The greatest educational challenge is how to fight the extremism and groupthink now put on steroids by social media

Sir, Martin Wolf writes: “The belief that a degree is the only qualification that matters has had dysfunctional effects” “Simple-minded economics distorts the education debate”

Absolutely! “Ample evidence exists of graduates doing jobs that used not to need degrees” and all this when robots and artificial intelligence are only warming up.

But, in Venezuela, the educators supposed to educate our youngsters, don’t say a word about that, in a country in which the lack of food and medicines is killing people, petrol (gas) is sold for US$0.01 a litre (4 US$ cents per gallon).

But, in the developed world, reputable finance and economy professors, supposed to educate our professionals, don’t say a word about that the risk weighted capital requirements for banks dangerously and uselessly distort the allocation of bank credit; and as a consequence a Martin Wolf can get away with not writing about these regulations having dysfunctional effects.

What made educators in Venezuela and professors in the developed world behave this way? And what are we to do when all educators are also being further groupthinked and radicalized by political agendas and social media? I really don’t know. But I do know that leaving it in the hands of governments as Wolf seems to suggest, would be a very childish and statist illusion.

(For the time being) I have two beautiful, bright and spiritual (Canadian) granddaughters. They make me spend much time trying to identify a Hogwarts School for them that could help me to keep them magic.

PS. Thinking back I must be so grateful for my parents, and grandparents, to have allowed me to go to a boarding school that, at least during that time, had something of Hogwarts, though luckily without the witchcraft. I refer to Sigtuna Humanistiska Läroverk in Sweden.

@PerKurowski

Whatever support Trump loses on his own, extreme opposition and anti-Trump profiteers only guarantee he gets it back

Sir, Patty Waldmeir writes: “In the Midwest American heartland… the silent white majority appears to be keener on Trump than ever…The other side may be turning out in their hundreds of thousands, clad in cat-eared Pussy Hats to fight the new world order, but the Trump side can’t believe its luck. And it is scoring more converts all the time.” “Good news for Trump from his supporters in the heartlands” February 21.

Absolutely! The opposition can weaken or dilute Trump’s support, especially when he himself does so much to help, but instead, the extreme runaway Trump opposition, and the anti-Trump profiteers showing off their credentials, only help to stiffen and compact his support.

PS. http://teawithft.blogspot.com/2017/02/is-it-opposition-that-weakens-or.html

@PerKurowski

A holier than thou alliance of hysterical extreme besserwisser progressives, is pushing too many into No No Land

Sir, Janan Ganesh opines that visceral/hysterical reaction against Trump no matter how correct it might be, might evidence to many voters that progressives do not share their deeply felt concerns about national security, crime, welfare dependency and similar. “Liberalism can only win if it holds a hawkish line” February 7.

Ganesh is absolutely correct. As a Venezuelan I can testify on that this type of reaction, by a similar holier than thou besserwisser group mostly correct in their opinions preaching to the choir, only made Chavez stronger.

For instance I utterly dislike walls, foremost because you can never be real sure you or your grandchildren end up on the right side of it. But, in the case of the Mexican Wall, much more constructive would a “Yes let’s build it” be. That followed up of course with “The USA puts up the land, the Mexicans the cheaper labor, perhaps the Canadians the materials needed, and the FED, by means of a wall-easing program, buys the 1%, 50 years bonds that are needed to finance it all”. I guess that would bring the emotionally laden discussions about that wall to a more sane level… better for all.

Sir, but Ganesh also writes: “Whenever the state imposes a counterterror measure, especially one as brute as the US president’s, statistics are dug out to show that fewer westerners perish in terror attacks than in everyday mishaps. Slipping in the bath is a tragicomic favourite. We chuckle, share the data and wait for voters and politicians to see sense.”

And that, as you might intuit, irresistibly provokes me to ask the following: When the state imposes a regulatory measure based on something so brutish as believing that what is perceived as very risky is riskier for the bank system than what is perceived as very safe… why does then so few chuckle, share the info, and wait for regulators to see sense?

@PerKurowski

To solve its immigration concerns, in harmony, Europe needs to free itself from all preachy political correctness

Sir, I refer to François Heisbourg’s “France cannot indulge the xenophobes on immigration” August 28.

Heisbourg writes: “The question of immigration, a visceral issue… is driving a wedge between EU populations and their governments, between member states and indeed between the EU itself and the values on which it was founded.”

