Are you for or against Universal Basic Income. Do you understand Monetary Sovereignty?

Uncategorized 11 Minutes

I’ve researched the question, “What are the reasons against Universal Basic Income (UBI).” I call it “Social Security for All.”

Here is a summary of the anti-UBI claims:

1. Cost and Feasibility: One of the primary concerns is the high cost of UBI. For example, in the United States, a UBI of $12,000 per year for every adult would cost over $3 trillion annually/

2. Inflation: UBI could lead to inflation. If everyone has more money to spend, demand for goods and services might increase, driving up prices and potentially negating the benefits of the additional income.

3. Work Incentive: UBI might reduce the incentive to work. If people receive a guaranteed income regardless of employment, some may choose not to work, potentially leading to a decrease in the labor force and economic productivity.

4. Misuse of Funds: Recipients might misuse the funds, spending them on non-essential items rather than necessities. This could undermine the goal of reducing poverty and improving living standards.

5. Impact on Existing Welfare Programs: Implementing UBI might require cutting or restructuring existing welfare programs. This could harm those who rely on targeted support for specific needs, such as healthcare or housing.

6. Political and Social Challenges: Gaining political and public support for UBI can be difficult. Many people are skeptical of unconditional transfer programs and prefer welfare systems tied to employment or specific conditions.

Before I address #s 1 through 6, I’ll give you the real one:

7. It would narrow the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and the rest. The Gap is what makes the rich rich. Without the Gap no one would be rich; we all would be the same.

The wider the Gap, the richer are the rich. The easiest way for the rich to remain rich is to make sure the Gap doesn’t narrow, so using their political and informational power, the rich invent and promulgate false reasons why UBI won’t work.

Now, let us address each of the reasons given for objecting to UBI.

1. Cost and Feasibility:

We already have a form of UBI, except it isn’t “U” (Universal). We call it “Social Security,” and it covers old and/or disabled people. All the ideas opposing UBI were put forth in the 1930s when Social Security first was proposed.

Contrary to popular myth, Social Security (as well as Medicare, the military, SCOTUS salaries, White House salaries, Congress’s salaries, and every other federal expenditure) are not funded by FICA or any other federal taxes.

These programs all are funded the same way: through federal money creation.

It is as simple as A, B, C.

A. When any federal government agency approves an invoice for payment, it sends instructions (not dollars) to the creditor’s bank, instructing the bank to increase the balance in the creditor’s checking account. The instructions are in the form of a check or a wire.

B. When the bank does as instructed ( by pressing a few computer keys), dollars are created by being added to the creditor’s checking account and to the money supply measure known as “M2.”

C. The bank then balances its books by clearing the payment through the Federal Reserve, which has the infinite power to approve all federal checks and wires.

So long as the federal government has the infinite power to pass laws and to issue instructions, it has the infinite power to pay any invoices it receives. The U.S. federal government, being the original creator of dollars from thin air, never unintentionally can run short of dollars.

You often have been told that Medicare, Social Security and/or their trust funds are running out of money. It is a false claim. Unlike state/local governments, the U.S. government is Monetarily Sovereign. With the infinite ability to create dollars, it could create the above-mentioned $3 trillion at the touch of a computer key.

The sole purpose of federal taxes (unlike state/local taxes) is not to provide the government with spending money. The dual purposes are to:

    • Control the economy by taxing what the government wishes to discourage and by giving tax breaks to what the government wishes to reward and
    • Assure demand for the dollar by requiring taxes to be paid in dollars.

Even if the federal government didn’t collect a single dollar in taxes, it could continue spending, forever.

Alan Greenspan: “A government cannot become insolvent with respect to obligations in its own currency. There is nothing to prevent the federal government from creating as much money as it wants and paying it to somebody. The United States can pay any debt it has because we can always print the money to do that.”

Ben Bernanke: “The U.S. government has a technology, called a printing press (or, today, its electronic equivalent), that allows it to produce as many U.S. dollars as it wishes at essentially no cost. It’s not tax money… We simply use the computer to mark up the size of the account.”

Statement from the St. Louis Fed: “As the sole manufacturer of dollars, whose debt is denominated in dollars, the U.S. government can never become insolvent, i.e., unable to pay its bills. In this sense, the government is not dependent on credit markets to remain operational.”

