In the recent past, we’ve posted on the apparent dearth of good news in the world, including the reporting about Iraq, where Christopher Hitchens seems to believe that journalists report all news as bad news (e.g., “The glut of unused bullets in Iraq is causing an unfortunate slump in the price of ammunition for Arab arms dealers.  Horror!”).  The same goes for global warming.  How will the media spin the fact that the polar ice caps are larger now than they were last year?  “Polar bears have to walk farther to find water, says Danish climate expert.”  Economist David Ranson says the same goes for news about the economy: “Although markets are volatile and segments of the country are having a hard time, the national output is up, not down, this year. How has the economy pulled this off? Is there something the pessimists were missing?”  He continues, discussing how “the debt crisis” is no crisis at all, but that it becomes a great scapegoat for general human fear:

[F]or society as a whole, debt finance is a prime means of capitalizing production and growth.  It’s extraordinary, then, that in national debate the narrow view drowns out the broad. Aggregate private debt and trade deficits are widely regarded with equal suspicion and fear — even by “experts.” Instead of celebrating the role that private debt has played in creating prosperity, many blame “excessive” debt when things go wrong, and cite it as a basis for pessimism.

I don’t know if we want to “celebrate” anything about debt, but he’s at least being honest about the positive role of debt in a free market economy.  The money that we spend paying off debt is money that gets used in generally healthy ways by the people who take that money. 

A natural system has built-in redundancy. It manages and heals itself. The economic system is no exception. On this page about 10 years ago, Penny Russell and I argued against the idea that the economy is a “house of cards,” susceptible to collapse as soon as a few cards are dislodged. We suggested that it’s more like a beehive. The future of the hive does not depend on full employment for all the worker bees. In fact, an accident can put many bees out of action without compromising the hive as a whole.

I could argue, I suppose, that the media knows that reports of a bad economy are never good for the party in the White House, and they are playing that card for all its worth.  So the left blames the right for fear-mongering in the war on terror.  I suppose the right could blame the left for fear-mongering in the war on debt. 

Vance Fried, a professor of management at Oklahoma State University, has applied an interesting idea to the standard model of college.  He essentially tried to create a theoretical model of a college aimed at the “value” customer, the kind of student who wants a high-quality product at a reasonable (but not cheap) price.  As an example, Fried says this student would be more likely to buy a 22K Toyota than either a 10K Chevy or a 105K Mercedes - because the Toyota is the smartest buy for the money.  He called his theoretical college the ”College of Entrepreneurial Leadership & Society (CELS).”  Not a very attractive name, but he’s a management professor, not a creative writing professor.  

CELS will offer a broad curriculum that provides students with a strong liberal education, appropriate technical skill for entry level+1 jobs, potential to be general manager of an organization in their chosen profession early in their career, plus foundational skills and knowledge for life outside of work. Majors will be offered in Behavioral Science, Business, Communication Arts, Education, Engineering Science, Information Technology, Letters & Civilization (interdisciplinary humanities), Public Affairs and Science & Technology.

Fried explains that CELS would cost ”under $8,000 per student.”  This is per year.  He then explains that his college doesn’t cut corners: “[A] laptop is included in tuition, the Division III football stadium has a Jumbotron, etc.”  This is all very fascinating, and Friend suggests that he designed his theoretical college using a few common sense ideas, including getting rid of highly specialized and fragmented majors: “Intellectually fragmented arts and science majors and highly specialized professional majors are not appropriate for an undergraduate education.”  Sounds very classical.  Fried’s model also sounds like a common sense university that would give students, their parents, and the world what it needs.  Its existence doesn’t eliminate graduate schools elsewhere, where CELS graduates can get more specialized educations in language, law, medicine, literature, theology, etc.  I love it.  Let’s do this now.

Speaking of my earlier post about money, a thrifty and intelligent man can save money these days in unexpected places.  Here’s just a few ways to save money (and time) with your cellphones.  For example, never dial 411.

