Suggested Answers to the Short Quiz

[johnkarls]

.
It was respectfully suggested when the Short Quiz was promulgated, that we turn the tables on Prof. Reich and treat his book as a graded exercise.


A. The 1%-vs.-99% Fraud Vis-à-Vis America’s Permanent Under-Caste

Introduction – The U.S. Government has continually and consistently reported for the last 50 years that 30% of all adult Americans are illiterate as defined in terms of the ability to read the warning label on a can of rat poison. Meanwhile, UNICEF reports that 23% of all American children live in poverty -- more than double, and typically 3-4 times, the rate tolerated by any other industrialized country. And we know that the typical conditions facing the 178 “I Have A Dream”® Programs operating in 51 American inner-cities in the 1990’s were: 99% of children living in single-adult households, 95% of all children living in single-adult households headed by a druggie, and 75%-80% of all children living in single-adult households headed by a druggie who hands over all receipts to the pusher so the kids have to steal just in order to eat, WITH THE CHILDREN KNOWING ALREADY BY THE AGE OF 5 THAT THEY ARE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THEIR DREAMS AND THAT THEIR ONLY REALISTIC CAREER OBJECTIVES ARE PIMP OR PUSHER, OR GIRL FRIEND OF A PIMP OR PUSHER GRADUATING TO WHORE.

[Please see our 6/17/2015 Six-Degrees-Of-Separation E-mail Campaign to Pope Francis described in the first section of http://www.ReadingLiberally-SaltLake.org, and earlier E-mail Campaigns to President Obama referenced in the Campaign to Pope Francis.]

Question A-1:

In claiming to represent “the 99%” does Prof. Reich actually propose anything to mainstream America’s Permanent Under-Caste?

Answer A-1:

Sort of.

On pp. 140-142, he provides data about how the nation’s wealthiest school districts spend twice as much per student as the nation’s poorest school districts.

And asserts that the U.S. and only two other OECD (industrialized) counties, out of a total of 34 OECD countries, spend less per poor student then they spend per wealthy student.

Then, at various points later in his book when he is reprising and/or summarizing, Prof. Reich recommends equalizing expenditures.

Question A-2:

If so, are his recommendations confined to the Snake Oil peddled by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, or does Prof. Reich recognize that the abysmal results of inner-city schools (typically SINGLE-DIGIT high-school graduation rates for the class just ahead and just behind the 178 IHAD-Program classes) comprise a SOCIOLOGY problem rather than an EDUCATION problem?

Answer A-2:

Prof. Reich does NOT display an iota of understanding of inner-city conditions and what it would take to address what is really a SOCIOLOGY problem!!!

That even equalizing expenditures per student would NOT “move the needle” because Prof. Reich has ignored completely the underlying SOCIOLOGY problems.

And no, Prof. Reich doesn’t seem to be aware of the Snake Oil peddled by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation since he never acknowledges the Snake Oil, much less comments on it one way or the other.

Question A-3:

Does Prof. Reich recognize that the reason for America’s refusal to admit that the abysmal results of inner-city schools are a SOCIOLOGY problem -- is because Americans DO NOT LOVE THEIR NEIGHBORS AS THEMSELVES and are consequently unwilling to provide the Heavy Lifting that would be required to actually mainstream America’s Permanent Under-Caste -- vs. constantly looking for a cheap Snake Oil non-solution?

Answer A-3:

Since Prof. Reich fails to recognize the SOCIOLOGY problem, he fails to recognize the reason why the SOCIOLOGY problem exists which is Christian America’s HYPOCRISY.


B. The 1%-vs.-99% Fraud Vis-à-Vis Exporting American Jobs

Question B-1:

Does Prof. Reich correctly identify the “free flow of capital” as the reason why business enterprises are able to export American jobs to low-wage countries such as China, that do not even provide workplace safety rules, child-labor prohibitions, etc., etc.?

Answer B-1:

No!!!

In fact, Prof. Reich is incapable of even naming the problem!!!

Instead of ever talking about “exporting American jobs,” the most he is ever willing to do is allude ambiguously to “globalization”!!!

So it is no mystery why Prof. Reich has no ability to identify why American jobs have been exported.

Question B-2:

If Prof. Reich does correctly identify the “free flow of capital” as the culprit, does he recommend re-instituting 1968 Executive Order 11387 imposed by President Johnson and continued by President Nixon for the first 5 years of his Presidency (please see our 2/12/2014 Six-Degrees-Of-Separation E-mail Campaign described in the first section of http://www.ReadingLiberally-SaltLake.org)?

Answer B-2:

Prof. Reich fails to identify the “free flow of capital” as the reason for the Exportation Of American Jobs!!!

So it is unknown whether Prof. Reich is even aware of 1968 Executive Order 11387 imposed by President Johnson and continued by President Nixon for the first 5 years of his presidency.

