too much irony on 60 minutes last night

[GrapeJ713]

I saw part of 60 minutes last night that was talking about the education reforms of Michael Bloomberg in NYC. Bloomberg hired Joel Klien to help him with this. Does any else find it ironic that the governments point man to break up the Microsoft monopoly during the Clinton administration is the same man in charge of running one of the largest state monopolies in the country.

If Microsoft is a monopoy, it got that way mostly through the free market system. It became the defacto standard just like the QWERTY keyboard. Through market forces not government force. And there are cheper alternatives to Microsoft especially with the internet. But the govt monopoly on education takes money from people and gets bad results with the money and just wants to take more and more and the results keep getting worse and worse. If you want an alternative to the govt monopoly on education, you have to pay for the govt schools, then pay for private or stay at home and spend your own money to teach your kids. Are people going to get fed up, or are they too stupified from public education to care?

[Mr Manifesto]

I don't understand. You want the free market to apply to education but you want the government to pay for it. Is that what you're saying?

I hope not because if you are you are very ideologically confused.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
I don't understand. You want the free market to apply to education but you want the government to pay for it. Is that what you're saying?

I hope not because if you are you are very ideologically confused.

We already pay for education through our taxes.In theory, we could cut taxes and then tell people to pick a school and go there, government, private, whatever. Of course, we could still have a safety net for people living in poverty and subsidies for low income familes.

The main thing driving up property taxes nationwide is public schooling.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by corplinx




The main thing driving up property taxes nationwide is public schooling.


How about, ' The failure of public schooling'?

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by corplinx


We already pay for education through our taxes.In theory, we could cut taxes and then tell people to pick a school and go there, government, private, whatever. Of course, we could still have a safety net for people living in poverty and subsidies for low income familes.

The main thing driving up property taxes nationwide is public schooling.

???


I'm from Australia so I don't see how public schooling drives up property taxes. Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't america pay the least tax in the world?

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by GrapeJ713
If Microsoft is a monopoy, it got that way mostly through the free market system. It became the defacto standard just like the QWERTY keyboard. Through market forces not government force.

Not everything Microsoft did to establish its monopoly was done through the free market system.... For example, they had restrictive agreements with computer manufactuers. (They had to pay for Windows, even on computers that did not have Windows installed, and they were restrictive in allowing multiple operating systems.)

Even if they had achieved their monopoly through 100% legal means, having a monopoly is not a problem. Nor was that the reason why Microsoft was threatened with breakup. The problem is you cannot use a monopoly in one area (for example, Operating systems) to improve market share in other areas. That was what the lawsuit against Microsoft was for. For example, they provided Internet Explorer with Windows, which competed with Netscape. This basically killed off Netscape, even though at the time (during the 'browser wars'), Netscape had the superior browsers. There is also the belief that Microsoft Windows developers passed on information to Microsoft Office developers on the internals of Windows that Word Perfect developers weren't given. (This would give MS Office developers an advantage in writing better-performing software.)

I can give several other areas where Microsoft has used their near-100% share of the Desktop OS market to increase their share of the market in other areas.

The failure to follow through on the Microsoft lawsuit is, in my opinion, the biggest failure of the Bush administration.

Originally posted by GrapeJ713

And there are cheper alternatives to Microsoft especially with the internet.
The nature of technology means that alternatives are not always practical. Computer users need productivity software (which is often dependant on the operating system), device manufacturers may not develop drivers for less-popular platforms, interaction may be required between platforms, and switches to alternatives may be delayed because of existing user bases.

And, as I mentioned earlier, one of the things Microsoft was criticized for was forcing manufacturers to pay for Windows even on computers that were going to have Linux or BSD installed.