If it’s a business or store you’re looking up, for heaven’s sake, dial 800-GOOG-411 instead. It’s a voice-activated, national phone directory run by Google. It’s fast and efficient, and there are no ads or charges.

If you’re looking for any other kind of information - seriously, any kind - call ChaCha.

Here’s another voice-activated service (800-2CHACHA) - but this time, you can ask any question at all. “What’s that German word that means, ‘pleasure from other people’s pain’?” Or “Who ran against Abraham Lincoln for president?” Or “What’s on the front page of today’s New York Times?” Or “How do you jump the battery in a Prius?” Or “Where’s the cheapest gas in southeast Connecticut right now?” Or “What’s the last flight to New York out of O’Hare Airport?” Just about anything, in fact, you could find on the Web.

After 30 seconds, you get a text message confirming that ChaCha is working on your question. A minute or two later, you get the answer, typed out in friendly English (”Thanks for asking!”), as though there were a real person on the other end. That’s because there is a real person.

And what happens “when you get an idea you want to remember?”

From now on, Jott is your personal transcription service. Speed-dial 866-JOTT123, and the conversation goes like this:

Jott: “Who do you want to Jott?”

You: “Myself.”

Jott: “Jott yourself.”

You: “Great idea for Act 2! Doing the laundry, Minna finds lipstick on her husband’s collar and sues the detergent company.”

Five minutes later, the transcribed, typed message appears in your e-mail in-box, complete with an audio attachment of the recording - and, if you like, also on your phone as a text message.

Any of you use these services?  Have any others we could use?

The first three paragraphs of this David Brooks column sound more like something from Francis Schaeffer:

The people who created this country built a moral structure around money. The Puritan legacy inhibited luxury and self-indulgence. Benjamin Franklin spread a practical gospel that emphasized hard work, temperance and frugality. Millions of parents, preachers, newspaper editors and teachers expounded the message. The result was quite remarkable.

The United States has been an affluent nation since its founding. But the country was, by and large, not corrupted by wealth. For centuries, it remained industrious, ambitious and frugal.

Over the past 30 years, much of that has been shredded. The social norms and institutions that encouraged frugality and spending what you earn have been undermined. The institutions that encourage debt and living for the moment have been strengthened. The country’s moral guardians are forever looking for decadence out of Hollywood and reality TV. But the most rampant decadence today is financial decadence, the trampling of decent norms about how to use and harness money.

Oh, preach it, my brother.  Brooks goes on to praise a report from the Institute for American Values titled “For a New Thrift: Confronting the Debt Culture.”  Credit card debt has grown by over 400% since 1989.  That’s a problem as depraved and far more dangerous, I think, than sex and drugs and the devil’s music.  Brooks blames government lotteries, payday lenders, Congress, the president, Wall Street, and (of course) credit card companies, and he summarizes a few solutions that others have come up with:

First, raise public consciousness about debt the way the anti-smoking activists did with their campaign. Second, create institutions that encourage thrift.

Foundations and churches could issue short-term loans to cut into the payday lenders’ business. Public and private programs could give the poor and middle class access to financial planners. Usury laws could be enforced and strengthened. Colleges could reduce credit card advertising on campus. KidSave accounts would encourage savings from a young age. The tax code should tax consumption, not income, and in the meantime, it should do more to encourage savings up and down the income ladder.

This isn’t about the evils and perils of capitalism.  It’s about the evils and perils of temptation, lust, and human ignorance.

How much money do you make?  This is one of the last undiscovered countries of the workplace.  It’s a great big secret.  People love to speculate about how much money he, or she, or they, make.  People love to be surprised by some modestly dressed colleague is pulling down a giant paycheck every month, or by a nice and colleagial coworker who makes peanuts for no obvious reason.  This Times piece discusses how this is changing, though, and how younger (under 35) colleagues are telling each other what they make: not in competition, but to find out if they’re nuts or not for agreeing to make what they make.  This is smart.  It’s also awkward.  So, what about you?  Do you have any stories about finding how how much, or how little, one of your colleagues made? 

