Our Crazy-Making, Profiteering Education-Career Maze

Authored by Charles Hugh Smith via OfTwoMinds blog,

The answer is not another $1 trillion in student loan debt to pay for another raft of declining-value credentials.

So let"s say we want to set up a system to help students choose a career that fits their aptitudes and interests. What would we do? How about:

1. Give them zero (or superficial) aptitude and career-related tests.

2. Provide a few minutes with a counselor who knows nothing about them, their aptitudes or potential career-related interests.

3. Design the high school education system to provide near-zero knowledge of finance, debt, economics, how the economy functions and what the world of work demands of workers.

4. Denigrate (subtly or directly) non-college career options, channeling those who aren"t sure into 4-year colleges, higher education paid with student loans designed to maximize profiteering.

5. Force them to choose a major or field of study at 17 or 18 years of age, despite their lack of real-world experience and objective knowledge of how the economy functions and their own aptitudes/character traits.

6. Disconnect this higher education from real-world work places so they exit higher education with little actual knowledge of the skills employers need.

7. When the student graduates after borrowing a fortune and discovers their diploma has low value in the marketplace or is in a field they"ve found they loathe, then suggest the "solution" is to borrow another fortune and invest more years in obtaining another credential.

This is the American education-career maze--ineffective, self-defeating, wasteful, irrational, and apparently designed to maximize student confusion, poor choices and profiteering by higher education and the student-loan racketeers.

As if this wasn"t bad enough, what do we decide to teach our students if careers might be significantly different in 10 or 20 years? Yes, math, the basics of science and communication skills will remain useful as a foundation, but these basics aren"t enough to prepare students for a fast-changing emerging economy/4th Industrial Revolution.

Clearly, it would be enormously beneficial to teach the skills needed to learn on one"s own and adapt successfully to changing circumstances. The current system is a hierarchy of credentialing that enriches those dispensing and funding the credentialing.

Our system"s response to those left behind, those with inadequate skills and those who chose unwisely is always: get another credential, at enormous expense. Nobody tells students that credentials are in over-supply and are therefore losing their value.

Value and profits flow to what"s scarce and in demand. Trying to reach the top of the credential pyramid is a crowded race, and the losers are left with debt and wasted years they could have spent actually learning useful knowledge bases and skills--in effect, pursuing a self-directed path of accrediting yourself.

The education-career maze doesn"t have to be so self-defeating, costly, convoluted or ineffective. My book The Nearly Free University and the Emerging Economy lays out a model of higher education based on workplace apprenticeships in all fields, from carpentry to chemistry to sociology, from Day One, a structure that dramatically lowers costs while providing an education based on real-world acquisition and use of knowledge and skills in the workplace, not sitting in a chair watching a lecture.

Technology is a core part of improving results while lowering costs by 90%. Consider this article: Imagine how great universities could be without all those human teachers.

I describe the process of accrediting yourself in my book Get a Job, Build a Real Career and Defy a Bewildering Economy, which also details the eight essential skills needed to navigate the emerging economy.

What"s the emerging economy/4th Industrial Revolution? It"s not so much the replacement of human labor by robots as the augmentation of human skills with technology, and the focus on a simple but profound source of value creation: what"s scarce and in high demand? What"s abundant and not in demand?

The point of my book is to lay out a pathway of learning how to learn on our own and acquiring the soft skills needed to collaborate, communicate and manage teams/projects effectively, regardless of the field of endeavor.

How can we expect young students with little life experience to choose wisely when they don"t even understand how the economy works? The current education-career maze assumes that some basic math and science knowledge is all students need to figure out their role in a fast-changing economy that they don"t even understand.

The inadequacy of our crazy-making education-career maze boggles the mind. We need to do much, much better, not just for our students but for our society. The answer is not another $1 trillion in student loan debt to pay for another raft of declining-value credentials. We need a new system, and fast. Solutions abound, but not within the current crazy-making education-career maze.

Here"s a snapshot of the workforce"s education level:

Even the most credentialed workers" earnings have stagnated:

And here"s your wunnerful federal government, enforcing debt-serfdom on college students to maximize the profits of the student-loan racket:

If you found value in this content, please join me in seeking solutions by becoming a $1/month patron of my work via patreon.com. Check out both of my new books, Inequality and the Collapse of Privilege ($3.95 Kindle, $8.95 print) and Why Our Status Quo Failed and Is Beyond Reform ($3.95 Kindle, $8.95 print, $5.95 audiobook) For more, please visit the OTM essentials website.

