the American People) to keep them employed.
With the elections, I had hope that with a new administration we would get a better leader at Treasury, perhaps someone who actually believed in the Market and would work to enforce its principles, no matter on who they fell. But, after Timothy Geitner’s plan unveiling yesterday, I can only conclude that he is beholden to Wall Street, and, if not unapologetic, still a kleptocrat.
This makes me think of the form of the Golden Rule to which these men adhere:
“They That Have The Gold Make The Rules”
I thought that the promise of Democracy was that this form could be overturned and replaced with our preferred form: “Do Unto Others…”
What are we (the people) of America doing wrong? What do we need to do to enforce fairness from top to bottom, and spread the affliction (and the rewards) of “The Market” evenly?
Ever Notice that ‘Free Market Principles’ are something inflicted upon the poor and
middle class, and that the upper, moneyed classes are exempt?
While the economy slows, it isn’t those who are making the most that see a like reduction in their income, instead, many in the rank and file pay the complete price of losing their jobs. While we see our housing wealth shrink as the bubble deflates, the federal, state, and local governments cut services that we all depend on, and furlough state workers, again, asking them to bear the cost of the ‘Free Market’.
Meanwhile, the financial institutions, those at the heart of the economic problems, are able to go to the government and get money to stay afloat, instead of being subject to market principles which would force them into Chapter 11 or 7 bankruptcy filings. Notice how this saves high paying jobs – can’t have the leaders whose policies created the problem actually be held accountable. Sure, their bonuses may be reduced, but let’s face the truth here: Financial Services do not produce anything, so the incomes of these people come out of the surplus of the economy created by others. Their jobs should not be sacrosanct: They could be cut free to produce something useful, to the benefit of all!
Even the scrutiny levied on the Auto Industry bears this out: Although the companies in Detroit have made some bad decisions, the real problem they face is a huge downturn in demand brought about by the failure of the Financial Sector. But, we wouldn’t want to pass on a chance to drub the autoworkers for asking for a reasonable salary or health care or a modest pension: No! The Market Applies! Your business is down; many of you must sit idle with no pay!
Meanwhile, we learn that Wall Street bonuses are down 36% - which is better than it
appears, since the financial sector’s employment has been cut 44%! The cuts again have come in the lower level workers, those who did the day to day work, but were not responsible for formulating policy. The ‘Market’ applies to them, but not the leaders.
In his response to the emerging problems last fall Henry Paulson showed himself to be an unapologetic kleptocrat, intent, it appears, on shielding his friends in the Finance Industry from anything that resembles Market Principles, stealing from the Treasury (thus the American People) to keep them employed.
With the elections, I had hope that with a new administration we would get a better leader at Treasury, perhaps someone who actually believed in the Market and would work to enforce its principles, no matter on who they fell. But, after Timothy Geitner’s plan unveiling yesterday, I can only conclude that he is beholden to Wall Street, and, if not unapologetic, still a kleptocrat.
This makes me think of the form of the Golden Rule to which these men adhere:
“They That Have The Gold Make The Rules”
I thought that the promise of Democracy was that this form could be overturned and replaced with our preferred form: “Do Unto Others…”
What are we (the people) of America doing wrong? What do we need to do to enforce fairness from top to bottom, and spread the affliction (and the rewards) of “The Market” evenly?
25 Books to Read
I am preparing a couple of posts, but I am finding this a little more challenging than I anticipated! Apparently, some of the ideas roaming about my head don't want to leap into print...
In the meanwhile, I ran across this list of '25 Books Obama Should Read' and thought I would provide the link and get some feedback to see if anyone had read any of these or was interested. Let me know!
25 Books Obama Should Read
In the meanwhile, I ran across this list of '25 Books Obama Should Read' and thought I would provide the link and get some feedback to see if anyone had read any of these or was interested. Let me know!
25 Books Obama Should Read
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Ear Gauging
I wanted to put out this to get some opinions, and make certain I'm not overlooking something important.
