On Wednesday, the U.S. Department of the Interior released an investigative report on Federal Indian boarding schools, which between 1819 and 1969 received Native‐​American children often forcibly removed from their families in order to physically and psychologically separate them from their tribes and native cultures. It is a reminder of how education can be employed by government to subjugate people perceived as in the way, or simply not proper.

I’ll not summarize the whole report – it is a quick, if perhaps a bit bureaucratic, read. But one passage in particular stands out, reproduced from a 1969 Senate report:

Beginning with President Washington, the stated policy of the Federal Government was to replace the Indian’s culture with our own. This was considered “advisable” as the cheapest and safest way of subduing the Indians, of providing a safe habitat for the country’s white inhabitants, of helping the whites acquire desirable land, and of changing the Indian’s economy so that he would be content with less land. Education was a weapon by which these goals were to be accomplished [italics added].

We must remember that bad things can be done with education – it can be employed as a “weapon” – though we tend to overwhelmingly think of it as a good, enlightening, empowering thing. And no doubt many supporters of Indian boarding schools did not intend to hurt Native‐​American children or even take tribal lands, but to do what they paternalistically thought best: make the children “civilized,” which necessarily meant alienating them from their families and native cultures. As Indian School Superintendent John B. Riley said about federal funding to put Indian children in boarding schools run by missionaries:

The Government aid furnished enables them to sustain their missions, and renders it possible … to lead these people, whose paganism has been the chief obstacle to their civilization, into the light of Christianity – a work in which the Government cannot actively engage … They should receive the encouragement and co‐​operation of all Government employés [sic].

The result of this compulsion was often destruction and misery for tribes, communities, and the children themselves. As the report explains, boarding schools often mixed children from different tribes, required all to speak English, cut the children’s hair, made them wear uniforms, and subjected them to military‐​style regimentation, explicitly to cut their connections to their former lives. All of this in often poor conditions, resulting in health problems ranging from gall bladder disease to cancer rates much higher among Native American adults who had attended boarding schools than those who had not.

Thankfully, the ethos in American education has moved away from overtly forced assimilation. But fear of it remains present in public schooling. When parents on the Right worry about “woke” indoctrination, they are expressing a fear of Left elites molding their children with progressive values. On the other side, concerns about curricula excluding or downplaying the cultures and contributions of minority groups have the same root fear: children taught to believe that the ideal is a straight, white male. And the power to impose on others via government schooling is undeniable: Only government can legally imprison you if you do not do as it says.

The use of government force in education has many times proven a dangerous thing. The federal Indian boarding school initiative is an especially appalling example.

It’s been a rough week in the crypto markets. The biggest news has been the performance of TerraUSD, which—borrowing a term from money market funds—“broke the buck” earlier this week, meaning that it fell below its $1 price target. That’s a problem for TerraUSD, which is an algorithmic stablecoin that relied on a complex mechanism of code combined with another crypto token to balance supply and demand to stabilize TerraUSD’s value at $1.

Not surprisingly, Washington has taken notice. During yesterday’s House Committee on Financial Services hearing on the Financial Stability Oversight Council, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen was asked about the recent sharp decline in the value of cryptocurrencies. Referring to the TerraUSD meltdown, Yellen said that “[w]e’ve had a real life demonstration of the risks,” and called for a “comprehensive framework so that there are no gaps in the regulation” to guard against “the risks.” Yellen agreed, though, that there’s no immediate danger to the broader financial system.

While the media and some policymakers seem content to lump them together, it’s important to differentiate between algorithmic stablecoins and collateralized stablecoins. All stablecoins seek to peg their value to some other asset, usually a fiat currency. But algorithmic stablecoins are not collateralized and rely on an algorithm to stabilize their value, whereas collateralized stablecoins maintain their value by maintaining a reserve of fiat currency (or commodities). These are two very different beasts.

Norbert Michel and I have proposed a regulatory framework for the unique risk presented by collateralized stablecoins: whether the issuing entity has the reserves it claims to have. There have been several thoughtful pieces of legislation floated in Congress seeking to address similar issues with respect to collateralized stablecoins.

But algorithmic stablecoins, which function without reserves, do not present this unique risk. The risks that algorithmic stablecoins may present are more in line with other digital assets, which are evaluated on the strength of their code, among other factors.