Mike Rowe Eviscerates "Smug" Snowflake Who Calls Him A "White Nationalist"

If you ever plan to attack Mike Rowe over Facebook then you better bring more than just a few "smug and snarky" comments to the table because anything less than a well-sourced, reasoned, fact-based argument might just earn you the same public humiliation that Rowe just dropped on Chuck Atkins.  Oh, and your grammar better be spot on too.

Unfortunately, Chuck didn"t follow any of the guidelines above when he decided to write on Mike Rowe"s Facebook thread accusing him of being at "white nationalist" for having the audacity to suggest that a $200,000 college education may not be the "best" option for all American high school graduates. Apparently Chuck is convinced that helping people get high-paying, stable trade jobs is just racism at it"s worst...

In any event, here is what Chuck Atkins made the mistake of posting on Rowe"s Facebook page:

"One of the tenants of white nationalism is that college educated people are academic elitests. Comment? No? I"m not surprised. You never take a political stand because you don’t want to alienate anybody. Its bad for business. I get it. But there is a current of anti intellectualism in this country - promoted by Republicans. Those people love you, and they think your initiative is their initiative. Meanwhile, the rest of the world is kickin our ass academically."

Which prompted an epic, multi-page response from Rowe that started out as follows:

Hi Chuck

Since we’re being candid, allow me to say how much I dislike your post. Everything about it annoys me – your smug and snarky tone, your appalling grammar, your complete lack of evidence to support your claims, and of course, the overarching logical fallacy that informs your entire position. What really bugs me though, is the fact that you’re not entirely wrong. It’s true; I haven’t shared any political opinions this week, in part anyway, because doing so might very well be “bad for business.”

Rowe goes on to beautifully explain how logical fallacies, much like the one presented by Chuck Atkins, are largely to blame for the toxic political climate in the country right now. 

You say that White Nationalists believe that everyone who goes to college is an “academic elite.” You then say that Republicans promote “anti-intellectualism.” You offer no proof to support either claim, but it really doesn’t matter – your statements successfully connect two radically different organizations by alleging a shared belief. Thus, White Nationalists and The Republican Party suddenly have something in common – a contempt for higher education. Then, you make it personal. You say that Republicans “love” me because they believe that my initiative and “their” initiative are one and the same. But of course, “their” initiative is now the same initiative as White Nationalists.

Very clever. Without offering a shred of evidence, you’ve implied that Republicans who support mikeroweWORKS do so because they believe I share their disdain for all things “intellectual.” And poof - just like that, Republicans, White Nationalists, and mikeroweWORKS are suddenly conflated, and the next thing you know, I’m off on a press tour to disavow rumors of my troubling association with the Nazis!

Far-fetched? Far from it. That’s how logical fallacies work. A flaw in reasoning or a mistaken belief undermines the logic of a conclusion, often leading to real-world consequences. And right now, logical fallacies are not limited to the warped beliefs of morons with tiki torches, and other morons calling for “more dead cops.” Logical fallacies are everywhere.

As I type this, a Democrat on CNN is making an argument that says, “because Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, those Republicans now opposed to tearing down his memorial are “pro-slavery,” and therefore aligned with the modern day KKK.” That’s a logical fallacy.

Over on Fox, a Republican is arguing that “any Democrat who has not yet condemned the Senator from Missouri for publicly wishing that Donald Trump be assassinated, is guilty of wishing for the exact same thing.” That’s a logical fallacy.

Meanwhile, there were many other pearls of wisdom in Rowe"s epic rant.

Here"s a great one demonstrating how pretty much everything can be misconstrued to develop whatever narrative is convenient for any given party at any given time...

Want to hear another one? Imagine something like this, unfolding over on MSNBC.

"Good Evening, America, our top story tonight… Chuck Atkins is a racist! Why? Because he can’t spell. Just look at his grammar! In a recent post on Mike Rowe’s Facebook page, Mr. Atkins, while bemoaning America’s global academic standing, not only misspelled “elitist,” he used “tenants” when he meant “tenets.” He neglected to use a hyphen in “anti-intellectual,” and he misplaced several commas and apostrophes! But why is he a racist, you ask? Simple. Because everyone knows racists are ignorant. Chuck Atkins is clearly a poor speller. Poor spelling and grammar are signs of ignorance. Ergo - Chuck Atkins is a racist! Boom! The matter is settled!"