Originally posted by GrapeJ713

But the govt monopoly on education takes money from people and gets bad results with the money and just wants to take more and more and the results keep getting worse and worse. If you want an alternative to the govt monopoly on education, you have to pay for the govt schools, then pay for private or stay at home and spend your own money to teach your kids. Are people going to get fed up, or are they too stupified from public education to care?
Although I thing smaller government is better, I do think its necessary to have standards. (Otherwise, you'd get schools springing up that may be religious-based, or omit important parts of education.) And, the easiest way to enforce standards is through a public school system.

That said, perhaps a 'voucher' system (where people can choose the school their kids go to) may be in order. It may even allow private schooling, with the cost of the voucher partly off-setting the more-expensive cost of the private institution.

[GrapeJ713]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
I don't understand. You want the free market to apply to education but you want the government to pay for it. Is that what you're saying?

I hope not because if you are you are very ideologically confused.

Not necessarily. Instead of the government RUNNING the schools, the government could pay for part or all of a child's education through a voucher or tuition tax credit system but private companies would compete for those students and those dollars. The government spends about $6500-$9000 and upwards per pupil to allegedly educate kids. But most private school tuition is about $4500-$6000 per kid depending on location and prestige. So the government could save money and educate kids better by letting it be handled by the private sector. One of the main problems is when private companies try to do the job, parents and voters whine about the companies making a profit on their children. I think the schools should be run as independant non-profit orgs so the teacher unions and other ninnys would have one less thing to whine about and the education companies would get tax breaks.

breakdown of win-win scenario link (http://www.virginiainstitute.org/viewpoint/2003_02.html)

[Mr Manifesto]

Here is a simple fact. Private school tuition is lower, on average, than public school per pupil expenditures. This means that we have an opportunity to save taxpayers’ money by simply giving parents the opportunity to send their children to the schools of their choice.

In the 2002-03 school year in Virginia, the average per pupil expenditure in the public school system is approximately $7450, of which the taxpayers of the Commonwealth pay 86 percent. So, it costs Virginia taxpayers roughly $6400 (.86 x $7450) to educate one child for one year, not counting the capital costs of the buildings. The average private school tuition in Virginia is approximately $4500. Therefore, taxpayers would save about $1900 for every child who would choose private school over public school, even if the taxpayers had to pay the entire tuition.



I would be very sckeptical about this. In Australia, one reason for this could be due to the fact that the government subsidises private education and this figure isn't included above. I'd want to see a breakdown of his figures first.

He doesn't seem to have accounted the cost of administration, either. Private institutions have less administration but that is because they have less students. What happens now if we have the private places administering all of the US students?

It all sounds like the capitalist pipe dream.

[Lurker]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


He doesn't seem to have accounted the cost of administration, either. Private institutions have less administration but that is because they have less students. What happens now if we have the private places administering all of the US students?

It all sounds like the capitalist pipe dream.

Agreed. also, private schools can choose who they let in. they don't have to let in children with behavior problems or mentally retarded students. Where do these children go to school in a private only system?

Lurker

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by GrapeJ713


Not necessarily. Instead of the government RUNNING the schools, the government could pay for part or all of a child's education through a voucher or tuition tax credit system but private companies would compete for those students and those dollars. The government spends about $6500-$9000 and upwards per pupil to allegedly educate kids. But most private school tuition is about $4500-$6000 per kid depending on location and prestige. So the government could save money and educate kids better by letting it be handled by the private sector. One of the main problems is when private companies try to do the job, parents and voters whine about the companies making a profit on their children. I think the schools should be run as independant non-profit orgs so the teacher unions and other ninnys would have one less thing to whine about and the education companies would get tax breaks.

breakdown of win-win scenario link (http://www.virginiainstitute.org/viewpoint/2003_02.html)

I am rather skeptical of this claim as well.

I would say that a big reason why private education is cheaper than public education is due to the public education system.

Private schools can choose who they want to admit and they can kick out whoever they want whenever they want since they are provide a paid service. Also, everyone is aware that if all else fails, the kids can always attend public schools.

Private schools can be made much smaller and they are not forced to be responsible for other things that are required in the public school system (such as transportation, security, and meals) which greatly reduces their overhead.

