Its been my observation that a surprising amount of research education sucks, either focusing on irrelevant trivia or desperately avoiding logic and common sense at all costs. Every so often, though, you come across something well written and cogent. Here are the first two paragraphs of an article that comes close:
Racial-, ethnic-, and language-minority schoolchildren in the United States have repeatedly been reported to be overidentified as disabled and so disproportionately overrepresented in special education (e.g., Artiles, 2003; Dunn, 1968; Harry, Arnaiz, Klinger, & Sturges, 2008; Oswald, Coutinho, Best, & Singh, 1999; Sullivan & Bal, 2013). These findings have led to characterizations of special education as “discriminatory” (Skiba, Poloni-Staudinger, Simmons, Feggins-Azziz, & Chung, 2005, p. 142), having “systemic bias” (Oswald, Coutinho, Best, & Nguyen, 2001, p. 361), constituting “a new legalized form of structural segregation and racism” (Blanchett, 2006, p. 25), and “another manifestation of institutionalized racism” (Codrington & Fairchild, 2012, p. 6). Federal legislation and policies have been enacted to reduce minority disproportionate representation (MDR) in special education (e.g., Posney, 2007; U.S. Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights, 2009). For example, the U.S. Congress observed that “more minority children continue to be served in special education than would be expected from the percentage of minority students in the general school population” (p. 118 of Statute 2651, Public Law 108-446).
The Baltimore City Public School System spent the fourth most per student during the 2014 fiscal year out of the 100 largest public school districts in the country, according to a new report by the U.S. Census Bureau.
The city’s school district, which is the 38th largest elementary and secondary public school district in the country, spent $15,564 per pupil during the time frame. Maryland has four of the 10 highest per pupil spending public school districts, with Howard County Schools rounding out the top five with a per pupil spending of $15,358.
Montgomery County schools was sixth with $15,181, Prince George’s County was eighth with $13,994 and Baltimore County came in 12th with $13,338.
According to the Census Bureau, this is the seventh consecutive year Maryland has had four public school districts rank in the top 10 of per pupil spending. Baltimore City was beat out by Boston public schools ($21,567), New York City ($21,154) and the Anchorage School District in Alaska ($15,596).
The country as a whole saw a 2.7 percent increase to $11,009 in per pupil spending from 2013 to 2014. This was the largest increase in per pupil spending since 2008.
Maryland came in at 11th out of the 50 states plus Washington, D.C., in average per pupil spending across the state at $14,003. New York spend the highest per pupil at $20,610 and Washington, D.C., was second at $18,485.
Utah had the lowest per pupil spending at $6,500.
Why are test results in Baltimore so bad? It obviously isn’t for lack of spending.
New results from the nation’s most widely used college admission test highlight in detailed fashion the persistent achievement gaps between students who face disadvantages and those who don’t.
Scores from the ACT show that just 9 percent of students in the class of 2017 who came from low-income families, whose parents did not go to college, and who identify as black, Hispanic, American Indian or Pacific Islander are strongly ready for college.
But the readiness rate for students with none of those demographic characteristics was six times as high, 54 percent, according to data released Thursday.
“That kind of shocked us,” ACT chief executive Marten Roorda said. “We knew it was bad, but we didn’t know it was this bad.”
The analysis of “underserved learners” was a first for the ACT, which is one of two major tests students can take to apply to college. The other is the College Board’s SAT.
In recent years, both tests have found major disparities in college readiness among students in the Washington region and around the country. Roorda lamented that these gaps have persisted despite efforts to improve schools under the banners of No Child Left Behind, Race to the Top and other national initiatives.
“You could argue that those investments should have made a clearer difference,” he said, “and that’s not what we’re seeing.”
Actually, there have been a lot more initiatives, local and national, than those Roorda mentioned, and they go back decades. I remember, for example, when busing was expected to reduce gaps.
Since the Washington Post only looks at “underserved learners,” for completeness, it helps to know the entire distribution. Table 2.4 of the ACT report indicates that that Asian students get the top scores, on average, followed by white students, followed by those who decline to state their race, followed by those of two or more races.