Which is utterly amazing, because Prof. Reich was born 6/24/1946 and attended Yale Law School 1970-1973 which was right in the middle of the 6-year period that Executive Order 11387 was creating such a sensation!!!

So if Prof. Reich really had any interest in labor law (which may be doubted from his lack of knowledge about inner cities as described above), he almost certainly would have had to be aware of the implications and impact of Executive Order 11387!!!

And being aware of the implications and impact of Executive Order 11387 should have enabled Prof. Reich to stumble across the reason why American Jobs Are Being Exported!!!

Question B-3:

If Prof. Reich fails to identify the “free flow of capital” as the culprit, does he insult us with descriptions of prescriptions approved by the lobbyists of the exporters of American jobs?

Answer B-3:

Yes. [It is our own fault for failing to obtain more education.]

Question B-4:

Does Prof. Reich at least propose taxing the profits from exporting American jobs (please see our 5/11/2011 Six-Degrees-Of-Separation E-mail Campaign described in the first section of http://www.ReadingLiberally.SaltLake.org)?

Answer B-4:

No!!!

Even though he talks incessantly about tax policy vis-à-vis everything else under the sun!!!

Question B-5:

Does Prof. Reich recognize (A) that the $5 TRillion (yes, that’s trillion with 12 zeros) reductions in payroll and capital expenditures by the CHUMP American companies that did NOT export American jobs was caused by the so-called American Jobs Creation (sic) Act, (B) that the $5 TRillion reductions in American payroll and capital expenditures are what caused the 2008-201? economic meltdown, and (C) that the $5 TRillion reductions in American payroll and capital expenditures would have caused the 2008-201? economic meltdown EVEN IF THERE HAD NOT BEEN A SINGLE SUB-PRIME MORTAGE? [Please see our 11/14/2012 Six-Degrees-Of-Separation E-mail Campaign described in the first section of http://www.ReadingLiberally-SaltLake.org.]

Answer B-5:

No!!!

Prof. Reich simply refers constantly to the Conventional Wisdom that sub-prime mortgages were the culprit without, like the entire Economics Profession, stopping to consider why throwing out of work Americans earning $5 TRillion (albeit over 2-3 years so throwing out of work Americans earning $5 TRillion over 2-3 years in an $18 TRillion economy is "only" throwing out of work 9.26% - 13.89% of the work force!!!) wouldn’t cause them to be unable to pay their mortgages, whether or not any of them were sub-prime!!! AND cause real estate values to tank, since so many Americans are being thrown out of work simultaneously that their homes are foreclosed while there are virtually no new hires who can afford to buy all the homes being foreclosed!!!


C. Trying To Reverse The Outcome of the Civil War

Introduction:

Each time we have studied Illegal Immigration, we have recognized that it is an attempt to replace American workers with foreign workers for American jobs that cannot be exported geographically to low-wage countries since many American jobs (such as construction, domestic servants and agriculture), cannot by their nature be exported.

And each time we have studied Illegal Immigration, we have recognized that the War On American Workers with Illegal Immigrants is really an attempt to reverse the outcome of the Civil War, since Illegal Immigrants are typically NOT paid the minimum wage (A) because employers can charge anything they want for food and shelter under the federal minimum-wage law, and (B) because Illegal Immigrants don’t dare complain about anything for fear of being reported to ICE.

And each time, we have recognized THE LIE that our Pols love to peddle that the U.S. Immigration System is “broken” -- because the Bi-Partisan Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill recently passed by the U.S. Senate is nothing more than a “carbon copy” of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 = securing the Southern border, an e-verify system to prevent illegal immigrants from being employed, stiff fines AND JAIL TERMS for employers who hire illegal immigrants, and a path to citizenship for the illegal immigrants already in the U.S.

So each time, we have concluded that THE REFUSAL OF PRESIDENTS GEORGE H.W. BUSH, BILL CLINTON, GEORGE W. BUSH AND BARACK OBAMA to enforce the 1986 Act was the result of campaign contributions by the employers of illegal immigrants, aka neo-slaves.

Question C-1:

Does Prof. Reich recognize that the four Presidents since the enactment of the 1986 Immigration-Reform Act have refused to enforce it?

Answer C-1:

If he does, he NEVER mentions it in his book!!!

Question C-2:

Does Prof. Reich at least claim that as Bill Clinton’s Labor Secretary, he fought for the 1986 Immigration-Reform Act to be enforced in order to protect American workers?

Answer C-2:

No!!!

Question C-3:

If so, what does he say was the reason Bill Clinton gave him for refusing to enforce the 1986 Immigration-Reform Act?

Answer C-3:

We’ll never know why Bill Clinton (and both Presidents Bush and Barack Obama) refused to enforce the 1986 Immigration-Reform Act.