I am sure that if the private sector schools had to contend with all of the issues that public sector schools do, then the tuition costs would rise significantly.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Diogenes



How about, ' The failure of public schooling'?

Whos says public schools are failures? Sure you can pull out exampls of bad schools, but that doesnt mean the whole system is a failure. The US is a highly educated country. I'd say the US has done a good job of trying to give its 250,000,000 people at least a high school education.

[GrapeJ713]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


I would be very sckeptical about this. In Australia, one reason for this could be due to the fact that the government subsidises private education and this figure isn't included above. I'd want to see a breakdown of his figures first.

He doesn't seem to have accounted the cost of administration, either. Private institutions have less administration but that is because they have less students. What happens now if we have the private places administering all of the US students?

It all sounds like the capitalist pipe dream.

Private institutions have lower costs because they don't have incompetent and moronic government employees working for them. They also can't whine and raise taxes because they can't balance their budgets like the public system. They also have to provide a good service to their customers or they will take their money somewhere else. Can you name one thing that the government does better than the private sector? Besides of course locking people up and genocide. Mass murder by the state has even outdone the church in the last century.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by GrapeJ713


Private institutions have lower costs because they don't have incompetent and moronic government employees working for them. They also can't whine and raise taxes because they can't balance their budgets like the public system. They also have to provide a good service to their customers or they will take their money somewhere else. Can you name one thing that the government does better than the private sector? Besides of course locking people up and genocide. Mass murder by the state has even outdone the church in the last century.

Wow! People can forget pretty quickly.

Let me see, when business was essentially given a free hand to do whatever they wanted (the late 1700s to the early 1900's) there was:

Slaverly,
Indentured servants,
Child labor,
Terribly unsafe working conditions,
No overtime,
No health benifits,
No public education,
No public health institutions,
A phenomal amount of racial, ethinic, and geographic predjudice,
etc.

The fact is, if people are given leave to make money in almost any way they can, then they will do so.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by GrapeJ713


Private institutions have lower costs because they don't have incompetent and moronic government employees working for them. They also can't whine and raise taxes because they can't balance their budgets like the public system. They also have to provide a good service to their customers or they will take their money somewhere else. Can you name one thing that the government does better than the private sector? Besides of course locking people up and genocide. Mass murder by the state has even outdone the church in the last century.

Name one thing the government does better than the private sector? How about accountability. True governments aren't 100% honest but they are miles ahead of the 1% private sector. Governments don't try to hide every last detail of their business behind 'commericial-in-confidence'. They are open to public scrutiny and enquiry. Private companies are only open to scrutiny if dragged kicking and screaming by the government.

These are the people you want to trust with your childrens' education.

[GrapeJ713]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


Name one thing the government does better than the private sector? How about accountability. True governments aren't 100% honest but they are miles ahead of the 1% private sector. Governments don't try to hide every last detail of their business behind 'commericial-in-confidence'. They are open to public scrutiny and enquiry. Private companies are only open to scrutiny if dragged kicking and screaming by the government.

These are the people you want to trust with your childrens' education.


what is a 'true government' ? The accounting practices of the US federal government put to shame anything concoted by any company. Most governments are just kleptocracys. If no one buys the product or service of a company the company will go out of business and then the have no more money. If a government runs out of money it can just raise taxes, if citizens think they aren't getting a fair product or service for the money they have to send to the government, it doesn't matter, you will get locked up in jail. I'm not totally against all government, I just think most are too big too powerful and waste too much money.

[Badger]

Originally posted by Crossbow


Wow! People can forget pretty quickly.

Let me see, when business was essentially given a free hand to do whatever they wanted (the late 1700s to the early 1900's) there was:

Slaverly,
Indentured servants,
Child labor,
Terribly unsafe working conditions,
No overtime,
No health benifits,
No public education,
No public health institutions,
A phenomal amount of racial, ethinic, and geographic predjudice,
etc.