I also notice a bit of a gap between males and females – males do better on math and science, females on English and reading. So this report is chock full of the same racist stereotypes we have seen for decades. How do we get rid of this persistent gap in outcomes? And I think we can agree we want to do it in a non-harmful way. For instance, we don’t want to reduce the achievement gap by harming the performance of Asian students. Anyone have any realistic suggestions? A realistic answer will, of course, be one that is implementable, and which doesn’t contradict data that has come up in the decades in which society has been trying to deal with the issue.
I’ve noted a few times that the political center needs to come to grips with research on genes and intelligence or we risk ceding the field to people with scary impulses and frightening goals. I think something like what the center-left position should be is reasonably well articulated by Richard J. Haier. Haier is a professor emeritus in the University of California at Irvine medical school, editor in chief of the journal Intelligence, and he was one of the signators of the Mainstream Science on Intelligence: An Editorial With 52 Signatories, History, and Bibliography in 1994.
Historically, assaults on intelligence research were launched as a reaction to studies that suggested that average intelligence test scores were lower for some disadvantaged and minority groups. Combined with the possibility that intelligence might be genetically determined, this incendiary combination resulted in efforts to discredit the validity of intelligence tests and genetic studies. Concurrently, there was a single-minded focus on environmental factors as the predominant, if not only, influence on differences in mental abilities and the cause of achievement gaps.
This has led to 50 years of earnest and expensive but largely futile attempts to reduce education achievement gaps. These include focuses on early childhood education, raising students’ expectations, smaller classes, better teacher training, more testing and greater accessibility of challenging classes. Such interventions should not be expected to reduce gaps appreciably given the consistent research that shows that such variables do not influence academic achievement all that much – especially compared with the large effect of a student’s intelligence.
Education is for individuals. It does not matter if there are average intelligence differences among groups defined by poverty or race because there is more overlap than separation. As in modern medicine, any genetic influences, although real, are best thought about as probabilistic rather than deterministic. Basic neurobiology is the same for all humans, and both genetic and neuroimaging research connects neurobiology to intelligence. Understanding the complexities of how this works has potential for designing ways to improve mental ability and maximise education for all students, irrespective of background.
No one is well served by education reforms that neglect research findings on the nature of intelligence and its central role in student achievement. Neuroscience and intelligence research cannot solve all the issues of failing schools and education, but it is time to follow the data and add what we know from these perspectives to discussions about what research to fund, and what reforms to try next.
(The bolding is mine.)
While this may be anathema to much of our educational and academic establishment, it is, from what I can tell, pretty close to the position of the best -known researchers in the field like Stephen Pinker and James Flynn. Which is to say, the position is mainstream science on intelligence.
Unless we have reason to believe the scientists are wrong, we ignore that at all of our peril.
In this post, I want to look at the murder rate, by state. I ran a regression with the state murder rate for 2015 as the dependent variable, and literally threw the kitchen sink at it: demographics, weaponry, income, education, population density, etc. Basically, if its something some reasonable percentage of the population believes matters, and I could find data for it, I threw it into the hopper.
I also included variables relating to immigration status. The latter stems from some from some debate in the comments section to other posts in which I stated my belief that illegal immigrants drive up the crime rate. Several detractors insisted that illegal immigrants have lower, not higher crime rates than the rest of the population, and that I am racist to boot. Before presenting results, I will note – I am not too proud to admit the regression results did not fit with my preconceptions. I am also not too proud to admit the regression results did not fit with the preconceptions of my detractors. Finally, while I am always interested in whatever the data has to say, I suspect my detractors will really, really not the results.
So… without further ado, the output from R:
What does this all mean? Simply put, only two variables are statistically significant at the 5% (or even 10%) level: percent of the population made up of non-Hispanic Whites, and population density. The greater the share of the population made up of non-Hispanic Whites, the lower the murder rate. On the other hand, the greater the population density, the higher the murder rate. To those who don’t use statistics very often, remember – this is taking into account all other variables.
Now, there are a few variables that come close to being statistically significant at the 10% level. In other words, it is possible (not necessarily likely, just possible) that under other circumstances – with a better defined model, or more precise variables – these variables would prove to be statistically significant as well. These variables are:
1. Percent of the population made up foreign citizens here legally. That variable would have a negative effect on the murder rate if it were statistically significant.
2. Percent of the population that is Asian. This variable also would have a negative effect on the murder rate if it were statistically significant.