Yellen, though, didn’t seem to be referring to any more sophisticated risks than the most obvious: the risk that some people will lose money by investing in crypto. But the government should not seek to protect people from loss. Individuals should be free to invest as they see fit. Moreover, risk is a natural component of markets and failure is often necessary for development. As Senator Patrick Toomey (R‑PA) said earlier this week: “[F]ailure should be an option…It’ll probably take some failures in this space in order for the market to figure out what works.” Americans should be able to participate in that process–for better and for worse–without the government’s attempts to protect them from risk.

When gasoline prices increase rapidly bad economic ideas soon follow. This week Speaker of the House of Representative Nancy Pelosi said that “Price gouging needs to be stopped,” referring to the practice of firms hiking prices significantly during crises.

A bill introduced in the House would grant the President the power to declare an “energy emergency,” during which large price increases in a defined geographic market would be unlawful. During this designated time period, wholesalers and retailers would be banned from charging unconscionably excessive” prices, where “the seller is exploiting the circumstances related to an energy emergency to increase prices unreasonably.” [our emphasis] These terms are highly subjective, granting lots of discretion to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) over how to effectively cap prices. The legislation promises the FTC will “take into account” whether the offending price “grossly exceeds” the average price the seller charged in the preceding month, or the price charged by other sellers in the area. This sounds like a blank check for the FTC to use whichever benchmark it chooses.

Politicians react to gasoline prices because the quantity demanded is not very responsive to prices in the short run. Thus, when prices rise because of a demand surge or a shock to production or distribution, the immediate consequence is only a small secondary increase in the quantity supplied, a slight mitigation in the quantity demanded, and a large transfer of income from numerous consumers (also called voters) to far fewer producers. And because these producers are not farmers (culturally admired) but oil companies (culturally despised ever since Standard Oil) voters and politicians react.

The first reaction is to blame OPEC. Officials and the public largely blamed OPEC and the “oil embargo” for the 1970s “oil shock.” OPEC was originally blamed last fall when gasoline prices started to increase. Prices continued to increase, and elections are on the horizon, so blaming companies for “price gouging” is now the response of the day.

The good news is that the direct price controls of the past appear to be dead and buried. Even though the public and officials blame the 1970s gas lines and rationing on OPEC and the “embargo,” economists have concluded that our troubles were the result of price controls imposed by President Nixon on large oil companies leading to significant shortages.

Congress also appears to have learned that real price controls are a terrible idea. Tasking the FTC with investigating mischief in the price‐​setting process is instead the bipartisan preferred solution of late. After Hurricane Katrina reduced oil production in the Gulf of Mexico, the Republican‐​controlled House passed anti‐​price gouging legislation in October 2005. The bill gave the Federal Trade Commission the power to define price gouging and empowered the agency to impose fines of $11,000 a day on companies found to be gouging the public. The bill got 57 votes in the Senate but failed to get the 60 required to overcome the filibuster. In 2006, despite the failure of the legislation, the FTC issued a report that found that the post‐​Katrina price increases were not the result of price manipulation.

The current Democratic proposal can be seen as the most recent instance of this, by now, standard political response. It may pass the House but will surely die in the Senate as in 2005. The FTC probably will issue a report, especially now that the commission has a Democratic majority in place. And the majority will be under pressure to blame the oil companies. We predict an interesting conflict between the staff and the commissioners about the content of the report. If it is not as economically sound as the 2006 report, that will signal a sad loss of intellectual integrity on the part of the staff, but the hopeful outcome is that the FTC will stop there and direct price controls remain off the agenda.

If passed, of course, anti‐​price gouging laws such as this would introduce new uncertainty for wholesalers and retailers. They would face the additional legal prospect of having to prove a demand surge was a mitigating factor for increasing prices and are only offered an affirmative defense if they can show that their price hike is the result of a cost explosion. On the margin, these additional threats would likely suppress price hikes somewhat, leading to some of the shortage effects and inefficiencies during emergencies we have previously discussed. Given the context of an already‐​tumultuous energy squeeze, though, this bill should be understood as an effort by politicians to “do something” on gas prices. History shows that “something” could be worse still.

Spring is the air in my part of the world, which is bringing everyone outside to enjoy the sun, work in the yard, get their gardens ready, and just have fun.

But at The Garden School in Marietta, GA, they don’t wait for spring. They are outdoors year‐​round in almost any weather. (Granted, that’s easier in Georgia than Pennsylvania.)