I have several friends who are in the midst of trying to discern what they should do for a living next. They are all successful, and many have been on the corporate treadmill. Each is capable of running faster on that treadmill, and earning high six or even seven figures. Yet each has chosen to step off.

I believe God is calling, as He always has, men to turn their hearts homeward. That is what these men are doing. They have determined that training up their children isn’t something they can farm out to other people. They have realized that there is a difference between earning a living, and living to earn. They have abandoned the value system that assesses people according to how much they earn, and how much they are admired by others. These are all very difficult things for men, especially, to do.

I know plenty more men who are scurrying ever harder on the treadmill. They work 70, 80, 90 hours and more per week. They have fancy cars, palatial homes, expensive private schools and sports camps for their kids. They live to work, and they are good at business because they can avoid the self-deceptions that doom many companies. They see business opportunities where others can’t, and so they are well compensated.

These very same men, however, don’t seem to evaluate their own lives with the same perceptiveness they apply to business. They tell themselves that they never see their children because they are working to support them, as if the alternative is that their children starve. They tell themselves that their relentless work is for their families, and not the admiration of other men. They pretend that they are good parents, because they have some occasional “quality time” with their alienated youngsters.

I wonder what would happen if they scrutinized their own lives with the same acumen they apply to a struggling company. What if the “profitability” of the home wasn’t the size of the bank account, but the spiritual strength of the family? Who among us would be rich then, and who poor? I admire my friends who are changing their lives, because it takes courage to go against the world’s standards. And yet the world needs them, and their children, because the world is overfull with the other kind of men, the ones who sacrifice their children on the altar of business success.

Always there is the choice: God or Mammon. Every day, in a thousand ways, we choose one or the other. Which are you choosing? I’d be a liar if I told you I always chose God. Which is why I’m doubly glad I have these friends struggling to find their way, and to do the right thing. They inspire me to be better than I would otherwise be.

Everybody knows about endowments.  Great big piles of money given to universities, and these piles generate income, which then fund programs, scholarships, professorships, etc.  My undergraduate alma mater, Belhaven College, started its endowment in 1921 and it’s probably very small.  However, many endowments are large enough to surpass the GDP of some medium-sized nations.  The U.S. Senate, who seems to be getting into everyone’s business these days, just asked for the financial records of the 136 wealthiest colleges in America.

“Tuition has gone up, college presidents’ salaries have gone up, and endowments continue to go up and up,” said Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, the ranking Republican on the committee. “We need to start seeing tuition relief for families go up just as fast.”

In other words, they want colleges to start spending some of their nest eggs.  The problem is, when you spend part of the endowment, then the endowment produces less income for scholarships, etc.  I’m sure a fair balance can be struck, though.  Click here to see the Top 10 colleges with the richest endowments.

It’s a legacy that will probably haunt George W. Bush: He ranks as the biggest spending president since Lyndon B. Johnson. Accounting for inflation, discretionary spending increased by an average annual rate of 5.3 percent during Bush’s first six years. Sure, the defense budget accounts for some of this, but the fact remains that Bush never vetoed a single GOP spending bill.

Now, with a little over a year left of his presidency, Bush is attempting to remake his image as a fiscal conservative. He’s promised to unleash a veto for any fiscal proposals that aren’t necessary. Whether he stands by that promise remains to be seen.

Time is money for everyone: rich, poor, and in-between.  So, for the rich, they can save time by paying others to do things (mow the lawn) while they (the rich) are doing more valuable things (making more money than it takes to pay the lawn-mower).  We all do this to some extent, like in the lawn-mowing example, or when we pay people to wash our cars, or when we pay people for food.  But that’s too normal.  For something less than normal, check this out: it’s a gallery of jobs and professionals who give very specific service to the rich, including a Lady Who Reads the Menus of Where You’re Eating Later in the Week to Consult With You on What You Should Order.