3. Percent of the population age 18 to 64. Obviously, most of the murders are committed by people within a subset of this range – probably around 18 to 30. If I had the data to separate out this cohort, I believe we would find that the more people in this cohort, the greater the murder rate.
So… what doesn’t matter? First, the percentage of the population made up of illegal immigrants. Ditto the percentage of the population made up of naturalized citizens. These did not increase the murder rate nor lower it. If the murder rate parallels the crime rate in general, then the media narrative that illegal immigrants have lower crime rates than the population as a whole is not supported and to some extent contradicted by the data.
Second, race & ethnicity don’t matter, at least once you pull out non-Hispanic Whites and maybe Asians. Holding all other variables (including education and income) constant, it doesn’t appear that the murder rate differs in a statistically significant way from one non-Hispanic White or Asian racial/ethnic group to another.
Median income doesn’t matter. Neither does the percentage of the population with an income under 20K. Or the percentage of the population with an income over 100K. Or education level. The murder rate is not affected by these variables.
Another thing that doesn’t matter is the degree to which the population happens to be armed. And Lord knows, there are all sorts of variables here. These include “destructive devices” (think grenades, rockets, missiles, mines, poison gas, explosives, or incendiary devices – apparently all these and more are registered by the ATF), machine guns, silencers, short barreled rifles, short barreled shotguns, or other. The innocuous sounding other group includes your garden variety revolvers and pistols.
So essentially, in summary – accounting for education, income, nativity. immigration status, the regression suggests that having more non-Hispanic Whites decreases the murder rate, and having a greater population density increases the murder rate. No other variables in this regression are statistically significant.
Anyway, I can babble on about the results. For example, it would be interesting to see immigrants (both legal and illegal) broken up with enough granularity to see if the results of non-Hispanic Whites and Asians apply to immigrants as well.
But enough of my prattling. What are your thoughts?
As always, if you want my spreadsheet, drop me a line. If you contact me within a month of the publication of this post, I will send it to you and possibly make some sort of witty remark. Since I am adorable, I probably will send you my spreadsheet after that date as well, but I reserve the right to have a file crash, lose my computer, acquire dementia, or die if too much has elapsed. My contact info is my first name (mike) and a dot, then my last name (kimel – only one m there) at gmail dot com.
Links and details to the data are in my spreadsheet. But if you want to replicate it yourself (it was a pain in the butt, but who am I to stop you?) the data are listed below. Where possible (which was the case for only a few exceptions, as noted below), I tried to use 2015 data to match the murder rate.
A number of other variables came from the Census CPS Table Creator. This was used for data on race, income, native v. naturalized citizens v. foreigner, educational attainment, age, and gender.
Pew estimates on illegal immigrants, including Mexican v. non-Mexican, were available for 2014.
Finally, the number of 2015 murders originated with the FBI, but was present in this handy dandy file compiled by the Murder Accountability Project.
Update… April 2, 2017 4:01 PM
I forgot to mention a couple corrections to the data:
1. The Pew data on % of illegal aliens that come from Mexico included a few NAs, in each case for states with a very low percentage of the population being made up of illegal immigrants. In those instances, I assigned the national average share (i.e., 52% of the unauthorized aliens are from Mexico).
2. The CPS table information on race and ethnicity had a few examples where no information was given for a given combination of race & ethnicity. In each case, it was possible to determine that the number was very small because the sum total of the other race & ethnicity combinations came close to 100%. In those instances, I simply replaced the NA with a zero.
It is very odd that Sweden tried this. It is important that it failed. I have long argued that even if something works in Nordic countries, it is irrational and nordtopian to believe it will work elsewhere. If charter schools failed in Sweden presumably because of moral hazard and a lack of team spirit, then they can fail anywhere.
Also, as in the case of health insurance and Medicare vs Medicare advantage, these data cast doubt on the widespreadd presumption that the private sector is always more efficient than the public sector.
The school board proposal that triggered the [student and teacher] walkouts in Jefferson County calls for instructional materials that present positive aspects of the nation and its heritage. It would establish a committee to regularly review texts and course plans, starting with Advanced Placement history, to make sure materials “promote citizenship, patriotism, essentials and benefits of the free-market system, respect for authority and respect for individual rights” and don’t “encourage or condone civil disorder, social strife or disregard of the law.”
Yup. Straight out of the German Nazi, Stalinist and current Chinese government playbooks. Via Joe McCarthy. Definitely an instructive history lesson.