A few months ago, the Friday Feature profiled Barefoot University, which is a forest school for homeschoolers that meets once a week. It’s a great option that helps get kids learning outside and appreciating the world around them.

The Garden School uses the forest school approach combined with a Waldorf‐​inspired curriculum in a full‐​time setting. It currently operates preschool through fourth grade and has expanded one grade per year over the past several years.

I was able to tour the school recently, and it was incredible. Since I was there on a Friday, the children were enjoying “creek-cess”—recess where they get to play in the creek.

The creek isn’t just for fun, though. They study how creek life changes throughout the year, monitor water quality, and use it for hands‐​on lessons in a variety of subjects.

The kindergarten classrooms each include a mud kitchen and a variety of objects—like tires, logs, and ropes—the kids can use in creative play. Each of the three kindergarten areas had a different feel to it as each group of kids used the space in a different way. The age range for kindergarten is 4–6, and the focus is on play.

Academic subjects begin in first grade. Ideally, each class will be with the same teacher throughout their time at the school. This gives them a chance to work together over a long period of time and lets the teachers can really know the children and better meet their needs.

Since children concentrate best in the morning, the school day begins with a two‐​hour period devoted to a single academic subject. They study one topic for three or four weeks so the teacher can cover it in‐​depth using a variety of approaches. The curriculum slowly expands in grades 1–4 from the experiential learning of kindergarten to include more lesson work.

Third graders are in charge of the school’s farm. They create chore schedules, feed the animals, water the plants, and work on upkeep—including building a climbing gym for the goats and securing fences to keep critters out of the garden as much as possible.

Blending the Waldorf curriculum with the forest school model produces a unique atmosphere. It is academically rigorous but incorporates a lot of free play, nature study, and practical skills. The children are excited to learn, and their parents are thrilled to have such a nurturing educational environment for them.

Education can—and should—be a wonderful endeavor. For many children, options like the Garden School are just what they need to flourish.

The topic of ballot harvesting is likely to be the topic of much shouting in coming weeks, so for now I’d just like to get one point on the table: even for those of us who reject Trump’s ridiculous stolen‐​election claims, there are genuine reasons to be skeptical about this practice.

For those coming in late, ballot harvesting or ballot collection happens when one person gathers absentee/​mail ballots from many voters – bundling, you might say – for submission at a mail or drop box. This obviously happens on an innocuous micro scale when someone offers to post the completed ballot of a spouse or disabled friend, so it’s usual to define the threshold by reference to quantity (you’re not a collector unless you accept more than, say, three or six ballots) or relationship (it’s okay to do it for family members or persons with a specified incapacity).

Restrictions on ballot collection are common around the states. The best known exception is California, which legalized ballot collecting in 2016, upon which Democrats are said to have employed the method quite effectively to increase their vote. Even California, as the Washington Post notes, “has since made it illegal to get paid per ballot collected and for employers to ask employees to bring their ballots into their workplace.”

That last point highlights one of the first problems with the practice: the person standing there asking you to hand over your ballot may be someone you have a hard time saying no to, owing to dependence, economic or otherwise. What if it’s a union steward at your workplace, or the political boss of your community, or a patriarchal family member? What if they’re pressing you for a faster decision than you’d prefer to make? There’s a requirement that the envelope be sealed before you hand it over, but that might work mostly as an honor system. If you yield to improper pressure, who’s going to complain to the authorities, or verify a complaint?

Contrast all this with the idea behind the secret ballot, the idea of leaving you free to vote your conscience or maybe not vote at all, no matter what powerful people in your life or community may expect of you. As they used to say, it’s just you alone in the voting booth.

Next consider the dangers of ballot tampering. Contrary to some imaginings, the abuse that is probably likeliest is not that the collector will switch the choice of party at the top of the ticket. Far harder to police is the practice of “helping” unsophisticated voters by filling in choices for down‐​ballot races that they might have left blank on their own.

Gaudier abuses, such as the collection of pseudo‐​ballots from voters who are dead, never intended to vote, or never existed at all, are not unthinkable – politicos are capable of thinking of anything – but leave a trail that is in principle checkable, differing in this from some of the subtler abuses.

