Reaction: Teacher Answers Teacher Questions | Tech Support | WIRED

 1) Do teachers have favorites?

Absolutely. I can't remember how I "picked" mine though. It certainly wasn't the ones who came up to me the most. Often, those students ended up being the attention seekers as opposed to those most interested in the class. Names often sparked my interest. Uncommon (but not stupid) names. I often favored students who weren't as outspoken and less than stereotypical.

2) Should we ban phones from school?

No. Simply because the previous framework didn't work doesn't mean we should remove phones altogether. Teachers didn't get their phones taken away, right? Students cell phone use during instructional time should be closely monitored and strictly enforced. Neither was true prior to the "no phones" rule. 

3) Why homework?

The classroom is for instruction. Home is for mastery. There are some skills that simply can't be mastered in the time allotted at school. A musician who only plays during their lesson would never improve. Why should math, science, or reading be any different? Obviously, how quantity and quality figure into it matters.

4) What happens in the teachers' lounge?

The teachers' lounge can be a dangerous place - especially for new teachers. Along with eating lunch and making copies, there is a LOT of toxic behavior that goes on. Most of it is badmouthing administrators. 

5) Should we have more useful courses?

Absolutely. Especially in math. Why Algebra 2, Trig, Pre-Calc, and Calc are still considered required (in part at the least) is beyond me. A Personal Finance course within the math department that covers budgeting, taxes, investing, retirement, insurance, etc would be a hell of a lot more useful than the quadratic equation. 

6) AI in the classroom

AI is a tool. Like a calculator. We (should) use calculators in the classroom. Same with AI. But it is the teachers job the teach students how and when to use it. 

7) Do grades matter?

Of course. Is screwing up a class the end of the world? No! Heck, is screwing up all of high school the end of the world? No way. But it sure puts you on the back foot for future success.

8) Do teachers play movies when they're tired/haven't-planned/worn-out?

Good ones don't. I'll stand by that all day long. The teacher in the video, a math teacher, mentions playing Love on the Spectrum in class - but they discussed it afterwards. As if that made it OK. A movie should be directly related to a standard on the curriculum. There are plenty of ways to incorporate movies and other media into the classroom while still being focused on the curriculum.

9) How much of an expert are you in your subject?

Compared to whom? I taught elementary music. I knew more about music than 95% of my colleagues -- about MUSIC. I was a music performance and composition major. Most of them were music ed majors. Which leads to the other thing teachers must be experts in -- TEACHING! I'd say 95% of them knew more about the pedagogical aspect than I did. 

10) How do you create a curriculum?

You don't. The state does this for you.

11) Where is all the money going?

Great question. It isn't going to teacher salaries and it isn't going to things that directly affect student performance. I am going to guess a good deal goes towards security things nowadays. Retrofitting campuses, installing metal detectors/cameras/security systems. Another LARGE part goes to the machine that is standardized testing. 

12) One piece of advice for high school students?

Nothing that happens is the end of the world. Don't sweat everything. There are those who attempt to min-max their life. That's so boring and joyless. 

13) How would you react if a student corrects you in class?

The same way I would if someone corrected me outside of class. 1) HOW did they do it? Were they respectful? Or were they just trying to embarrass me? But most important, 2) Were they RIGHT? Correcting me when you're wrong will just piss me off. 

14) What is the hardest part of teaching that no one talks about?

I'm speaking as a man here, but no one talks about the difficulties of planning trips to the bathroom once your prostate requires hourly trips. 

15) Is this the worst time to become a teacher?

Leaving aside the time more than 100 years ago when a teacher could be fired for getting married and other such horrible acts, yes. 

16) Why are kids so misbehaved in school?

Lack of accountability from the parents. It's horrendous.

17) Grading curves: yea or nay?

Depends. Any assignment, whether classwork or an exam, is supposed to assess whether a student has mastered a skill. Would a grading curve merely mean more students who haven't mastered the skill get a passing grade?

18) When you assign 7-10 page papers, do you actually read the whole thing?

I taught a Gordon Rule college course for several semesters. I absolutely read every page. And it pissed me off. About 10% of the class actually put effort into the paper. I put more effort into grading the papers than they spent writing them. 

19) What should a high schooler study now?

Whatever the hell they want. Follow your curiosity. The only sin nowadays is to not be curious. Between Wikipedia and YouTube, there's no excuse for a student to NOT be an expert in a half dozen topics before they graduate.