...and another on celebrities forcing their political opinions in our face...

What can I say? I work for half-a-dozen different companies, none of whom pay me to share my political opinions. I run a non-partisan foundation, I’m about to launch a new show on Facebook, and I’m very aware that celebrities pay a price for opening their big fat gobs. Gilbert Gottfried, Kathy Griffin, Colin Kaepernick, Milo Yiannopoulos…even that guy from Google who just got himself fired for mouthing off. There’s no getting around it – the first amendment does not guarantee the freedom to speak without consequences. And really, that’s fine by me.

So no – I’m not going to share my personal feelings about Charlottesville, President Trump, or the current effort to remove thousands of statues of long dead soldiers from the public square. Not just because it’s “bad for business,” but because it’s annoying. I can’t think of a single celebrity whose political opinion I value, and I’m not going to assume the country feels any differently about mine.

Conclusion:

Below is the full rant from Mike Rowe:

* * *

Hi Chuck

Since we’re being candid, allow me to say how much I dislike your post. Everything about it annoys me – your smug and snarky tone, your appalling grammar, your complete lack of evidence to support your claims, and of course, the overarching logical fallacy that informs your entire position. What really bugs me though, is the fact that you’re not entirely wrong. It’s true; I haven’t shared any political opinions this week, in part anyway, because doing so might very well be “bad for business.”

What can I say? I work for half-a-dozen different companies, none of whom pay me to share my political opinions. I run a non-partisan foundation, I’m about to launch a new show on Facebook, and I’m very aware that celebrities pay a price for opening their big fat gobs. Gilbert Gottfried, Kathy Griffin, Colin Kaepernick, Milo Yiannopoulos…even that guy from Google who just got himself fired for mouthing off. There’s no getting around it – the first amendment does not guarantee the freedom to speak without consequences. And really, that’s fine by me.

So no – I’m not going to share my personal feelings about Charlottesville, President Trump, or the current effort to remove thousands of statues of long dead soldiers from the public square. Not just because it’s “bad for business,” but because it’s annoying. I can’t think of a single celebrity whose political opinion I value, and I’m not going to assume the country feels any differently about mine. So, rather than blow myself up, or chime in with all the obvious observations about the cowardly scum in the pointy hats, I’m going to talk instead about my belief that comments like yours pose a far greater threat to the future of our country than the existence of a memorial to Thomas Jefferson, or a monument to George Washington. Ready? Let’s start with a closer look at your claims.

You say that White Nationalists believe that everyone who goes to college is an “academic elite.” You then say that Republicans promote “anti-intellectualism.” You offer no proof to support either claim, but it really doesn’t matter – your statements successfully connect two radically different organizations by alleging a shared belief. Thus, White Nationalists and The Republican Party suddenly have something in common – a contempt for higher education. Then, you make it personal. You say that Republicans “love” me because they believe that my initiative and “their” initiative are one and the same. But of course, “their” initiative is now the same initiative as White Nationalists.

Very clever. Without offering a shred of evidence, you’ve implied that Republicans who support mikeroweWORKS do so because they believe I share their disdain for all things “intellectual.” And poof - just like that, Republicans, White Nationalists, and mikeroweWORKS are suddenly conflated, and the next thing you know, I’m off on a press tour to disavow rumors of my troubling association with the Nazis!

Far-fetched? Far from it. That’s how logical fallacies work. A flaw in reasoning or a mistaken belief undermines the logic of a conclusion, often leading to real-world consequences. And right now, logical fallacies are not limited to the warped beliefs of morons with tiki torches, and other morons calling for “more dead cops.” Logical fallacies are everywhere.

As I type this, a Democrat on CNN is making an argument that says, “because Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, those Republicans now opposed to tearing down his memorial are “pro-slavery,” and therefore aligned with the modern day KKK.” That’s a logical fallacy.

Over on Fox, a Republican is arguing that “any Democrat who has not yet condemned the Senator from Missouri for publicly wishing that Donald Trump be assassinated, is guilty of wishing for the exact same thing.” That’s a logical fallacy.

Yesterday, on The Science Channel, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, a noted astronomer, tweeted that the ability of scientists to accurately predict the solar eclipse, was proof that predictions of global warming were also accurate. That’s a logical fallacy.

Want to hear another one? Imagine something like this, unfolding over on MSNBC.