All of which will not prevent conniptions in various quarters over a new movie by conservative provocateur Dinesh D’Souza, entitled 2000 Mules, sensationally alleging widespread fraudulent use of ballot harvesting in the 2020 election. I’ll leave the critique of that movie to others – the Associated Press and the Bulwark’s Charles Sykes have already started the job, among others, and more is to come. AP quotes an academic I much respect: “There’s no evidence a massive ballot harvesting scheme dumped a large amount of votes for one candidate into drop boxes, and if there were, it would likely be caught quickly, according to [Iowa law professor] Derek Muller.”

Underneath it all, election integrity is a genuine issue with many complications and trade‐​offs that should not be written off or dismissed. What a shame it would be were it understood merely with reference to the personal interests of one losing presidential candidate.

Yesterday we posted the 3,000^th conflict to the Public Schooling Battle Map, an interactive database of values and identity‐​based conflicts in public schools. I thought I would take the occasion to provide an update on the changing number and nature of these very personal conflicts over the last decade.

First, as anyone who has been reading education news has likely detected, the frequency of the kinds of conflicts we track has been rising. As shown on the chart above, we are headed for a projected 447 conflicts in 2022, which would eclipse last year’s record. And do not be deceived by the low number in 2020. While 2019 reflects a likely decrease in conflicts in public schools (why is not clear), 2020 was marked by the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, which greatly disrupted schooling and almost certainly changed priorities from culture war issues to simply getting education up and running again. And there was, in fact, significant conflict, but mainly about when to re‐​open to in‐​person learning, rather than over deeply held values or people’s racial, sexual, or other identities.

The chart below shows how the dominant types of battles have changed. For most of the decade, conflicts over expression predominated, such as the ability to wear t‑shirts with potentially upsetting messages, whether students could publish articles critical of authorities in school newspapers, or the ability of citizens to speak freely at school board meetings. We’ve also seen a fairly steady decline in battles explicitly concerning religion, such as a football coach’s prayer, or holiday concerts promoting or avoiding Christmas.

The biggest increase has been in curricular battles, which should be familiar to everyone by now. These include conflicts over teaching informed by “critical race theory” or about sexual orientation. This category includes recent efforts in many state legislatures to prohibit “divisive concepts,” and the Florida law dubbed “Don’t Say Gay” by opponents. Similarly, we’ve tracked a big leap in “reading material” conflicts – challenges to books such as Gender Queer and Beloved that are seen as indecent and offensive by some, insightful and supportive by others.

There are important limits to what one can conclude from the Map. There is significant overlap among categories – e.g., a t‑shirt a student is told to remove with a racially charged message – so delineations are not crystal clear. (The t‑shirt example would be categorized as “freedom of expression,” not “race/​ethnicity,” as long as the student asserted an expression right.) Also, we find the incidents that populate the Map via media stories, which means first a reporter must learn of a conflict, then we must learn of the article. We likely miss conflicts in small, lightly covered districts. Also, if school battles attract more media attention because culture war becomes a hot topic, we might see increasing articles because more reporters are looking for battles, not necessarily because conflicts have increased.

Finally, while conflict is likely increasing, most districts may be placid. There are roughly 13,500 districts in the country and only about 1,300 have battles on the Map. Of course, many battles are at the state level – the Map contains 556 of those – leaving no district unaffected.

What is causing the rise in conflicts? Almost certainly the same factors driving polarization broadly: changing demographics, racially charged incidents involving police, and evolving mores. But arguably nowhere is such change likely to create higher stakes than in education, which is about nothing less than the formation of human beings. And when diverse people must pay for a single government school or district, it makes heated conflict inevitable.

The Producer Price Index (PPI) is not a measure of inflation in the cost of living. It estimates prices businesses receive, not prices consumers pay. Importantly, it includes soaring export prices for U.S. on food and energy, which had already risen 4.5% in the month of March, 3% in February, and 2.8% in January due to sudden global scarcity in the wake of the Russian war and sanctions.

The PPI “increased 0.5 percent in April…[partly because] construction increased 4.0 percent, while prices for final demand services were unchanged.” “The indexes for final demand trade services and for final demand services less trade, transportation and warehousing declined 0.5 percent and 0.1% respectively. (Trade measures changes in [profit] margins received by wholesalers and retailers.”

To repeat, the PPI is not a measure of inflation. It includes profit margins in retailing and wholesaling, prices foreigners paid for U.S. grain and LNG, plus other irrelevant miscellany. It does try to estimate some service prices, from the firm’s perspective, but excludes housing and other key services which are properly included in the CPI.