20) As a teacher, it shouldn't be my responsibility to care for my students' mental wellbeing.

I agree 100%. A teacher should absolutely care about their students' mental wellbeing, but saying they should be responsible for it implies they are mental health experts as well. A teacher should know enough about mental health to know when they should refer them to a mental health expert. Anything else would be practicing medicine without a license. 

Original video: https://youtu.be/Hm2HmT-M2lk?si=1oyZkcYZSEKqOxc5

Palm Sunday vs Passion Sunday

 It's the time of year for my annual lectionary rant. There are very few events in the New Testament that we can place chronologically. Outside of Holy Week and Pentecost, I can't think of any off-hand. We know that Jesus entered Jerusalem on a Sunday around Passover. We know he was crucified on Friday and that he rose the next Sunday. Yet the lectionary conflates Palm Sunday with Good Friday. I hate that.

The entry into Jerusalem is prophetic, glorious, and inspiring. It is usually relegated to a short march around the church waving palms and saying "Hosannas." Then the congregation enters to All Glory Laud and Honor and that's the end of it. From then on out it's about the events of Good Friday.

Then Good Friday service comes around and the readings are about . . . Good Friday. Yet we just heard this in its entirety on Sunday. Why the redundancy?

The only reason I can think of is that the expert developers of the lectionary were aware that Good Friday services were sparsely populated. Hearing the Passion is certainly important. So they made sure to put it on Palm Sunday so more people would hear it. This is a cop-out of an excuse. Admittedly, I haven't seen an official excuse offered.

It's time we returned the readings to their chronologically appointed days. Palm Sunday is for Hosannas and Blessed is He's. Good Friday is for the Passion. On top of this, everyone should be involved in a movement to get people to church on Good Friday (that is -- people who are church goers). Good Friday services are rightly solemn, but many times unnecessarily boring. Let's keep the solemn but work on the boring. Perhaps even a reintroduction of the Stations of the Cross (egads! But the Reformation!?)?

Letra: De igual a igual por Los Van Van with Translation

Link to the song: DE IGUAL A IGUAL 

Canta: Mayito Rivera

Composer and Arranger: Juan Formell

Oye mami mira de igual a igual así que mira tu

Listen baby, look, tit for tat, so watch out.

Te creíste que cambiándome por otro

De repente yo iba quedarme solo

No no que va

You thought that by leaving me for someone else

That all the sudden I’d be alone.

No way.

Te equivocaste la vida te da más

Mucho más siempre hay alguien más

You were wrong. Life always gives you more.

A lot more. There’s always someone else.

Te figuraste cuando te fuiste esa mañana

Que de repente iba quedar sola mi cama

No no que va

You figure when you left that morning

That all the sudden my bed would be empty.

No way.

Te equivocaste la vida te da más

Mucho más siempre hay alguien más

Y además de lo vivido y lo que queda por vivir lo voy a disfrutar

Yo le voy a descargar a mi libertad igual que tu

De igual a igual

Not only what I’ve already lived, but also what I have left to live

I’m going to appreciate it.

I’m going to enjoy my freedom, same as you.

Tit for tat.

De igual a igual 

Ohohoh, ohohoh así soy yo

Tit for tat. That’s what I’m gonna do.

Si te creíste que cambiándome por otro de rabia me moriría - mentira.

If you thought that by leaving me for another I’d die of rage it was a lie.

De igual a igual 

Ohohoh ohohoh así soy yo

Te equivocaste completamente

Por que yo me relajaba con distintas melodías, lindas como tu

De igual a igual

Ohohoh, ohohoh así soy yo

You were completely wrong

Because I was chillin with different melodies

As pretty as you.

Tu actitud ha provocado en mi deseos de gozar

Y disfrutar de mi libertad, que no.

Tu verás que si seré feliz

De igual a igual

Ohohoh, ohohoh así soy yo

You behavior has provoked in me the desire to have fun

And enjoy my freedom.

You’ll see that I will be happy.

Que te creíste tú que yo podría perder

Yo gané la experiencia y tú perdiste güiro calabaza y miel

De igual a igual 

Ohohoh,  ohohoh así soy yo

What did you think I could lose?
I gained the experience. 

And you lost the squash, pumpkin, and honey.

Así soy, yo soy así y ya no hay rencores ni tormentos

Pero voy a mí

That’s how I am and there’s no bad feelings or drama

But now I’m gonna look out for me.