"Good Evening, America, our top story tonight… Chuck Atkins is a racist! Why? Because he can’t spell. Just look at his grammar! In a recent post on Mike Rowe’s Facebook page, Mr. Atkins, while bemoaning America’s global academic standing, not only misspelled “elitist,” he used “tenants” when he meant “tenets.” He neglected to use a hyphen in “anti-intellectual,” and he misplaced several commas and apostrophes! But why is he a racist, you ask? Simple. Because everyone knows racists are ignorant. Chuck Atkins is clearly a poor speller. Poor spelling and grammar are signs of ignorance. Ergo - Chuck Atkins is a racist! Boom! The matter is settled!"

There’s not much we can do about the news, but here on Facebook, I think we can do better. This isn’t Twitter. We’re not limited to a few inflammatory sentences and a flurry of emojis. Take a moment, Chuck. Think. Make a rational argument. Otherwise, just link us to a cat video. People love those, and they’re almost never “bad for business.” (Unless of course, the cat gets hurt. People hate that.) Just don’t assume that people will care about your beliefs, if you’re not willing to back them up with some relevant facts and a rational conclusion. Here, for instance, are a few facts that matter to me, with respect to my foundation and the recurring charge of “fostering anti-intellectualism.”

mikeroweWORKS is a PR campaign for the skilled trades. For the last nine years, we’ve partnered with numerous trade schools, raised millions of dollars for work-ethic scholarships, and called attention to millions of jobs that don’t require a four-year degree. But that doesn’t mean we’re “anti-intellectual.” We"re not even “anti-college.” We simply reject the popular notion that a four-year degree is the best path for the most people. And we’re hardly alone.

Millions of reasonable people – Republicans and Democrats alike – are worried that our universities are doing a poor job of preparing students for the real world. They’re worried about activist professors, safe spaces, the rising cost of tuition, a growing contempt for history, and a simmering disregard of the first amendment. These people are concerned that our universities – once beacons of free speech – now pander to a relatively small percentage of students who can’t tolerate any political opinion that challenges their own. And they’re concerned – deeply concerned - that millions of good jobs are currently vacant that don’t require a four-year degree, or any of the catastrophic debt that comes with it.

Again - these are not the concerns of “anti-intellectuals." They are the concerns of people who care about the future of the country. I don’t know how many of these people are Republicans, but I can assure you that no one who actually supports my initiative is remotely confused about my feelings on education, because I’ve been crystal clear on that topic from the very beginning. To quote Thomas Jefferson, (while I still can,) "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free and live in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." On this point, my foundation does not equivocate.

In other words, Chuck, I have no idea what The White Nationalists think about my efforts, or the Republicans, the Democrats, the elitists, the Italians, the Presbyterians, the unions, or the self-proclaimed anti-intellectuals. And really, I couldn’t care less. My question is, why do you?

Mike

PS. Ok, I’ve just re-read this, (in a desperate search for typos,) and I want to apologize for pointing out that you’re a lousy speller. This is probably not the time to trot out The Grammar Nazi, but your tenor and tone pissed me off, and I responded in my own snarky way. Sorry.

PPS Maybe this is how political correctness begins? Maybe we start by correcting each other’s grammar, and then move on to the business of correcting everything else? Today a missing hyphen, tomorrow a missing monument. Or, maybe not.

Atlanta Fed vs NY Fed: Whose GDP Forecast Is Right?

Authored by Salil Mehta via Statistical Ideas blog,

There is a 2/3 chance that both competing Federal Reserve 2017 Q1 GDP nowcasts are wrong! That’s an audacious prediction for the storied NY and Atlanta institutions (one of them led by my former big boss Timothy Geithner), and yet there is no way around the current confusion they are in. 

This is also critically important as one is showing a robust 3.2% growth reading, while the other is at 0.9% (the 2^nd lowest reading in nearly 3-years) and essentially indicates that we are descending towards recession. 

[NOTE - NOWCAST just downgraded their forecast dramatically from 3.19% to 2.83%]

Are we descending towards recession?  It"s unlikely but zero-growth is certainly in the cards and not reflected by these two nowcasts, and we certainly think there is only a single digit probability of a >3% GDP.  How could the NY Fed plausibly give such a madly high estimate (which if true would be the second highest in 2-years)?  Yet there you have it, two extreme readings, and a 2.3% (3.2%-0.9%) chasm between them.  We show here that the Federal Reserve’s conclusions are somewhat ridiculous, though shouldn’t be since they impact the open market committee monetary decisions that the world looks to.  And there are humbling lessons from these nascent Big Data, overfit models.