Mario Draghi, President of the Monetarily Sovereign European Central Bank: “We cannot run out of money.”

Further, UBI would grow the economy. It’s a mathematical certainty because the size of the economy is determined by this formula:

Gross Domestic Product (GDP) = Federal Spending + Nonfederal Spending + Net Exports.

By simple algebra, UBI would grow the economy because it would increase Federal Spending and, as a result, increase Nonfederal Spending, too.

When faced with the undeniable facts that UBI is affordable for the federal government and would grow the economy, those influenced by wealthy propaganda resort to excuse #2.;

 2. Inflation: The common yet erroneous belief is that “excessive” fedeal spending causes inflation. This belief is wrong on several fronts. 

First, no one knows what “excessive” means. The rich always claim federal spending is excessive (see: Historical claims the Federal Debt is a “ticking time bomb.” From Sept. 26, 1940, to July 22, 2024) because most federal spending goes to the poor. It narrows the Gap, a situation the rich despise.

By contrast, the rich favor tax deductions for the wealthy, which are not part of “spending” but widen the Gap just as federal spending does.

Economics is a pseudoscience loaded with hypotheses and flush with data — and ne’er the twain shall meet.

Some economists make this arguement based on intuition, but not on fact: They claim that people earn income by selling their labor on the labor market as a contribution to the production of goods and services for the economy. Income increases that aren’t directly related to correlating increases in production tend to result in higher prices.

It’s nonsense.

Which of these can claim their income is “directly related to correlating increases in production?” Taxi driver? School teacher? Musician? Flight attendant? Doctor? How about Elon Musk? If he made “just $100 million instead of a few billion, would that “directly relate to a correlating decrease in production”?

Pay has little to do with production and more with labor scarcity, politics, heredity, and other social factors. Queen Elizabeth’s pay had little to do with her output. I am retired, and my income has nothing to do with my production. Raising hotel workers’ skimpy pay or decreasing mortgage brokers’ high pay would not “directly relate to their production.”

The hypothesis is something that only an economics professor in a well-endowed think tank could dream up.

Inflation is not caused by federal spending. Inflation is caused by scarcities, most often scarcities of oil and food:

The peaks and valleys of inflation(red) do not match up with the peaks and valleys of federal spending (blue).

 

The peaks and valleys of inflation do match up with the peaks and valleys of oil prices, which are dictated by oil supply and demand.

Today, the federal government is spending more than ever, yet inflation is drifting down. The most recent inflation was COVID-related, not spending-related. It was caused by shortages of oil, food, computer chips, metal, lumber, shipping, and labor.

Raising everyone’s income by giving them money would not cause inflation. Scarcities of crucial items cause inflation.

Federal spending to cure scarcities cures inflation. The “federal spending causes inflation” meme is a fever dream promulgated by the rich to maintain the income/wealth/power Gap.

The common meme that inflation is “too much money chasing too few goods” is half right. Inflation is caused by too few goods (and services).

3. Work Incentive: Critics argue that UBI might reduce the incentive to work, decreasing the labor force and economic productivity. This is a favorite of the rich, who love to portray lower-income people as lazy slugs who, if given money, will simply loll about doing nothing. 

The truth is that poor labor is harder than rich labor unless one considers costly vacations, country clubs, and having servants do one’s work to be “labor.” Virtually everyone wants a better life, and that includes the poor. Given a stipend by the government, they will work to increase their standard of living, just as the rich do.

Similarly, the vast majority of the rich want to be richer. Almost no one is satisfied, and it is certainly not a low-income family that receives Social Security.

I trust this isn’t just a projection on my part, but I began collecting Social Security at age 65. I continued to work for a living until I was 73, not because I loved  work, but because I wanted more money to feel secure. I had what some may consider a lot, but I still wanted more.

That said, what is wrong with a decrease in the labor force? What is wrong with a four-day work week or a five-hour day? Work usually is not a purpose unto itself. The primary purpose of most work is to improve one’s life, however one defines “improve.”

For households in every quintile of the income distribution, the share of income required to pay for their 2019 consumption decreased, on average, because income grew faster than prices did over that four-year period.

Households in the top income quintile had the largest decline, on average, in the share of income required to pay for their 2019 consumption.

Translation: The rich kept earning more spending money than the rest of us did. Even though they had plenty of money, they wanted more, and worked for it. Why would the average and below-average income people be less motivated? They wouldn’t, but that is what the rich claim.