Mira ya no hay nada entre nosotros ok

Pero voy a mí contra ti

Y ahora será como tu quieras pero la llave no no la llave no

Look, there’s nothing left between us, OK?

Not it’s me against you.

And it’ll be how you want it, but I’m not giving you the key.

Como tu quieras pero no corazón la llave no

However you want but not my heart, and no key

Oye la llave no te la doy que no

Pero no corazón la llave no

Hey, I’m not giving you the key. No way!

Si te hace falta la olla ven a la casa que allí estoy

Pero no corazón la llave no

If you need a pan come to my house since it’s there.

Si quieres ver la telenovela en colores ven a la casa mi amor

Pero no corazón la llave no

If you want to watch novelas in color come to my house.

Pero la llave no me la pidas no me la pidas que no

Pero no corazón la llave no

But don’t ask for the key!

Mira no intentes de experimentes conmigo que no te la voy a dar

Pero no corazón la llave no

Look, don’t try to experiement on me because I’m not giving it to you.

Y voy a hablar con Tomasa pa' que vigile la casa hoy

Pero no corazón la llave no

I’m going to talk to Tomasa about watching my house today.

Hay no no no no no no la llave no que no que no

Pero no corazón la llave no

Mira no le de la llave

Dale mambo

La llave no

Calla por favor no digas nada

Que tú no tienes razón

Shhh - don’t say a word

Because you’re wrong.

La llave no

Mira que la gente anda diciendo por la calle

Que tú aprovechas cuando me voy

Look, people in the street are saying that you’re taking advantage of my absence.

La llave no

No te la daré no te la daré no te la daré

Cállate ya por favor

I’m not giving it to you so shut up please

La llave no

Yo te quiero yo te adoro tu eres todo mi tesoro pero eso no que no no

I love you, I adore you, you’re my treasure, but not that.

La llave no

Ay no no no no no te la doy tu no la mereces que no que no

I’m not giving it to you. You don’t deserve it.

La llave no

Entonces no me la pidas no me la pidas que no que no

So don’t ask me for it.

La llave no

Mira y dale mambo

La llave no

Me parece que te olvidaste mamita que el van van aquí soy yo

It appears that you’ve forgotten - The Van Van here is me.

La llave no

Por eso por eso mismo mulata la llave no te la doy que no

For exactly that reason, mulata, I’m not giving it to you.

La llave no

Quiero decirte que a la caja fuerte le cambié la combinación

I wanna tell you I also changed the combination to the safe.

La llave no

No me entres a la casa no me entres a la casa y menos si yo no estoy

Don’t you dare enter my house unless I’m present.

La llave no

La llave no no no no no no no no no me la pidas no

Don’t ask for my key!

La llave no

Mi hormiguita retozona mas si llamas de jugar, la llave se la tuve que quitar

My little ant gets friskier when you call it to play. I had to take away its key. (A paraphrase of a children’s song)

La llave no

No me la pidas no me la pidas que no

Mira y eso que tú quieres no

Eso que tu quieres no puede ser

Look, what you want - no way.

What you want can’t be.

Dile a la gente que yo no te quise querer

Eso que tú quieres no puede ser

Tell the people that I refused to love you

Y eso que ti quieres mami y eso que tu quieres mami no

Eso que tú quieres no puede ser

And what you want baby, no way.

Dile a la gente que yo no te quise querer

Eso que tú quieres no puede ser

Economic Thoughts on Cuba

Some economic thoughts after my latest one week trip to Cuba. For reference, I've been to Cuba for music and cultural research beginning in 1995. From 2008-2018 I took a break. Always just in Havana. 

To me, the law of economics that is proved that most often, even more than S/D curves or competitive advantage, is that if the state doesn't allow a free market, the black/informal market will play its role. On display in Cuba in spades right now. 

First, I need to explain the money here. The main currency is the CUP. I don't even know what the acronym stands for, but it's the Cuban peso. The official exchange rate is 140 CUP/USD. But the only time that is used is if someone deposits dollars into a bank account. Which no one does. I exchanged my dollars into CUP for 170. In general, the informal exchange rate has been 160-180 for 2023. 

Second, there's another currency, the MLC (moneda libre convertible is my best guess) that is off-limits to most Cubans. Not for legal reasons, just practical ones. MLC are bought with USD or Euros at a 1/1 exchange rate. There are no physical MLC, it's all of a debit card. 

Most stores sell items in CUP. Inventory is limited. Then there are the stores that sell in MLC which are for tourists, foreign residents, and Cubans with access to dollars. These stores have better inventory, but even then don't have some necessities all the time. 