The chart here shows some basic information regarding the current GDP nowcasts.  As we via the two blue bars, we have the Atlanta nowcast on the left (the bar was recently as high as 3.4% earlier this year).  And the NY nowcast on the right (the bar was recently as low as 1.5%).  That’s right, both nowcasts passed each other, while aggressively moving further in the opposite direction!  The large swings in each are also doubtful, given each nowcast’s eventually advertised, margin of error (concordant paradigm in various forecasts by Taleb).  For a good chronology of these nowcast reports, refer to MishTalk.

Each nowcast boasts a margin of error of just ~1%, and this clearly poses an issue since the average of these two nowcasts (shown in orange at 2.1%) is clearly outside of both the Atlanta and the NY stated margin of error!  As supportive reference, we also show (in green) that the current 2016 Q4 GDP is nearby at 1.9%.  Now we should ask some important questions about how we keep getting into more strange nowcasts in the past year that they both have operated.  The first thing to appreciate is that the nowcasts are supposed to predict very tight errors that are uncorrelated to the variance in the actual GDP itself.  And good nowcasts should have errors independent of one another, except since the NY and Atlanta Fed operate independent of one another there is a good chance that there may be some modeling similarities.  We modestly assume this and derive through the variance formula (Variance_Atlanta+Variance_NY+2?_Atlanta?_NY?_Atlanta,_NY) that the margin of error of the difference between the models is just less than 1% (silver vertical interval arrows in chart above).  This is a highly plausible tight expected variance.  Sample size is also trivial here as we don"t have the true expectation to model a limit from.  And with this, the probability of seeing an inadvertent 2.3% difference between the two correct Federal Reserve models is <5%.  Or that their publicized margin of error is awkwardly too low (to the point we’ll show later that randomly guessing the GDP would be safer).

We also have the probability that one of the nowcasts is correct, which due to symmetry means applying one of the nowcast stated margin of errors to the other nowcast value.  Or that the one nowcast is unintentionally correct, which would be like the <5% probability above.  So, in total the probability of one of the Federal Reserve nowcasts being correct and the other being wrong is ~10% (not the >½ that many may generously assume as they critique these divergent outputs).

That leaves us with two other possible outcomes still!  That is to split up the remaining 85% probability that both models are individually wrong into: (a) the average of the two models is still correct, and (b) even the average of both models is wrong.  This leaves us with no choice but to conclude that the probability that there is ~40% probability that the correct 2016 Q1 GDP is nowhere near either nowcasts nor the average of the two, and a >½ probability that the GDP is near the 2.1% average that inappropriately happens to be well outside both two nowcasts’ margin of error.  And between those two we can safely claim that there is a 2/3 chance that both models are total wrong (and merely <5% chance they are still both right).  There is perhaps a 30% chance one can smartly use both models in a deliberate way, though this is conditional on how they use the information and not at their endorsed specified face value.   

Now a more practical assumption of this is that the margins of error should be more than doubled (to 2.6%!), in which case no one would even use such nowcast models.  However, the probability breakdown in such a scenario is this:

• 
  

  <30% chance both models -with their current 2.3% chasm- are correct

  
  


• 
  

  ~60% chance one of the models is wrong and one is correct

  
  


• 
  

  ~10% chance both models are still wrong individually, though the average in rare cases is correct

  
  

In all cases, all three probabilities sum to 100% as they should.  And they lend a healthy sense of respect that incessantly observing each of these GDP nowcasts is commonly a waste of time, and that rarely will one gain insight from it other than from ex post luck.  It’s the same as the more senior open market committee models vainly attempt to forecast other macro-economic variables.  Sometimes simply looking at the most recent quarter’s GDP (in this case ~2%) is as good of a guess as any.  So is giving a little more weight to the near-0 probability most have of an outright contraction this quarter.  As a business CEO, one would want to be arranged for anything at this point, which a genuine 2.6% margin of error about GDP infers.