And in order to bridge the gap he suggests EU “a response to the immigration crisis that lives up to rather than falls short of its values…most EU member states… are not providing the systematic right of asylum to which war-refugees are entitled under international humanitarian law or by common decency.” “Europe’s leaders need to live up to our responsibilities as humans and as neighbors, assume part of the burden, and talk straight to the electorate.”

What straight talk is he talking about? That the deliberate conflation by demagogues of immigration, the refugee exodus, the spread of Islam and jihadi terrorism is as emotionally powerful as it is factually spurious”, and that therefore Europeans have no moral right to feel humanly uneasy about immigration?

That is precisely the type of holier than thou political correctness, a Neo-Inquisition, that serves as growth hormone to extremist movements.

If anything politicians who want to build bridges, need to share the concerns, not negate their existence or outright condemn their validity; all in order to then proceed to openly discuss what can be done. For instance, should there be a limit to how many immigrants Europe can accept the next-decade, and if so, what number… 10 million, 100 million or no limit at all?

My age group, and those older of course, have basically seen world population triple during our lifetime. One way or another, that sole fact tells us there are some changes going on that, for good or for bad, were perhaps not embedded in our values.

If you think I am just another political incorrect who is against immigration, I invite you to visit my:

http://theamericanunion.blogspot.com

PS. On the other side of the pool, where would Donald Trump be, if he had no political correctness trampoline to jump on?

Let people vent their concerns!

@PerKurowski

In order to avoid political extremism, Europe needs to rid itself of bank regulation extremists.

Sir, I refer to Gideon Rachman’s “Growth will not save Europe from extremists” March 24. But there will not be any sustainable sturdy growth in Europe, while the regulation of its banks is in the hands of extremist. Only extremist could, for purposes of bank equity requirements, assign a risk weight of zero percent to central government debt and that of 100 percent to an unrated SME or entrepreneur.

Rachman writes “France and the rest of the member states… need mainstream politicians that can paint a convincing and optimistic picture of the future”. Indeed, and that message should go somewhat along the following lines:

“Europeans, we were horribly sabotaged by regulators who completely distorted the allocation of bank credit. Because of them we lost 25 years but, once we get rid of them, we will be able to resume the creation of the jobs our future generations require and deserve.”

@PerKurowski

Christopher Caldwell risks being sent to Speaker’s Corner.

Sir, Christopher Caldwell’s “Healthcare as horror movie”, July 7, where he discusses Michael Moore’s latest film Sicko dares to touch upon something that is clearly more sickening than what a truly horrific healthcare system could be, namely the big business present in feeding the insatiable and bias craving radical extreme misconceptions with even more bias so as to allow them to be even more extreme and hungry.

This reinforcement of beliefs business which has created and promoted stories such as the 9-11 incidents having being carried out by the US government itself; or the migrants workers plotting to assassin, rape and take over countries; and so many other lunacies, are slowly leading us into neo dark ages characterized not by the lack of information but by a massive overload of it, and that has us all screening in terms of what best tickles our preconceptions. Now, why do I qualify Caldwell’s comments as daring?

In 1872, the British Parliament decreed Speaker’s Corner in Hyde Park of London as a place reserved for free expression, and initially it attracted all those extremists who, although qualifying as nuts, still had the right to vent their opinions. Lately though, we have all witnessed how the original Speaker’s Corner speakers moved into Speaker’s Studios and now radicalism, anarchy, or fundamentalism is voiced on prime-time television. All of us others, modest low-key analyzers or rational in-betweens, have to settle gratefully for slots in after-midnight cable television, dubiously sponsored by the most traditional professional services.

As rationality could soon be viewed as symptomatic of a modern nut, we might all have to line up at Speaker’s Corner… and so we’ll see you there Christopher Caldwell.

Why not just go to the sidelines first?

New York Times, I am a foreigner, but since what America does mean more for the world than the famous butterfly flapping its wings, I hope you allow me a question in reference to your editorial of March 29, “Legislating Leadership on Iraq”. Why is it that with respect to where the US troops in Iraq should go, we only hear about the options of keeping them on the frontline, in Baghdad, or sending them home to the backlines, to Kansas, when instead the normal thing to do would be to first have them go to the sidelines, the borders of Iraq, to see how it goes? Could it be that the US is currently so divided that this option is too middle of the road? If so, you have a much bigger problem than Iraq, since divisiveness is the real weapon for mass-destruction of a nation. Being from Venezuela, I should know.