The informal market here is almost a missing since it's the primary market. Most transactions occur person to person. The stores with the most transactions are usually ones within houses. Arbitrage is huge here. Those with MLC can buy a crate of beer for 1 MLC (or $1) and then sell it out of their house for 200 CUP for a 17% on each one. Buying beer in a store in CUP is difficult since there hardly ever is any. When there is, the brand is random, the price is often equal to the street price if not more, and you're stuck with the quantity they're currently selling it in (20 or more but you only want one). Most of the Cubans I met are involved in arbitrage in one way or another. 

Gas lines are nuts. Some days only 5 cars deep. Today was about 10 cars deep and about 20 trucks waiting for diesel. Not sure what the price was. I'll have to try to find out. So no one can say "there's no gas," but you just need to wait in line for half an hour or more to get it. 

Huge amounts of construction going on. Mainly hotels. No idea where the capacity is going to come from. The newest hotels are largely empty. Perhaps 20% capacity. But about 5 new hotels in Miramar since my last visit 4 years ago with about the same number under construction. With all the problems in Cuba, though, I think it's never been better for purely tourist purposes. 20 years ago, the only "luxury" hotel was Melia Cohiba. Now there at least a dozen. None of the scarcity is visible for tourists. Tourist restaurants are well stocked. Hotels are clean and modern. Prices, though, have definitely risen. 

Aside from new construction, buildings are in very bad shape. Even in Miramar, the neighborhood of embassies and headquarters of foreign companies, there are buildings falling down. Centro Habana is even worse, with at least a building per block closed off because it could tumble at any second.

 If morale is any gauge, this is the worst Cuba has ever been. People have always said Cuba is bad (with a smile). This dates back to 1995 - the tail end of the special period. But every single person I asked, at least those old enough to remember it, agree that now is worse than the special period ever was. 

There's a simple solution. Free markets. And Cuba has a perfect example of the transition from socialist to quasi-capitalist in Vietnam. I wish they would pursue it. 

P. S. Oh my God, and how could I forget the amount of time wasted counting money. I went to exchange money with 5 $100 bills. The amount of money I got back was about 5 inches high. At that point I was happy to just take his word that it was $85,000 pesos, but that might leave me exposed to future estafa. So I counted it all. Kind of. 

Dinner in a restaurant can cost from 2 to 3 thousand pesos. The most common bills are 100 and 200 paid. That's anywhere from 10 to 30 bills that needed counted by the customer and then again by the waitress. They even have they're own way of counting: went they get to 1000 pesos, the bill that completed the 100 is folded perpendicularly to the rest as a type of band almost. This happens thousands of times a day in just the tourist sector in Havana. Imagine how many work hours it takes up throughout Cuba to count money making these bundles of 1000 pesos. And imagine how think a wallet is if it wants to carry $100 worth of pesos!

The Economics of Pope Francis's "Evangelii Gaudium"

Since I can't access Curtis Knows Nothing (original edition), I'm merely porting some of the better (imo) articles over here. 

 Pope Francis issued his first exhortation, Evangelii Gaudium, on November 24th. A storm of controversy ensued over his economic statements. He was anti-capitalist. A socialist. A religious leader meddling in politics. Before deciding for myself, I wanted to read the exhortation in its entirety. What I discovered is that it is a brilliant, beautiful, and inspiring work for all Christians. This has certainly been lost in the controversy. Here is a link to the text, which I highly recommend: Evangelii Gaudium.

Before digging into the nitty-gritty of the economic aspects of EG, I think it is first important to mention a concept taken from Biblical hermeneutics -- that of description versus prescription. Simply put, description merely describes certain social or cultural customs present in history. It is like saying is. Prescription, on the other hand, is a command, law, or exhortation for a community in history. It is like saying ought. A common example is in 1 Cor 11 where Paul says women should cover their heads in church. This certainly appears to be an example of prescription. Is it possible that, instead, Paul is merely describing the custom in the early church? This is what the early church looked like (description) but need not be binding for all of history? This is, of course, a debate that won't be addressed here; I use it only as a means of introducing descriptive vs. prescriptive.