On that respect-for-authority thing, I’d love to know how this History curriculum will present the Revolutionary War. Presumably, the school board majority that is proposing this, and that will enforce it, will ask for input from King George III. But not from, say, George Washington, who’s spinning in his grave and really, really wants to be consulted but won’t be.
Stormy, Movie Guy, and Dan Becker in 2009 have been writing about trade imbalances and consequences since 2006.
An excerpt from one of Dan’s posts:
I have written at AB that my thoughts about when the flash point was for our change to a focus on making money from money was the first Reagan election. I do believe this is the case however, having finished reading Richard J Elkus’ book, Winner Take All, I now have learned of a perspective as to why it flashed and why we are bailing out finance with more money and fewer questions than bailing out the auto industry. I also see just how back ass-ward this bailing out concern is.
You see, the thought that the purpose of business is to make money was not always the winner in the argument. The argument has been back and forth for ages. It is part of the class war. In fact, there was a movie in 1954 with William Holden looking at this issue called Executive Suite.
…McDonald Walling, who oversees the company’s manufacturing plant and is preparing to test a new molding process… process did not go well in his absence. On the way home, he complains to his wife Mary that financial analyst Loren Phineas Shaw focuses on the bottom line at the expense of the company’s creativity…McDonald speaks passionately about the company, condemning Shaw’s short-sighted emphasis on quick profits as “a lack of faith in the future.” After McDonald outlines his vision for restoring the company to its former high standards, the board unanimously elects him president.
We have not always thought that the purpose of business is just to make money.
Mr. Elkus’ (MBA) thesis is that in the 60’s, two laws of economic process were formalized and presented that were the guiding thoughts influencing economic development. Both lines of thinking came from viewing the same show: semiconductors. One is by Mr. Bruce Henderson (engineer and MBA degrees) the other by Mr. Gordon Moore (PhD chemistry). Both addressed the relationship of costs and production. I note the degrees of each just as a curiosity.
Mr. Henderson, watching Texas Instrument, came up with the Experience Curve. In it’s simplest form it states that unit cost goes down over time as experience increases.
But, this was just the bases for a broader concept, a “strategy” for guiding business development: Stars, Cash Cows and Dogs.
As a particular industry matures and its growth slows, all business units become either cash cows or dogs. The natural cycle for most business units is that they start as question marks, then turn into stars. Eventually the market stops growing thus the business unit becomes a cash cow. At the end of the cycle the cash cow turns into a dog. The overall goal of this ranking was to help corporate analysts decide which of their business units to fund, and how much; and which units to sell.
This was and appears to still be a very big concept. Big as in influential. Via Wiki:
The Economist magazine stated that Henderson did more to change the way business is done in the United States than any other man in American business history. Well known to many now is the famous Growth Share Matrix (‘cash cow’) and the ‘Experience curve’. His books were published in 27 languages.
Huge influence. Taught throughout our business schools according to Mr. Elkus and Wiki. Came about in 1970. Mr. Moore, being a founder of semiconductor manufacturing businesses, namely Intel, came up with Moore’s Law. In it’s simplest form, it states that there would be “a doubling of computing power per given area of silicon every year at basically the same cost…” Mr. Elkus’s thesis is that both describe models, ultimately truths regarding making money. Both are used as strategies for basing an economy upon. Only one is truly sustainable and makes all of America’s dreams possible. Japan picked that one.
He comes to this by way of his involvement with Ampex. Ampex owned video recording “…controlling nearly 100 percent of the world’s video recording patents and more than 70 % of the market”. Mr. Elkus literally introduced the first video recorder for home use, September 2, 1970 in NY. In the next few days, Ampex stock climbed 50%. Only one VP attended, no other top/senior management. “It was not a good sign.”His lesson from the event: “The introduction of Instavideo set in motion a long chain of events, resulting not only in the explosion of consumer electronics into nearly every facet of daily life but in a global shift in economic power to Asia.” In the same year, he saw a presentation of high definition video by Japan’s “primary” broadcasting company, NHK. It is at this point in the story Mr. Elkus relays the concept of convergence of technology. The ability to record video on a consumer level scale represented the ability to store and process massive amounts of data. This ability converging with digital video presentation meant that the entire information economy would be exponentially growing based on Moore’s Law. Mr. Henderson’s potential Star. Moore’s law also meant that as the ability to process ever larger amounts of data on ever smaller media, the cost would be ever greater. Mr. Henderson’s potential Dog. What to do?
