Save the Elves

Column for week of February 24, 2014                           

     I tried to ignore the subject of this column.  Some things
seem too unbelievable to write about.  Still, it haunts me. 
Perhaps the only way to exorcise the demons is to give them
their day.  I hope they don't end up haunting you.

     The following from "News of the Weird" launched my
journey:
"To build an iron ore smelting plant in Iceland in 2009, Alcoa
Inc. was forced to kowtow to the country's national obsession
that elves ('hidden people') live underground and that
construction projects must assure that the little fellas have had a
chance to scatter gracefully to new habitats. Alcoa hired the
necessary elf-monitoring 'engineers,' and eventually the project
proceeded. In December 2013, the government announced it was
temporarily abandoning a major road project connecting a
remote peninsula and the capital of Reykjavik after it was
'learned' that the route would disturb an 'elf church.'  The likely
outcome, again, according to an Associated Press dispatch, is
that the project will resume once the elves have relocated.
[Associated Press via San Jose Mercury News, 12-23-2013]"

     Obviously it is true.  What more proof is needed than
that after the delays they never find any elves?  That proves that
they relocated.  If the elves weren't there, How could they have
relocated?

     This raises the burning question, Where did the elves
come from?  I was offered the explanation that the elves
migrated from the North Pole in search of a warmer climate. 
How could they have accomplished that journey?  Perhaps they
are Keebler elves that fled from living in trees and making
cookies.

     I found a far more believable explanation.  Vikings
settled Iceland.  The Vikings had few qualms about invading and
raiding other countries.   They probably kidnapped some
leprechauns from Ireland and took them to Iceland.  Iceland is
only one letter from being Ireland.  Besides that, both are
islands.  The transplanted leprechauns should have felt at home.

     To survive in the cold climate of Iceland the leprechauns
moved under ground where they remain.  In as much as no one
has ever seen one of the elves, Who can prove they aren't
leprechauns?

     Why is the government of Iceland so protective of the
elves?  The main function of the elves is to delay and disrupt
productive work.  The elves have never been caught doing any
productive work themselves.  They operate in secret, mainly
making a nuisance of themselves by disrupting the lives and
productivity of others.

     Simply put, the elves are a spitting image of a
government program.  The government of Iceland is only taking
care of its own.

     What could be more natural than government requiring an
elf impact study before beginning any project?  So what if the
elves don't actually exist?  Governments are famous for
requiring the private sector to hire highly paid consultants to
study problems that don't exist anywhere outside the minds of
bureaucrats and a few fanatics.

     Don't be surprised if the US government discovers
colonies of elves in the good old US of A.  Of course, once the
elves are spotted they will be spotted elves. That will make them
even more special.

     Keebler might be willing to hire the elves to make
cookies.  The government won't allow this.  It might disrupt the
native culture of the elves forcing them to be something they
really aren't.

     If this winter doesn't end soon, expect to see more
columns about things weirder than elves in Iceland.  The elves
may not be real.  The cabin fever is.  Please excuse me for now. 
I must answer the door.  I believe I hear a goblin knocking. 
Probably it is just as well that I stop writing now, before this
column takes a turn toward the weird.

aldmccallum@gmail.com
                                 * * * * *
                                  * * * *
                                   * * *
                                    * *
                                     *
Copyright 2014
Albert D. McCallum

Beyond the Classroom

Column for week of February 17, 2014                        

     Learning is as old as the human race.  Without
knowledge and skills survival is impossible.  Without learning
we would have no knowledge or skills.  Learning is as natural as
breathing.  It isn't even imaginable that a living, conscious
individual will not learn.

     The best education is the one that provides the individual
with the knowledge and skills he needs most.  Only the
individual can decide what knowledge and skills are the most
valuable to him.

     The knowledge and skills that best serve the achievement
of the individual's goals are the most valuable to him.   Every
person endlessly seeks to increase his satisfaction.  Each needs
to acquire the knowledge and skills that best further that goal.

     Experience tells us that some methods provide education
more effectively and efficiently than others.  That which is
effective for one may be nearly useless for another.  One size
fits all well serves almost no one.

     So, why is our school system built around one size fits
all classrooms?  Does anyone doubt that individual tutors
focusing on the needs of each student would provide the best
formal education?  There is one simple reason why our ancestors
turned to classroom education.  They couldn't afford individual
tutors.