Artificial intelligence (AI) and automation are making it more possible to do less and accomplish more. A solution to the possible unemployment caused by AI may be UBI.

4. Misuse of Funds: Some argue that recipients might misuse the funds, spending them on non-essential items rather than necessities. This is another one the rich love — the notion that the poor are ignorant money managers and that if you give them money they’ll waste it on drugs and lottery tickets.

The reality is quite the opposite. By necessity, the poor have learned to be good money managers. In any event, it is none of the government’s business whether or not someone “misuses” their income. The idea the the government knows better is repulsive and bigoted.

5. Impact on Existing Welfare Programs: Implementing UBI might require cutting or restructuring existing welfare programs. Critics worry that this could harm those who rely on targeted support for specific needs, such as healthcare or housing.

This is easily prevented. Just don’t do it. Don’t include UBI income as part of any welfare criterion.

The current system — requiring someone to be poor to receive financial aid — is self-defeating. It encourages the very thing the rich claim to fear: people not working. It also leads to dishonesty and to gaming the system by mischaracterizing income.

6. Political and Social Challenges: Gaining political and public support for UBI can be difficult. Many people are skeptical of unconditional transfer programs and prefer welfare systems tied to employment or specific conditions.

This is the old “If I had to work for my money, why should he get money for doing nothing?” The solution would be to give every man, woman and child in America the same amounts regardless of their other income or wealth.

The money would mean little to the rich and much to the poor, but it would overcome the resistance of those who hate to see others receive something.

7. It would narrow the Gap between the rich and the rest. The Gap is what makes the rich rich. Without the Gap no one would be rich; we all would be the same.

The wider the Gap, the richer are the rich. The easiest way for the rich to remain rich is to make sure the Gap doesn’t narrow, so using their political and informational power, the rich invent and promulgate false reasons why UBI won’t work.

This is the single biggest hurdle to cross. The first six objections easily are overcome and/or are based on incomplete information. This one is based on the intense emotions of America’s most influential people.

A rich man might be generous about charity for the poor, but he doesn’t want poverty to be eliminated altogether. He needs the poor. Having a mansion is not as attractive if everyone else has a mansion. It’s the Gap that makes him rich, and narrowing the Gap makes him less rich, an unappealing prospect.

If a neighbor wins the lottery or even gets a more lucrative job, how does the rest of the neighborhood feel? What does Mark Zuckerberg think about Elon Musk having more money?

The majority of us suffers from Gap Psychology, the desire to distance ourselves from those below us on the income/wealth/power scale and to come closer to those above us. The conflict arises because those above us don’t want us closer and those below us want us closer.

SUMMARY

There are no good reasons not to begin a UBI program and plenty of reasons to start.

I suggest the following monthly payments:

  • $1,000 to every adult (18+)
  • $500 to every child
  • Include undocumented adults and children.

Assume:

  • 258 million adult (citizens) + 31 million adult (non-citizens) = 289 million total adults; Annual Cost: $289 billion * 12 = $3.468 trillion
  •  73 million children (citizens) + 14 million children(non-citizens) = 87 million children; Annual Cost: $43.5 billion * 12 = $522 billion
  • Combined Annual Cost: $3.468 trillion (adults) + $522 billion (children) = $3.99 trillion per year

This compares to the most recent (2023) federal expenditure of about $6.3 trillion.

Poverty generally is worse in the states that tend to vote Republican, the party that wrongly opposes social benefits, saying they are “unaffordable” and “socialism” — which they are not.

(Socialism is government control of industry, not just government funding. All governments fund things, but relatively few of those things can be called “socialism.”)

Government spending has a multiplier effect on GDP. The multiplier effect measures how much economic activity is generated by an initial amount of the expenditure. Estimates for the fiscal multiplier vary, but a typical range is between 0.5 and 2.0.

With a conservative multiplier of 1.5, GDP would grow about $6 trillion on top of the most recent 28.65 trillion for a new value of $34.65 trillion.

Consider this: The expanded Child Tax Credit (CTC) in 2021 provided up to $3,600 per child under 6 and $3,000 per child aged 6 to 17. The total cost of this expansion was approximately $105 billion for the year. It lifted about 3.7 million children out of poverty during its implementation.