Mr. Elkus knew Ampex needed a partner that could take the technology to the consumer. Coming up with the technology, he recognized is only part of the expertise and cost, the other is the ability to manufacture it such that technology, in short, is dummy proof in the hands of the consumer. It is an ability all of it’s own. Mr. Elkus wanted Magnavox or Motorola as partners; keep it in the country. The boss said no, feared competition so went with Toshiba. This gets us to the next part of Mr. Elkus’ thesis: Infrastructure. Which gets to the final cog in the process: investment.
Using his experience with Ampex’s Instavideo, Mr. Elkus presents the counter to Mr. Henderson’s Stars, Cash Cow’s and Dogs: Investment, Convergence and Infrastructure. A relational model that follows the production law of Moore.
What the thesis of Investment, Convergence and Infrastructure means to a nation is presented in the tracing of the loss of our manufacturing base to initially Japan and ultimately to all of Asia. It is the counter to Mr. Henderson’s model which is basically just focusing on the money. It is the movie Executive Suite for real only for us, the story ending is looking different.
The relationship of Investment, Convergence and Infrastructure is presented early in the book via Zenith. There was a fight for control of the board as reported by the AP 11/1988. A couple Wall Streeters wanted Zenith to dump the “money-losing television business”. The dog. The article also noted: “for an outsider, jumping into the TV business would be like trying to hop onto a speeding train…” In the end, Zenith a company that “helped establish the standards for high definition television in the US,… contributing significant technology for the potential development of the industry” was gone by 1996 to LG of Korea “for a fraction of what it now costs to build a single display manufacturing facility”. We lost our infrastructure and thus the advantage of economic growth based on convergence and all the knowledge that is the result there of because of our focus on cash flow as the bases for deciding on where to invest.
Using a simpler example:
In 1964, one year before Gordon Moore wrote his prophetic article, semiconductor sales reached $1 billion. Today sales are in excess of $260 billion, it is projected that in a dozen years the number may reach $1 trillion. And growth in revenue has occurred while prices have dropped at an average compound rate of 29 % annually…But that is really chump change when you realize that $260 billion of silicon makes possible a $2 trillion electronic systems industry today…So it is possible to imagine an electronic systems market approaching $4 trillion to $5 trillion in the next twelve to fifteen years—an amount equal to the current GDP of Japan…
The error of US having followed Henderson, which if I understand Elkus properly, I conclude has lead to NAFTA, outsourcing jobs and ultimately the fight over whether to save our auto industry (which I noted is the last “infrastructure” we have that uses “convergence” via “investment”) verses little questioning to save the banks is summarized thusly:
The common denominator driving the world of information and its communications infrastructure was the need to store, process and distribute extraordinary amounts of digital information. [Store = Ampex. Process = Intel. Distribute = Zenith.] If one understands HDTV as the result of learning how to process massive amounts of digital information, as both a convergence and catalyst in the digital revolution, then it should be easy to see that the need to process that information is not limited to the HDTV display and a pretty picture….
It now costs upward of $10 billion to build just one semiconductor manufacturing plant. $3 billion to build a single display fabrication facility. Zenith was sold for $350 million. Based on Measuring Worth, 1996 to 2008 these money minds following Henderson, sold Zenith for 1/6th the cost required to build just one display panel plant in 2008. This number differential is the total fallacy in Henderson. How do you know? How do you know what really is the next big thing? How can you be sure that nothing else will come of what you have? It is the “The Guitar Player”. But worst of all as shown in the example of selling Zenith, is just how short sighted Henderson’s thinking and thus American business thinking is in general. If I may, Henderson’s thinking is analogous to watching your rear view mirror while driving forward as you decide whether to turn or drive straight. Henderson’s thinking is the point of thought that began the money from money economy. It is the thought that lead us to a purposeless existence of no substance because it leaves unanswered the question of why do we want to earn money or create wealth, for what purpose.