But we’ve always concluded that a Shrewd Guess would be Campaign Contributions from the Employers of Illegal Aliens.

Question C-4:

Does Prof. Reich recognize that if Americans are stupid enough to force the pols to re-enact that 1986 Immigration-Reform Act under the label of Immigration Reform, the result would probably be the same as the employers of illegal aliens continue to shower our pols with campaign contributions?

Answer C-4:

He probably does!!!

But never says so!!!


D. The Crimes Of The Federal Reserve

Question D-1:

Does Prof. Reich recognize that the Federal Reserve under Chairman Ben Bernanke engaged in “quantitative easing” (aka printing money) for ILLEGAL PURPOSES such as bailing out foreign banks and governments? [Please see our 12/14/2011 Six-Degrees-Of-Separation E-mail Campaign described in the first section of http://www.ReadingLiberally-SaltLake.org which pointed out that if the Federal Reserve was going to print money FOR ILLEGAL PURPOSES, it should at least have done so to benefit America such as by rebuilding infrastructure such as highways and bridges, or providing better inner-city education.]

Answer D-1:

Of course not!!!

Question D-2:

Does Prof. Reich recognize that the National Debt (which now exceeds America’s Gross Domestic Product) means that the Federal Reserve is probably NO LONGER ABLE TO FULFILL ONE OF ITS TWO LEGAL OBJECTIVES, VIZ. PROVIDING FULL EMPLOYMENT, since reducing unemployment any further would cause interest rates to increase and even a small increase, say to 10%, would mean that 50% of the U.S. Government’s budget would comprise interest payments? And that a major increase, say to the 21.5% prime rate under President Jimmy Carter, would mean that the U.S. Government would have to DOUBLE ALL TAX RATES just to cover interest expense without reducing other expenditures such as defense?

Answer D-2:

Of course not!!!


E. Your Grade for Prof. Reich

Question E-1:

Did you give Prof. Reich an F?

Answer E-1:

If you didn’t, please be prepared to defend your decision at our Dec. 16 meeting!!!

Question E-2:

Or were you kinder and gentler by simply grading Prof. Reich on a Pass/Fail basis?

Answer E-2:

This does NOT get you off the hook of defending your decision, since you should still have given him a FAIL.

Question E-3:

Do you think Prof. Reich was simply peddling a lot of nonsense so we wouldn’t feel so badly about being forced to accept the dictates of the lobbyists?

Answer E-3:

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!

Question E-4:

If you think any of Prof. Reich’s recommendations would actually cure any of America’s major ills, what were the recommendations and why did you think they would work?

Answer E-4:

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!

Question E-5:

Why does Prof. Reich think for a moment that we will perceive him as an Emperor WHO IS WEARING CLOTHES???

Answer E-5:

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!


F. Heresy = The Peter Principle: Why Things Always Go Wrong (Published 1967 by Lawrence Peter and Raymond Hull)

Question F-1

What is the Peter Principle?

Answer F-1:

Lawrence Peter described in 1967 the then-prevailing business practice of promoting from within the organization employees who were performing well.

UNTIL the employee reached a position that s/he was incapable of handling, whereupon s/he was never promoted again but left in a job for which s/he was incompetent.

SO IF every position was (or soon would be) filled by someone who is incompetent, then why wouldn’t “things always go wrong” (the second part of the book’s title)???

Question F-2:

What is its relevance to the War On The 1%?

Answer F-2:

Most large business enterprises since 1967 have tended to fill management positions with MBA’s who have actually studied how to manage. [With under-graduate degrees typically in relevant areas such as engineering, economics, etc.]

Even if this means “going outside” to fill management positions, rather than “promoting from within.”

And even if this means firing someone who proves to be incompetent and “going outside” again.

At least Prof. Reich is correct in chronicling that during the last 30-40 years, large business enterprises have recognized the value of competent managers (though Prof. Reich decries the increase in CEO compensation that is at least correlated with, if not a causal factor of, increased competence).

Question F-3:

Why do supporters of the War On The 1% consider the thesis of The Peter Principle heresy?

Answer F-3:

The thesis of The Peter Principle is that employees should NOT be promoted until they reach their level of incompetence. Instead, business organizations should focus on hiring competent managers even if that means, as a general rule, they “go outside” the organization and hire someone whose compensation would be much higher.

This is heresy to the likes of Prof. Reich who attempts to prove with anecdotes, that an increase in CEO compensation as a multiple of the average worker’s compensation, does NOT necessarily mean an improvement in competence.

Question F-4:

Are the supporters of the War On The 1% at least partially right?

Answer F-4:

Yes.

Because it doesn’t take an MBA degree to recognize that the easiest way to increase profits is to Export American Jobs!!!

So why should a CEO’s compensation be based, at least in part, on a simple idea that even Kindergartners in America’s public schools already know???