The fact is, if people are given leave to make money in almost any way they can, then they will do so.

And when government had control of everything (USSR) things were so much different? Or when the church had control (Dark/Middle ages)?

Balance is the key. One can't have totally free market education, or totally government run.

I'd go for the voucher system, as one could choose to leave their kids in public school, and thus put their dollars there, or shop around for the private school that meets their needs best.

[GrapeJ713]

Joe Klien used to work for the government to try and break up a monopoly, now Joe Klien is in charge of a government monopoly. I think Microsoft is a monopoly, but it got that way through the free market process (they probably did exert unethical pressure on companies but they never put anyone in jail for not buying their products). No one was forced to buy microsoft software the way people are forced to support an inefficient, incompetant and wasteful public school system. The public school districts that do a decent job are usually small and in rich neighborhoods. But most of the big large urban districts in the big cities do a horrible job. Instead of government running a school system they should just pay to send a kid to a more efficient private school. The government would save money and kids would get a better education. Vermont and Maine have programs like this and I don't hear much about the bad schools and budget shortfalls in other states.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by GrapeJ713
Joe Klien used to work for the government to try and break up a monopoly, now Joe Klien is in charge of a government monopoly. I think Microsoft is a monopoly, but it got that way through the free market process (they probably did exert unethical pressure on companies but they never put anyone in jail for not buying their products). No one was forced to buy microsoft software the way people are forced to support an inefficient, incompetant and wasteful public school system.
If that is your 'point', it is based on very faulty assumptions.

Your linking of Microsoft and the school system is incorrect.

Microsoft was NOT (repeat NOT) under threat of breakup because they were a monopoly. They were under threat of breakup because they were using a monopoly in one area to extend their market share in others. (And, as I said, they achieved their monopoly through partly-illegal means. Even if they can't put people in jail for not buying their product, there are other things they can do to exert pressure.)

Let me state that one more time: Microsoft was using its monopoly in one area to extend its market share in others. That was the major problem.

It would be the equivalent if the school system were forcing all kids to buy some sort of product in order to attend school. (example: In order to attend our school, you must also buy brand X of shoe, which we also happen to produce and sell.

[jj]

Originally posted by Diogenes



How about, ' The failure of public schooling'?

I agree. See my recent post in the http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=18482 thread for my position on one way to find out if schools are doing their jobs. It's hardly a complete test, but everyone writing an essay on each question (one paragraph per should suffice) would convey a great deal of information about the students' understanding of science as well as their ability to succintly communicate it.

Mathematics would require different questions. I'm hardly proposing a full test in that article, of course. (Ditto chem, etc... It would, if it was an essay test, carry quite a bit of information about language and rhetorical skills.)

Of course, some will memorize. I presume the metrics people know how to deal with this?

[Victor Danilchenko]

GrapeJ713

Ah, another budding libertarian...

Can you name one thing that the government does better than the private sector? Public education has achieved what private education could never do -- nearly-universal literacy. How about that for superior government ability? Government does what market cannot do efficiently -- run the unimaginably vast web of local roads.

There are some things markets are best at, and some things that the government is best at. It takes an idiot to proclaim that either category is non-existent, or nearly so.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by GrapeJ713


Can you name one thing that the government does better than the private sector? .

Ohh Ohh I got one. Airport security! OK it costs more when the govt runs it, then again we dont have sky scrappers falling down cause some penny pinchers.


As for Vermont and Maine paying to send kids to provate schools, Im sure thats works great when you have a big empty unpoplulated state.

[GrapeJ713]

Originally posted by Tmy


Ohh Ohh I got one. Airport security! OK it costs more when the govt runs it, then again we dont have sky scrappers falling down cause some penny pinchers.


The governmet made it illegal for pilots to carry guns. If pilots carried guns the death toll on September 11 would be a lot closer to 19 than to 3000. I don't think the low paid govt workers do much better than the low paid private workers.