Mr. Elkus gave a talk at The Commonwealth Club in California on 9/3/08. It covers a time line of what he is writes in his book. It is one hour long, but well worth the time, especially the question at the end regarding Apple’s business arrangement regarding it’s Iphone as the questioner brings up “competitive advantage” and money from royalties. You know, that information/service economy model that has gotten us to the point that the biggest service sector (finance) took down the economy and the next largest is unaffordable(health care). The most profound comment by Mr. Elkus during this lecture is: If you don’t have the infrastructure, then you don’t know what’s possible. How far reaching is this persepctive of Investment, Convergence and Infrastructure? Mr. Elkus suggests that even our education system is influenced by it.
When a nation’s politics and economics fall out of step with its education system, the cost of reengagement is extraordinarily high.
Therefore any attempt to explain the plight of education in America must look first at the country’s current political and economic attitudes. They are directly linked.
Eventually, because of the exponential acceleration in convergence, infrastructure, and investment, there’s a cascading effect, and the loss of one industry begins to threaten the stability of others.
These events are noticed by the educational community, which must provide a measure of career guidance for its student population and thus looks to political, economic, and business leaders for answers.
We have Intel fortunately, but we don’t have the infrastructure of Zenith which would have been using Intels output to market Ampex’s technology which lead to the Iphone.
We are a country not just divided, but fragmented along axes of race, age, religion, economic status and geography. There are now 15 States where citizens have filed petitions to secede from the Union. “These include Louisiana (which led the charge), the Republic of Texas, Kentucky, Colorado, New Jersey, Montana, North Dakota, Indiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Alabama, Florida, Georgia and Oregon.” I don’t know which is number 15, but I’m gong to guess Oklahoma.
I’m not going to get flip about it. While these petitions have virtually no chance of achieving anything, it’s important to remember two things:
1) You never hear anything like this when Republicans win. 2) All but 4 of these states represent the (since 1965) solid Republican South.
Another geographic dimension is urban vs rural. When I do get flip, I say Obama won everywhere that people outnumber cattle, deer, goats or alligators. This comes distressingly close to being the truth. Look at the electoral map of just about any State. I like to consider Ohio, since it is my home State and in many ways represents the U.S. in miniature. But pick a State at random [or Texas in particular] and you’ll probably see the same scenario. The Ohio electoral map shows that Obama carried 16 of Ohio’s 88 counties. Half of these are strung along the Lake Erie shore, four more are contiguous in the densely populated north-east corner, and the other four contain Columbus, Dayton, Cincinnati and Athens.
I’m not ambitious enough to undertake the study, but I’ll hypothesize that Obama’s vote percentage in each county is directly proportional to the total population – and this in a State where the counties don’t vary much in physical size. Consider that Lucas Co. [essentially my home town, Toledo] with 198,000 votes cast went for Obama by 64 to 34%, while Mercer Co. along the IN border with 21,000 votes cast went for Romney by 77 to 22%. You can find these kinds of results all over the country.
Another divide is along education level. Among the 15 States with the best public school systems, Obama carried 13, while among the 15 States with the worst public school systems, Romney carried 12. I see this as a big component in the recent Republican war on education. One thing you develop as a result of good education is a set of critical thinking skills, which then give you the ability to see through nonsense peddlers like Rush, Trump, and the whole Fox roster.
All of this tends to make me pessimistic about our nations future. But I see rays of hope amidst the great divide. Even in Georgia, which went 53 to 45% for Romney, you find Obama winning by huge margins in Atlanta, Macon, Augusta, Columbus, Savannah, and Albany.
There is a blue streak that starts along the Mississippi river valley where Arkansas, Louisiana and Mississippi converge and runs almost continuously through Alabama, Georgia and the Carolinas to join with the blue States along the coast.
I call it the band of sanity running through the South, and it might just represent an opportunity for progressives to build on going forward.
I’m sure you are all feeling kind of blah. You have this final exam for this session and I can tell by your performances on the quizzes that you are still confused. The problem solving portions of the quizzes have been very telling. So lets review.
You’re taxes are not too high. It’s your income that is too low! Remember this and you will be able to solve enough of the problems to obtain a passing grade and graduate. And class, no one running today for president gets this. It is why President Obama looked like such a dufus in the debate. Romney took a step to his left… right into Obama’s policy space. Where does one go to gain more space when they have walled up the door to the left of them as President Obama has?
Let’s get something real clear from the beginning. Unless you are acquiring the majority of your money from money YOU ARE NOT A CAPITALIST