Today, about 37.9 million people live below the poverty line.  The UBI described above would:

  1. Eliminate poverty in America
  2. Vastly increase economic growth
  3. Stimulate scientific progress
  4. Increase all areas of production.
  5. Improve the quality and availability of education
  6. Improve the infrastructure and help cut global warming
  7. And improve the entire American nation’s quality of life by using the brainpower now hampered by a lack of funding
  8. Do all this at no cost to anyone.

Think of it. The United States of America has the power to be the first large nation on earth to eliminate poverty. Millions of men, women, and children could begin to contribute to America’s success.

Too good to be true? No, too good only for those who don’t understand the power of human thought and desire, when funded by Monetary Sovereignty.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

Monetary Sovereignty

Twitter: @rodgermitchell

Search #monetarysovereignty

Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell;

MUCK RACK: https://muckrack.com/rodger-malcolm-mitchell;

https://www.academia.edu/

……………………………………………………………………..

The Sole Purpose of Government Is to Improve and Protect the Lives of the People.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Published by Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

MBA Northwestern, business turnaround expert, economist

Published

33 thoughts on “Are you for or against Universal Basic Income. Do you understand Monetary Sovereignty?”

  1. An example of ignorance about Monetary Sovereignty:

    Updated coronavirus vaccines are costing some Americans up to $200. Why? The federal program covering the cost of vaccines for uninsured people ran out of funding. It comes as updated coronavirus vaccines are hitting U.S. pharmacy shelves.

    There is no reason for this program to run out of funding. The federal government has the infinite ability to fund any program it wishes to.

    Apparently, Congress, which has free, gold-plated health insurance plans, doesn’t feel the need to help uninsured Americans avoid COVID,

    Like

    Reply

  2. It is the “U” in UBI that is problematic. Since a UBI would send the same monthly stipend to each member of the Walton Family as well as the lowest paid laborers working in Walmarts, my concern is that, without a price anchor, a UBI would be ripe for predation by the rentier class.

    With the knowledge that everyone would be getting the same monthly “bump” of guaranteed income from the US Gogernment, what would prevent landlords, who contribute to the numbers of homeless each month, from taking a big bite out of that proposed monthly stipend?

    We have all seen the record profits of corporations, post-pandemic, due to “greedflation.” With everyone receiving “free monthly money,” do you think the corporate lobbyists who control the US Congress would allow price controls as part of any UBI bill?

    How would a UBI empower labor? I see it being used as another whip to keep LABOR “in line” as employers deny wage increases with UBI justification.

    I see UBI as a solution to the Neoliberal problem of how to continue wage suppression of labor while maintaining corporate bottom lines. A UBI is welfare for capitalists that allows even lower wages paid to labor while allowing laborers to continue to be consumers.

    A UBI, to me, is an economic precarity enhancer.

    Like

    Reply

    1. Thank you for your interesting comments.

      You voice two concerns. As I understand them:

      1. Wealthy people would receive the benefit, thereby reducing the amount available to those who need it.
      2. Corporations would use the benefit as an excuse for keeping salaries low.

      Is that a good summary?

      As for number 1, a Monetarily Sovereign nation is not limited in its money creation. The purpose of giving everyone a benefit, including the rich, is to reduce:
      A. The massive effort of trying to evaluate everyone’s income
      B. The unfairness, currently inherent in the tax code, of different kinds of income having different status (long term. short term, real estate, stock, etc.)
      C. Lying and cheating regarding one’s income.
      D. The question of wealth vs. income. (Who gets more, a person with high wealth but low income or a person with low wealth but high income?)

      Simply sending every human being a benefit is faster, simpler, easier, and less subject to cheating and the need for a massive IRS-style investigative and prosecutorial branch, along with the vast number of non-productive hours the populace must spend filling out forms.

      As for number 2, there probably are companies that would say, “You’re getting this benefit, so I’m going to pay you less,” but I haven’t seen that widespread with regard to current Social Security and welfare benefits. Have you?

      In general, employers must pay what the employment market demands.

      Like

      Reply

      1. … not when money is given to them.

        I think it depends on how it’s given. Wasn’t there an experiment done in the San Fransisco area involving free money? Contrary to expectation, those who got free money did not become lazy but felt more responsible in wanting to seek employment. Why? I don’t know why but I suspect that our nature is such that we don’t want to appear irresponsible or selfish; instead, to succeed and contribute somehow.