The valuation of financial knowledge

How does one value financial knowledge? Finance as both a topic and industry has been holding huge secrets guarded by the most rich and powerful in the world for hundreds of generations. Why don’t they teach these secrets to the masses? It’s the same reason a magician doesn’t reveal his tricks. But just like children are fascinated with the skilled magician pulling the rabbit out of a hat, adults are fascinated with the financial wizardry of financial experts. We show you in our simple to follow introductory course that finance and investing is not magic. Just like the magician, financial experts simply are well trained, and follow a financial philosophy of their choosing (there are several) such as “Value Investing.” Due to the internet, obtaining this knowledge is possible for anyone in any place at any time. It’s not necessary to go to an expensive Business school like Harvard or Wharton anymore (although, you won’t make high level connections anywhere else) to gain financial knowledge. You can do it in the comfort of your own home.

The study of knowledge is known as Epistemology, roughly defined as:

Epistemology studies the nature of knowledge, justification, and the rationality of belief. Much of the debate in epistemology centers on four areas: (1) the philosophical analysis of the nature of knowledge and how it relates to such concepts as truth, belief, and justification, (2) various problems of skepticism, (3) the sources and scope of knowledge and justified belief, and (4) the criteria for knowledge and justification.

This definition provides a great template of how to understand what is financial knowledge and how to value it. If one knows how to take a dollar and turn it into two – this certainly is priceless. But there’s a big spectrum of financial knowledge, ranging from Wall St. genius to understanding personal finance and how to properly file taxes. The problem of the valuation of an investment strategy for example, it is binary – either it works, or it doesn’t. The difference between a 15% return and a 17% return is not statistically significant. But how to look at the mathematics of a return, and determine the difference between Bernie Madoff and George Soros? That’s priceless.

The importance is to understand the ‘gestalt’ of what markets are, how finance works, that is – practically. Any system can be analyzed and understood by looking at its components and how they behave together. The specialization of finance has confused the larger view, with experts teaching micro-subjects like how to trade Candlestick patterns, or ‘how to make money’ using these simple tools. Making money is sometimes easy – many people stumble upon good luck and money falls into their hands. Not losing money, that is very difficult – something very few rich people and businesses can achieve. Only a full understanding of how markets operate globally, will make you a great trader – as well, will protect you from losing. Not losing is the big secret to financial success. It’s why investors are so concerned about risks. If one can simply not lose, ultimately what’s left will be profits and growth. Tools such as understanding risk, and even quantifying risk (as much as possible) are priceless.

Building a financial knowledgebase is like building a house; the first step is to make a blueprint (usually by hiring an architect) and laying a strong foundation. By having a strong foundation, the building materials of your knowledge (wood, stone, clay) are not as important. With a ‘basement’ which is the modern day equivalent of a bunker, you’ll be able to withstand any tornado or storm that may rock the markets and the economy. Having a defense line, financially speaking – is the most important tactic in any personal finance strategy. For businesses too, but most business does this intuitively (not relying on a single customer or single product line). Tools like hedging, even if simple – can be extremely powerful. Preppers take things to the extreme but provide a great living example of how everyone should act regarding their financial portfolio – hope for the best and prepare for the worst. A portfolio should be like a castle – capable of withstanding any disaster, war, or siege.

It’s true that the world’s Elite engineer financial disasters like stock market crashes to seize the wealth of the growing middle class. It’s like culling the herd for fresh competition. But the good news, seeded into this system are the tools to protect you and even profit. For the first time in history, anyone can access the same tools the Elite have used for centuries to maintain their wealth and seize the wealth of others. This knowledge can also help you in your career, in your business, in your portfolio, or for your retirement.

There’s never been a better time than now to build financial knowledge for yourself. Whether you are wealthy and want to protect your wealth, or are not and want to grow your portfolio and become wealthy – a solid financial understanding of business and the markets is the first step towards achieving real financial self-actualization.

With our system as a whole, top-wards down approach, you’ll learn to understand your business better, by understanding where money comes from, how it’s exchanged, how it’s valued, loaned, securitized, packaged and repackaged. Money has become the most virulent electronic commodity in the world and is the least talked about. Learn FX, and learn how all markets work, and the foundation underpinning the global economy, at Fortress Capital Trading Academy www.fctradingacademy.com

Spring into trading special:  35% OFF your first course – use coupon code spring17 to get 35% off.

Italy&#039;s Grillo Slams Mainstream Media "Manifest Manipulation Of Reality"

"Fake news" has officially crossed the pond and once again it the mainstream media that is producing more of it (while blaming the alternative media). Beppe Grillo, founder of Italy"s Five Star anti-euro movement lashed out at the country"s journalists for "manufacturing false news," accusing them of fabricating stories to keep the Five Stars down.

