Krugman on Sachs Joining Fiscal Conservatives

This post notes that Jeffrey Sachs, best known currently for his work to alleviate extreme poverty in the developing world, weighs in via Financial Times as a deficit hawk. Sachs thinks that the stimulus is too slow, and the need really goes to investment, not immediate spending. Continuing his ongoing argument, Krugman, via Brad DeLong, argues that Sachs has no firm ground for this conclusion. This may all seem quite ethereal, but whatever path we follow will create very real results—the only question is whether those results will be for good or ill.

Barnett on Globalization & Identity

Thomas Barnett's interesting article in World Politics Review about globalization and identity addresses issues that Barnett comments upon frequently. I find his perspective instructive and worth serious consideration. In short, the issues resolve around how we may define ourselves as distinct while we become more closely connected. Interesting stuff.

Krugman, et al. v. Ferguson, et al.: What’s the Problem?

This article directly addresses an implicit debate that I've been following. On one side, Paul Krugman and Brad DeLong, on the other, Niall Ferguson and others, including Nassim Taleb. The issue: cut back federal spending in fear of long-term debt (think Greece), or stimulate the economy to continue raising the us out of the economic doldrums and avoid a lost decade (think Japan). At this point, I side with Krugman, who is thinking (rightly, I believe) short-term. Long term, Ferguson and Taleb and the deficit hawks are right: too much debt is a bad thing. The bad guys: W. Bush and his cronies. He and his Congress ballooned the federal deficit, leaving the Obama administration much less room to do what is necessary in the way of deficit spending.

For history buffs, remember that FDR became deficit hawkish at the beginning of his second term and took the nation into a second down turn. It took WWII, with its unprecedented deficit spending, to lift us out of the Great Depression. Keynes tried to warn FDR, but to no avail. Are we in danger of repeating the same mistake?

Stanley Fish & Company: Whither Education?

Stanley Fish writes on the benefits of a "classical" education. By "classical", he does not mean exclusively concerned with a Latin & Greek language and civilization curriculum, but more an emphasis on basic subjects taught in a rigorous manner. He enlists recent writing by Martha Nussbaum (for whom I have very high regard), Diane Ravitch, and Leigh Bortins on the subject. I have a lot of sympathy for this perspective, but does it apply appropriately to all kids? On one hand, one would think not; however, it seems like this is more the curriculum of American schools in the first half of the 20^th century, which I believe proved immensely successful. Also, too much seat time, especially in the early years, probably isn't such a good idea. I'm not sure, but the debate is an important one, as it seems that many find our education system still faltering in many places.