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

        1. With the Compton Pledge in Compton, California, participants received regular cash payments with no strings attached. Contrary to some expectations, many recipients reported feeling more responsible and motivated to seek employment.

          Another example is the Oakland Resilient Families program, which provided $500 a month to low-income families of color. This program also found that recipients used the money to improve their lives, such as by seeking better job opportunities.

          These programs added to the existing evidence that concerns promulgated by the rich and voiced by right-wing echo chamber are nonsense. The poor want more, just as everyone else does.

          By the way, I see that the phony objections to giving people money now have shifted — because of evidence to the contrary — to “it will interfere with other welfare programs,” an even bigger bullship objection than the first one.

          The right-wing never runs out of stupid objections to helping those who are not rich — but tax cuts for the rich are perfectly fine.

          Like

          Reply

    2. If anything, UBI will make wages go UP, not down, since employers wouldn’t be able to keep wages artificially low due to the desperation of workers to avoid starvation. It’s supply and demand. Workers will have far more bargaining power than they do now.

      Like

      Reply

  4. Amen to that! Well-said overall, Rodger. The only arguments against it are either ignorant, obsolete, greedy, selfish, patronizing, paternalistic, and/or sadistic, which means that there are really NO good arguments against it in any free and decent society worthy of the name. Period.

    Like

    Reply

  5. To quote the late, great Buckminster Fuller, the Leonardo da Vinci of the 20th century:

    “We should do away with the absolutely specious notion that everybody has to earn a living. It is a fact today that one in ten thousand of us can make a technological breakthrough capable of supporting all the rest. The youth of today are absolutely right in recognizing this nonsense of earning a living. We keep inventing jobs because of this false idea that everybody has to be employed at some kind of drudgery because, according to Malthusian Darwinian theory he must justify his right to exist. So we have inspectors of inspectors and people making instruments for inspectors to inspect inspectors. The true business of people should be to go back to school and think about whatever it was they were thinking about before somebody came along and told them they had to earn a living.”

    And he said that back in 1970, mind you.

    (Mic drop)

    Like

    Reply

  6. The problem is, many, probably most, jobs would not get done unless people needed the money to do them. Who would pick up the garbage, pick the food for harvest, guard prisoners, etc. etc., if they weren’t paid to do these jobs? Sure, some work is unnecessary – I used to program a database report writer that let people run endless variations of reports on the voluminous data in the database. Were all those reports useful, run month after month? Probably not, but how to determine which ones were and weren’t? A lot of people want to be writers and artists. Many of them are “starving artists” or nearly so, because the supply exceeds the demand. Should society deplete it money to pay for things people don’t want, just because people want to do them more than they want to do the “drudge work?” How else, other than the free market, is one to determine what is valued? By committee? Sounds like Central Planning, and we all know how THAT turned out in Soviet Russia or Cuba, etc.
    We can have an economic floor below which no one is allowed to fall. This could be done by the current welfare state or by a UBI. I think the UBI would cost more because it is Universal, even though maintaining the welfare bureaucracy costs a lot, currently. But it’s hard to say because people fall through the cracks and then have other issues, like crime and health problems which also cost a lot to deal with from a social perspective.
    As for a job guarantee, government can guarantee a job, but it can’t guarantee the job will be done well, or even at all, even when paid for. Only merit-based hiring and firing can do that.

    Like

    Reply

    1. The fundamental purposes of a UBI are to narrow the income/wealth/power percentage Gaps between the richest and poorest, and to lift the nation’s standard of living from the bottom.

      Clearly, society has many millions of jobs that need to be done, and those jobs will continue to be filled depending on remuneration offered, skill required, and attractiveness of the work.

      Like

      Reply

    2. I would look to present-day China as an example of how a combined economy of free markets and Central Planning to achieve the public purpose has been successful and eliminated poverty.

      Like

      Reply

        1. Government spending is a political choice. Every government’s spending. What matters is on what the spending is buying and who benefits from the spending.

          China’s government chose to spend on technology, transportation, food and energy. It chose to invest in the education and health of its citizenry. Contrast that to the US Government, that has chosen to not pass a permanent progressive bill since the EPA of 1970.

          Under capitalism, poverty and austerity are features, not “bugs.”