A friend called tonight concerned that the juggler we hired for one of our Pack Meetings has been starting the process of ear gauging - he's up to the size of a pencil erasure. Does that disqualify him for our event?
My answer: No. We want to teach our children to be accepting of other ideas and cultures, so it would be wrong for us to judge an individual about their qualities as a person by something superficial. Second, by seeing it, it would give us parents an opportunity to discuss the topic with our children, and let them know why we may or may not think it is a good idea. The second seems to me to be very beneficial, as it is better to have controlled conversations about things, rather than shelter our children and then have to have the conversation after they've done something.
Have I overlooked some other important consideration?
A friend called tonight concerned that the juggler we hired for one of our Pack Meetings has been starting the process of ear gauging - he's up to the size of a pencil erasure. Does that disqualify him for our event?
My answer: No. We want to teach our children to be accepting of other ideas and cultures, so it would be wrong for us to judge an individual about their qualities as a person by something superficial. Second, by seeing it, it would give us parents an opportunity to discuss the topic with our children, and let them know why we may or may not think it is a good idea. The second seems to me to be very beneficial, as it is better to have controlled conversations about things, rather than shelter our children and then have to have the conversation after they've done something.
Have I overlooked some other important consideration?
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Parenting Children to Interact w/ Adults
My friend William asked:
As I was thinking about the answer, it occurred to me that it actually goes right to the heart of my blog name, so:
The simple answer is that as I've been parenting, I've tried to duplicate those things I feel my parents did well, and improve or change those things I feel they didn't.
However, things are never as simple as they seem: Things that I feel perhaps my parents did less well than I would have liked are not necessarily things they did less well, they are things I perceived that they did less well. So, my perception is not the reality: They may have done those things well, or at least as well as they could, and I chose to ignore or slant my understanding of what they intended.
Which brings us full circle, William. I felt when in college that I wasn't prepared to ask the kinds of questions that needed to be asked to ensure that I had full understanding of the topics – I always felt restrained, that I should just go off by myself and study and attempt to figure it out before bringing a question forward, and always being mindful of the professor's and my fellow classmate's time before possibly wasting it with a nonsense question. This of course followed a pattern established early – and was probably much more restrained than my parents intended.
The problem is that kids can be so literal: Tell them to do or not to do something enough times, and they often (very often!) fail to grasp the nuance that we as adults understand and intend. 'Research and don't ask nonsense questions' can become 'Research, and don't bother others with questions', which in turn is simplified to “Look it up yourself”. And children just keep one pattern of behavior for many years for a situation – so, it becomes a catch all.
What have I learned in eight years, then? My biggest observation is that children are the absolute best mimics. If they ask questions / challenge, and I always give an answer, regardless of what I might say when they do that to another adult, they will always ask. If I instead take their question and show them how we can look it up, and intersperse that with sometimes answering, well: I've shown them both possible outcomes. But what they really need to see is how I decide to ask or look up, since that is the behavior they will most likely mimic (I've seen this from other areas, so feel pretty confident that it is true.) And so, it is very useful for my children to see me interact with other adults, and for me to remain mindful that I am modeling behavior my children will faithfully copy.
From the books we've read, (both Freakonomics and Outliers) we've seen just how powerful culture and the actual milieu in which children are raised is on their outcome. Which made me think about how useful it is to have two people raising children: Although I have patterns and habits established from my parents, and may struggle to change them, and my wife also, her patterns and habits are not my patterns and habits, so our children don't get just one set. And with mindful application of those that we do well, perhaps we can pass on mostly the good ones and submerge those we'd like to change in ourselves...
But, in regards to this specific behavior: I've being trying lately to teach my son that either he looks it up or asks a question: It is not acceptable to just accept that he doesn't know, and do nothing about it. The actual nuance of when to look it up and when to ask may be a few years off – at this point as long as he learns the answer!