     Classroom lock step education sacrifices quality to reduce
the cost.  Up to a point a clumsy, inefficient formal education is
better than no formal education, at least for some students. 
Those who have the motivation and ability to seek out
knowledge and learn on their own, would be better off if they
never saw a classroom.

     Usually, even in the classroom the teacher isn't the
primary source of knowledge.  Other people have accumulated
far more knowledge than can one classroom teacher.   Those
others write books, make videos, etc. from which the students
learn most knowledge taught.  The classroom teacher's biggest
jobs are to motivate, evaluate, and provide direction.  In my
experience they usually mostly rehashed the text books.

     To maximize the quality of learning we must replace
classroom education.  We now have the tools to move beyond
the classroom.  We can essentially provide almost every student
with the equivalent of a private tutor who leads each student up
a learning path tailor made for that student.

     Government is the most conservative of institutions.  It
clings tenaciously to the past.  To break out of the classroom
mold and soar into the future we must break the unholy alliance
of politicians, traditional administrators, classroom teachers, and
unions.  They will fight to the death (either ours or theirs) to
retain their vested interests in keeping us under the grip of
nineteenth century schools.  The most they want to do is put
bells and whistles on the antiquated classroom horse and buggy.

     Computers only do what we tell them to do.  The
"magic" of computes is that they do what they do with incredible
speed and for an incredibly low cost.

     Computers can endlessly record and analyze the progress
of each student and tailor the student's assignments to cover only
that which the student needs to learn and hasn't.  This will mean
the end of useless, boring, busy work that mostly covers what
the student already knows.  It will also mean the end of students
being left behind because they aren't keeping up with the rest of
the class.   "No child left behind" could become a reality, rather
than just the name of a counter productive law.

     The core of the teaching will come from a few excellent
teachers who provide the input for the computerized teaching. 
Everyone can have complete access to the world's best teachers
who will provide personalized teaching that even the best of
tutors couldn't provide with the old technology.

       And, for whatever it is worth, those excellent teachers will
serve millions of students and be paid like movie stars and 
athletes.  Still, each student will be able to purchase their 
services for a few dollars. Education will be far better and cost 
less.

aldmccallum@gmail.com
                                 * * * * *
                                  * * * *
                                   * * *
                                    * *
                                     *
Copyright 2014
Albert D. McCallum

How Silly Do They Get?

Column for week of February 10, 2014

     It is a bit early to be thinking about the "Silly Idea of the
Year" award.   Even in the second month of the new year this
one jumped up and down screaming "Pick me."  I never pick
any idea as the dumbest.  There are far too many worthy
candidates to choose only one.  Besides, if I pick one it will
only be a challenge for someone to beat.  Sill, I'm confident that
come December this idea will remain on the short list.

     The headline for an Associated Press article proclaimed
"Food Companies Cut 6.4 Trillion Calories."  My first though
was "That's a lot of calories."  My second though was "Those
food companies must be losing a whole bunch of weight."  The
rest of this column is about my third thought.

     The article goes on to explain that the food companies
had cut the calories in their products by 6.4 trillion.  Supposedly
that works out to 78 calories per day for the entire U.S.
population.  I'll take their word for it.  I really don't care.

     If everyone consumed 78 fewer calories per day, they
would each lose about a pound every 45 days.  That would be
about 8 pounds per year.  In 30 years or so the entire population
would waste away and vanish.   The overweight problem, and a
whole bunch of other problems, solved.  Among other things,
Obama care would cease to be a problem.  There would be no
one left to run the insurance exchanges or enroll in them,  Well,
no one besides Chris Christie anyway.

     The great calorie reduction was achieved by reducing the
size of packages, making cookies smaller, etc.  In 2010 sixteen
companies took the pledge to cut other people's calories.  We are
already three years into the golden era of weight loss.  Haven't
you noticed the difference?  Haven't you wondered, Where are
all those skinny people coming from?

     I am asking a different question.  Who, besides former
mayor Blomberg actually believes people are going to eat less
merely because food comes in smaller packages?  We might see
the reverse effect.  If an eight-ounce soda doesn't satisfy as well
as a 12-ounce one, Will the thirsty one then drink another eight
ounces?  If cookies are smaller, I eat more of them.  I suspect
that a couple of other people do too.

     Most people eat and drink to satisfy their hunger, thirst
and cravings.  They don't wake up in the morning with a plan to
consume no more than 17 containers of food and beverages
before day's end.

     This plan might work in a prison.  Or, it might not.  If
inmates can smuggle in drugs, Why not food?