"Newspapers and television news programmes are the biggest manufacturers of false news in the country, with the aim of ensuring those who have power keep it," he said on his blog on Tuesday.

As Local.It reports, he called for "a popular jury to determine the veracity of the news published," and said in cases of fake news "the editor must, head bowed, make a public apology and publish the correct version at the start of the program or on the paper"s front page".

 ...the politicians are now demanding stronger measures against bloggers...

[BUT], have never urged punishment for those who commit more serious crimes, lying in absolute bad faith, abusing the credibility of institutions. That lie can not be punished. It is not in the interest of mainstream politicians.  

All major newspapers should be closed for manifest manipulation of reality, or obliged to go out with a sticker that certifies the lack of credibility.

The media world was - of course - enraged...

The news director of the private TG La7 channel, Enrico Mentana, said he would sue the comedian, while journalists" union FNSI slammed the "lynching of all journalists".

What Grillo is proposing "is called Fascism, and those who play it down are accomplices," PD senator Stefano Esposito said.

Marco Travaglio, editor of the far-left Il Fatto Quotidiano daily, agreed with Grillo but said the popular jury idea would never work.

"The biggest lies are those spread by the television and newspapers, but the solution he is proposing is naive," he said.

The Political Left&#039;s Shmoo Theory Of Education

“Uneducated” is the favorite insult and excuse of the political left. In the past year alone, for example, a lack of education among voters has been used to explain each of the left’s electoral failures, as well as to dismiss criticisms of its people, policies, and institutions. These defenses are dubious to say the least. Yet setting aside the strategic choices of left-wing political groups, the obsession with un-education reveals that there are serious problems with the way education is understood by the intellectual classes.

Most importantly, the popular use of the word “education” suffers from the same error as the mainstream economic use of the word “capital.” This shouldn’t be a surprise, given that education is often metaphorically described as “human capital.” The error is that both capital and education are thought of as a kind of “homogeneous blob,” or “shmoo.” A shmoo is elastic and can be molded by the user into any shape necessary, and it’s therefore equally serviceable in all possible uses. Anyone who wants to use it as a production input must simply decide how much to apply to a specific problem.

In reality, of course, capital and education are both highly heterogeneous. The structure of production is extremely delicate and difficult to organize, and so too is the structure of human knowledge.

Unfortunately, this fact escapes those intellectuals who concern themselves with other people’s lack of education: in current discourse, education is a homogeneous good acquired exclusively through obtaining formal degrees. To lack a college degree is to lack education, while the more degrees one acquires, the better educated one is. Importantly, all education is equally serviceable across all areas of expertise. English majors can talk about economics, and physicists can talk about politics. But anyone who isn’t a product of the university education system is barred from participating in these discussions.

It should be easy to spot the errors in this kind of thinking. First, no matter what kind of education we pursue, we don’t simply add new blobs of it to a big pile. Instead, we acquire specific, distinct types of knowledge which vary widely in their serviceability. Second, and more important, education is not equivalent to obtaining degrees. It means different things in different contexts, and the education that takes place in higher education institutions reflects only a specific and narrow type of learning. Depending on one’s area of study, this kind of learning can often lack relevance outside the classroom, and in this sense, it actually undermines the role of education as a practical tool for learning how to create value within society. This is part of the reason why university-educated people flock to the intellectual class to begin with.

In fact, sometimes obtaining the relevant kind of education is impossible within higher education. To take some obvious examples, many of the most successful and world-changing entrepreneurs of the past few decades have been college dropouts. Needless to say, they’ve given a bit more to the human race than the average Huffington Post writer. On a smaller scale, Mises was fond of pointing out that consumers are often better educated about the state of the economy than many economists.

“Education” is another example of a kind of rhetorical imperialism that has already captured words like “science” and “evidence.” The bias in favor of “education” is basically a bias in favor of the opinions of the contemporary intellectual classes, and a devotion to the status quo in higher education. The intellectuals treat education as a shmoo because often, that’s exactly what it is to them: simply another word for describing their own collection of homogeneous opinions and concepts, which they believe should form the sum of all discussion. Fortunately, more and more people are beginning to realize that true education does not and cannot thrive in this environment, which increasingly closes itself off from the real world and the people in it. This is the perfect time for organizations like the Mises Institute to take up the challenge of bringing genuine learning to the masses, both inside and outside the academy.