          Like

          Reply

          1. Governments not only are “isms.” They are people.

            Under capitalism we went to the moon, won the war against fascism, created Social Security and Medicare, and created the most wealth of any nation on earth, despite China’s and India’s much create populations.

            I do not believe China, as a nation, is healthier or better educated than the US as a nation, though lately our leaders have been lacking in those regards. It’s not a question of capitalism vs. whatever sort of communism China has had for the past 80 years.

            It’s a question of leadership quality.

            Were it not for Viet Nam, Lyndon Johnson would be remembered as one of history’s greatest leaders. Today, an incompetent psychopathic criminal could be elected by an ignorant public.

            The Sole Purpose of Government Is to Improve and Protect the Lives of the People. What “ism” has the best history of trying to accomplish that mission?

            Ignorance has its penalties.

            Like

          2. In less than four decades, Stalin took the USSR from a nation of feudal peasants to outer space and technology that challenged the greatest economies of that era.

            China committed to using its monetary sovereignty for its public purpose and ended poverty, homelessness, illiteracy, and hunger. It invested in the well-being of every citizen.

            The US, in spite of it’s monetary, energy, and food sovereignty, has clawed back the progressive policies of the twentieth century in accordance with the Neoliberal agenda since the Milton Friedman influenced 1970s. The fact that, with all you understand about federal finance, of which we both agree, it is disappointing that you cannot use that knowledge to connect the dots to the class war few realize or can understand.

            Like

        1. That article is anti-China propaganda that is easily refuted by what is described by MS and MMT!

          China appears to be leaning more toward exporting less on its way to becoming, eventually, a net importer.

          MMT economists were the first to recognize that exports are trading tangible, real goods and services for numbers in spreadsheets within central banks. The reality is that exports are a cost and imports, assets.

          China “in debt?” MS and MMT ask. “to whom?”

          Like

          Reply

          1. I agree with you.

            For a large Monetarily Sovereign nation like China, exports mean trading something that requires labor and other resources (the export) for something it can create at the touch of a computer key (money). Exports are economically unnecessary — even foolish.

            I’ve said so many, many times. The first post I remember was from way back in 2010 (https://mythfighter.com/2010/10/03/does-china-need-to-export-as-much-as-it-does/) (“Does China need to export as much as it does?”) There have been many similar posts, since — perhaps even a few earlier.

            My problem is the notion that the Chinese economy is something to be envied or even respected. The sole purpose of a government is to improve and protect the lives of the people. While all governments fall short of that ideal, China’s totalitarian regime greatly lags even America’s conservative (i.e. bigoted, hard-hearted, MAGA) current bent.

            Sadly, economists have exacerbated the misunderstanding by including Net Exports in GDP, the most common measure of the economy. Giving away assets doesn’t grow an economy.

            As for MMT, I agree with the vast majority of their claims. However, they still are stuck on JG and the need for human labor, as well as the fiction that federal spending causes inflation. But hey, they’re far better than the federal debt fearmongers.

            Like

  7. In general, a society that shows it cares about its people will not rip off the system. That would be like children hating their parents for their Christmas/birthday presents. If I buy someone a drink, that person is thankful and likely will return the favor. It is in us to want to be helpful even to total strangers, like the fireman rescuing the cat in the tree.

    Buckminster Fuller also said, “Humans are designed to succeed.” What we have now is an economic system that is designed to fail and it’s doing a good job of it.

    Like

    Reply

    1. It’s not the system. A system is a tool. If you use a saw to pound a nail, you will fail.

      The problem is the people. We are not the same people we were 80 years ago. There’s a reason we call it “The Greatest Generation.”

      Look at the MAGAs and compare them to the patriots of the 1940s.

      Look at the 60’s. We went to the moon and created Medicare and the voting right act among other things. Today, we struggle just to keep a stupid, lying, convicted criminal, traitor, friend to communist enemies from being President.

      We will be remembered as the mean-spirited, hatemongering, conspiracy theory believing, “I’ve got mine; shoot everyone else” generation.

      Like

      Reply

        1. I have to ask, Where was/is the educational system all these decades? Are we educating or merely providing jobs to college grads who claim degrees in “education?” I say it’s all going backwards. Along with facts there must be long-range wisdom. I see none of that coming forth.

          Like

          Reply

Leave a reply to pml146 Cancel reply