     The article does admit the plan might be flawed.  "It is
also unclear how the reduction in calories translates into
consumers' diets.  When the companies made the pledge in 2010,
they said one way they would try and reduce calories would be
to change portion sizes in an attempt to persuade consumers to
eat less.  The companies also said that they would develop new
lower-calorie options and change existing products so they have
fewer calories."

     Will this great plan persuade people to eat less, or only
persuade them to buy food and drinks made by companies that
provide more desirable products?  If the shrunken foods shrink
their makers' sales, How long will those companies keep their
pledges?  Their first tactic would likely be to pressure
government to force every company to sell less desirable food.

     This plan is an excellent example of why all social
engineering plans fail.  People know what they want.  Tricks and
threats don't stop them from pursuing what they want.  Trying to
use smaller packages to fool people is about as silly and futile as
it gets.  I shouldn't have said that.  Individuals somewhere are
already planning to prove me wrong.  I don't doubt that they will
succeed.

aldmccallum@gmail.com
                       * * * * *
                        * * * *
                         * * *
                          * *
                           *
Copyright 2014
Albert D. McCallum

What Will Bring Economic Recovery?

Column for week of February 3, 2014             

     The economy has been in the dumpster for going on six
years.  The minimal economic growth reflected in the
government numbers barely exceeds the rate of population
growth.  A large percent of new jobs are part time jobs and
government jobs that don't add much to production. 
Government's promises to borrow and spend our way to
prosperity fell flat on their faces.

     Before considering how to bring expanding production
and prosperity we must first know what it takes to build and
sustain a healthy, robust economy.  The economy is more
complex than a 10,000-piece jigsaw puzzle.  Putting the puzzle
together requires all the pieces, and all in the right places.

     Consumers guide the economy.  The only reason for
producing is to consume.  Businesses buy resources and use
them to make products.  When consumers find the products to
be worth more than the resources used to produce them, the
consumers will pay more for the products than the cost of
production.  The surplus is the reward the business earns by
providing consumers something they want.

     If the consumers won't pay the business more than its
cost of production, the business loses.  The business must change
and please the consumers, or soon go out of business.

     Creating jobs that don't contribute to consumer
satisfaction wastes resources rather than producing additional
value.  Government can't come close to knowing which jobs will
do the best job of pleasing consumers.  Thus, government
subsidies and mandates invariably create wasteful jobs that must
be eliminated before there can be real economic recovery.

     Businesses create jobs by investing to add new
production.  Businesses are highly motivated to produce the
products consumers want and to do it in the least costly way.  
When a business makes a wrong call, it loses money.  Keep
making those mistakes and the business is soon gone. 
Businesses literally bet their lives when they choose how to
invest in producing products.

     Among other things, businesses must anticipate consumer
demand for their products, cost of production, and what the
competition will produce.  There are enough unavoidable,
uncertain variables to keep most people awake all night.  That is
part of why most people don't start businesses.

     No one can focus on the entire economic puzzle. 
Everyone can focus on his own little part.  Employees focus on
their part by developing the skills that promise the greatest
rewards.  A large part of that rewards is spelled w-a-g-e-s. 
When employees seek higher paying jobs, they are seeking more
productive jobs.  Those self serving employees do more to fine
tune the economy than do all the politicians and bureaucrats
lumped together.  Ummmm, what a tempting thought.

     When everyone takes care of his little piece of the
economic puzzle, the picture comes together and we prosper. 
When government manipulates the economy with subsides,
prohibitions, mandates, artificial interest rates, regulations, etc. it
can make it impossible for the real actors in the economy to fine
tune the millions of interactions essential to a vibrant, prosperous
economy.

     The result is wrong education, wrong investment, and
wrong products.  The bad investments must be liquidated and
redirected to bring prosperity.  Bailing out and propping up the
bad investments only compounds the problem.

     The worst comes when government adds so much
uncertainty that businesses are afraid to invest.  Without
investment there can be no new production and no new
productive jobs.  This is why the depression of the 1930s and
1940s lasted so long.  Government made the future so uncertain
that businesses were afraid to invest.  Misdirected government
spending is no substitute for sound business investments.

     We are in the same trap again.  The only way out is for
government to back off and clear the air so that businesses can
see the future clearly enough to return to investing.  Bribing and
tricking businesses to make more bad investments isn't the
answer.  That is how we got where we are now.

aldmccallum@gmail.com
                                 * * * * *
                                  * * * *
                                   * * *
                                    * *
                                     *
Copyright 2014
Albert D. McCallum