One of the main debates about EG has been whether it is socialist or anti-capitalist. First, it is of utmost importance to establish that capitalism is not monolithic. There is no one capitalism. There are many capitalisms. There are the theoretical versions of capitalism such as the minimalist capitalism of Nozick, or the welfare state of Rawls, and also real life examples of the difference in economies in the USA, Great Britain, and Scandinavia, etc. Some attempt to narrow the definition of capitalism to mean only the most laissez-faire of economies. This is unfair and clearly ideological in its reasoning. So while reading EG, it is important to remember that there are several flavors of capitalism that all equally qualify as capitalism.

So when the Pope criticizes inequality, or how markets exclude some, or the idolatry of money, which is it? Is it prescription: does the Pope advocate socialism or jettisoning capitalism? Or is it description: does the Pope describe the many injustices brought about by our current flavor of capitalism? To answer this, its time to turn to his own words. Quotes are obviously taken from the English version of EG, although I have read some commentaries that suggest the debate is brought about largely through poor translations from the Latin (original) version. I have no clue.

The first critique of contemporary economics comes early on in the exhortation:

The great danger in today’s world, pervaded as it is by consumerism, is the desolation and anguish born of a complacent yet covetous heart, the feverish pursuit of frivolous pleasures, and a blunted conscience. (2) 

A critique not of economic systems, but of consumerism. The pursuit of the new, the bigger, the better, the more expensive. This pursuit of happiness in the possession and consumption of things leads to loneliness and sadness -- the opposite of the intent when purchasing them. This attitude is not surprising given the Pope's namesake. This is perhaps the most important quote, economically speaking, of the entire exhortation. Can we imagine a world economy in which buying the newer, better, bigger, more colorful thing is not our most important desire, but rather recognized for what it is, a vain chasing of the wind? (Eccles 1:14)

A similar thread throughout the economic passages of EG is an appeal to ethics. Economics without ethics is useless. Economics is ethics. When we forget this, when we are "economically advanced but ethically debilitated" (62), injustice is the result. If society made decisions more ethically, perhaps there would be no need to critique capitalism? Francis appeals to the leaders in society to help bring this about:

I exhort you to generous solidarity and to the return of economics and finance to an ethical approach which fa­vours human beings. (58)

If I may presume to paraphrase the Pope, economics should serve humans, not vice versa. Yet this change in attitude should come about by a change in priority by our leaders, not from on high by regulation or state intervention. Solid leadership is necessary if we want to re-inject ethics into economics. The pushback of ethics over profit will be strong -- perhaps even violent. The question of ethics is irksome for business (203). Yet without ethics, humans are pawns of the market as opposed to beneficiaries of it.

This leads to another common thread throughout EG -- are markets inherently bad? Are markets the problem and cause of inequality? Are markets made to serve humans or are humans made to serve the markets (cf. Mark 2:27)? It is in his comments on markets that Pope Francis could be viewed as an anti-capitalist. I hope to reconcile his words with a pro-market view without changing his intent.

The most critical of all the passages comes from a section titled "No to an economy of exclusion" and is perhaps the most often-quoted:

some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about great­er justice and inclusiveness in the world . . . meanwhile the excluded are still waiting. (54)

We can understand the Pope's reason for critiquing markets in the title he gives to this section. It is not that markets are necessarily at fault -- it is that their current construction excludes many. Markets do not work well when many, in this case mostly the poor, are not given entry into the market. Sometimes this is appropriate such as when the good or service is a luxury, but when the good or service is a necessity, excluding some from the market is unjust (cf. Obama, College, and Demand Curves). We must also remember that trickle-down economics is but on flavor of capitalism. There are many conservative economists and politicians who do not favor trickle-down economics. They believe this flavor still intervenes in markets, it just does so in favor of the wealthy with the hopes that the wealth flows downward. They think the state should not intervene on anyone's behalf whether rich or poor.

The Pope also alludes to a contemporary change in what markets actually are. In their inception, as an emergent order, markets were personal interactions. We knew the person or business with which we were making an exchange. Fraud or deceit was remembered, communicated, and the results affected the market. Nowadays, markets are no longer personal or local. They are anonymous and global. Fraud and deceit are no longer easily remembered or communicated because of the identity-less nature of those with whom we exchange. The Pope more eloquently refers to this as the "idolatry of money and the dictatorship of an impersonal economy lacking a truly human purpose" (55).

An even more damning passage can be found in 56. The Pope critiques "ideologies which defend the absolute autonomy of the marketplace and financial speculation." This mindset "rejects the right of states  . . . to exercise any form of control." The result is a transfer of power where transnational corporations "unilaterally and relentlessly [impose their] own laws and rules." This is not a critique of capitalism or free markets, but rather of neoliberalism (yet another flavor of capitalism). I've written on this before. The gist is best summarized by Foucault -- does the state supervise the market or does the market supervise the state (see here and here)? This is beautifully summarized in the Pope's title for the next section: "no to a financial system which rules rather than serves" (again cf. Mark 2:27).