In re: parenting styles, have you become more aware of how you you interact with your children and how you instruct them to interact with adults.
I'm slightly repulsed by children who feel entitled to challenge/question adults without doing some research on their own first. But at the same time, do you want your child overlooking something simple simply because they were too afraid/ashamed to ask?
As I was thinking about the answer, it occurred to me that it actually goes right to the heart of my blog name, so:
The simple answer is that as I've been parenting, I've tried to duplicate those things I feel my parents did well, and improve or change those things I feel they didn't.
However, things are never as simple as they seem: Things that I feel perhaps my parents did less well than I would have liked are not necessarily things they did less well, they are things I perceived that they did less well. So, my perception is not the reality: They may have done those things well, or at least as well as they could, and I chose to ignore or slant my understanding of what they intended.
Which brings us full circle, William. I felt when in college that I wasn't prepared to ask the kinds of questions that needed to be asked to ensure that I had full understanding of the topics – I always felt restrained, that I should just go off by myself and study and attempt to figure it out before bringing a question forward, and always being mindful of the professor's and my fellow classmate's time before possibly wasting it with a nonsense question. This of course followed a pattern established early – and was probably much more restrained than my parents intended.
The problem is that kids can be so literal: Tell them to do or not to do something enough times, and they often (very often!) fail to grasp the nuance that we as adults understand and intend. 'Research and don't ask nonsense questions' can become 'Research, and don't bother others with questions', which in turn is simplified to “Look it up yourself”. And children just keep one pattern of behavior for many years for a situation – so, it becomes a catch all.
What have I learned in eight years, then? My biggest observation is that children are the absolute best mimics. If they ask questions / challenge, and I always give an answer, regardless of what I might say when they do that to another adult, they will always ask. If I instead take their question and show them how we can look it up, and intersperse that with sometimes answering, well: I've shown them both possible outcomes. But what they really need to see is how I decide to ask or look up, since that is the behavior they will most likely mimic (I've seen this from other areas, so feel pretty confident that it is true.) And so, it is very useful for my children to see me interact with other adults, and for me to remain mindful that I am modeling behavior my children will faithfully copy.
From the books we've read, (both Freakonomics and Outliers) we've seen just how powerful culture and the actual milieu in which children are raised is on their outcome. Which made me think about how useful it is to have two people raising children: Although I have patterns and habits established from my parents, and may struggle to change them, and my wife also, her patterns and habits are not my patterns and habits, so our children don't get just one set. And with mindful application of those that we do well, perhaps we can pass on mostly the good ones and submerge those we'd like to change in ourselves...
But, in regards to this specific behavior: I've being trying lately to teach my son that either he looks it up or asks a question: It is not acceptable to just accept that he doesn't know, and do nothing about it. The actual nuance of when to look it up and when to ask may be a few years off – at this point as long as he learns the answer!
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Takeaways from Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell
After reading Outliers, I had the following thoughts - (synopsis):
Success is not entirely within our control; Outliers are not just the product of their effort.
1) Hard work is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition of success
2) We cut many people out of realizing their potential because of the unfair way we mete out reward and success in our society.
Individuals are responsible for #1. Society (we) are responsible for understanding and changing #2.
And, if you find yourself successful (i.e. you make a lot of money), then you must allow for #2, and don't take on the arrogance or conceit that you may keep all that you've earned or look down on those less successful (at least not until you know for a specific individual that it was a lack of #1)
Success is not entirely within our control; Outliers are not just the product of their effort.
1) Hard work is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition of success
2) We cut many people out of realizing their potential because of the unfair way we mete out reward and success in our society.
Individuals are responsible for #1. Society (we) are responsible for understanding and changing #2.
And, if you find yourself successful (i.e. you make a lot of money), then you must allow for #2, and don't take on the arrogance or conceit that you may keep all that you've earned or look down on those less successful (at least not until you know for a specific individual that it was a lack of #1)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)