So far, hopefully, I've argued that the Pope's comments can be seen as descriptive of the current state of global economics (perhaps most succinctly described as neoliberalism). Reading EG, can anything be gleaned from the prescriptive side of things? I believe so. And I believe it can best be seen when viewed alongside the work of Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum.

The key phrase in understanding Sen's work is "development as freedom" (also the title to one of his works). For Nussbaum it is "creating capabilities" (also a title). I don't wish to oversimplify how their views are different by conflating the two, but for brevity, we can look at Nussbaum's ten Central Capabilities: life, bodily health, bodily integrity, senses imagination and thought, emotions, practical reason, affiliation, other species, play, control over one's environment both political and material (Nussbaum "Creating Capabilities" 33-34). It certainly does not do Nussbaum justice to just list her Central Capabilities, but it helps illustrate that there is more than the state's responsibility than simply preserving one's right to life and property (the only two liberties that matter for many political philosophers including Nozick). I believe a broader understanding of liberty is needed in order to maintain free markets while also countering all the critiques of our current flavor of capitalism that the Pope has described above.

So is there anything in EG that alludes to the method of Sen or Nussbaum? There are small hints in the Pope's use of language, such as phrases like "promote the integral development of the poor" (188) and ensuring their "general temporal welfare and prosperity" as opposed to simple welfare acts such as "ensuring nourishment" (192). In this same paragraph. the Pope is even more explicit when he says these efforts should include "education, access to health care, and above all employment" because "a just wage enables them to have adequate access to all the other goods which are destined for our common use" (192). Here, I would argue that the Pope both supports the capabilities approach of Sen and Nussbaum and that he supports markets. By providing employment, the poor are able to escape the exclusion of the market and enter it as humans freely exchanging goods and services with other humans. It is markets that can help bring about the Pope's vision, not the elimination of them.

When liberties and rights are viewed from a broader perspective, in which they include education, health care, housing, sustenance, the ability to play, etc., there is no longer a need to ask the wealthy to "renounce their rights so as to place their goods more generously at the service of others" (190 taken from Paul VI Octogesima Adveniens). No one should be asked to renounce their rights. When we view rights/liberties as extending beyond bodily harm and private property and consider them more broadly, it is a question of balancing rights as opposed to renouncing them -- a concept with which the United States is historically grounded.

I believe in order to achieve the vision that the Pope describes we need markets. And these markets should be, so much as possible, free. Markets are still, usually, the best way to determine prices and wages. Yet they need some revisions -- not in regulations, but in our attitudes toward them. For instance, the goal of markets is efficiency. If we view markets as the master, then efficiency is the end. If we view markets as tools towards human flourishing, then efficiency is a tool towards the relief of suffering and the promotion of wellbeing. So we must prioritize the human end of markets over the economic end of markets while at the same time realizing that efficiency is an important tool to helping achieve this.

Secondly, markets must incorporate all costs and benefits. This means that market externalities must be accounted for. Failing to do so is appropriately called a "market failure" in textbooks. Failure to account for externalities results in improper prices and wages. Externalities such as pollution end up causing prices that are lower than they should be with the difference made up by society at large. Externalities such as a quality education end up causing prices lower than they should be. The Pope is aware of how these externalities, in a global economy, can result in concantenations that travel through the entire global population is extremely short amounts of time: "each meaningful economic decision made in one part of the world has repercussions everywhere else" (206). Because of this, governments must act to ensure that transnational corporations are not able to flee to a country which does not account for externalities such as pollution, child labor, and protection of the environment: "no government can act without regard for shared responsibility" (206).

In the end, it would be silly to expect the Pope, a spiritual leader, to speak about economics with the technical clarity of an economist (is that an oxymoron?). The Pope's comments can best be understood as describing what is wrong with our current system, not as a prescription for what should be done instead. When viewed in this light, the following passage is extremely appropriate and useful:

In her dialogue with the State and with society, the Church does not have solutions for every particular issue. Together with the vari­ous sectors of society, she supports those programmes which best respond to the dignity of each person and the common good. In doing this, she proposes in a clear way the fundamental values of human life and convictions which can then find expression in political activity. (241)