Free Markets versus Government Intervention

[Admiral]

Originally Posted by Alt+F4

In NYC (the largest public school system in the country) you can be expelled for serious violations such as selling drugs or bringing a gun to school. However, you CAN'T be expelled if you are under 17 or in Special Ed. (any age, and Special Ed. students can stay in high school until they are 22).

Which makes things worse in some cases. Even the vague possibility that students could be expelled, however few (maybe 1 in 500) actually are, keeps students and parents acting appropriately.

If I know that there's no way I can be expelled if I'm a 15-year old in a public school, what reason do I have to respect teachers, or come to class, or do anything?

And if students can't be expelled for being serious problems, then there's only one solution for teachers: promote them a grade whether they're learning or not. After all, they have two choices- keep problem students another year, or shunt them off to someone else.

There's an assumption in everyone's posts that government-hired teachers are by definition well-meaning, while private teachers are by definition selfish. This is completely meaningless- public teachers will do what's best for themselves in the same way that private teachers will. And people enter the private sectors as teachers because they love teaching every bit as much as you do. Claiming otherwise, that you're a better person and better teacher because you work in a public school, is arrogant.

The vast majority of your arguments are unskeptical appeals to emotion.

"The children are too important to be left to the market." So every other industry- you know, the unimportant ones- should be left to the system that actually works... but the most important industry should be handled by a system that doesn't work.

"In the private sector children are treated like cattle." This is no more meaningful than a homeopathy advocate saying "In hospitals, children are treated like test tubes." It's a metaphor that summons up all kinds of feelings but in no way reflects reality, or what's best for the children. After all, what's more like treating students like cattle then FORCING all the ones in a particular district to attend your school, or pay a high price for doing anything else? How is giving parents choice treating them like cattle?

"Private schools have dollar signs in their eyes." That's meaningless too. Take a look at public school teachers. The average hourly wage of teachers is $30.91, which is more than the average hourly wage of chemists ($30.64), computer programmers ($28.98), or psychologists ($28.49). Add to that government benefits like pensions that teachers get. Nothing is wrong with that, it's an important job- but don't you dare claim that just because teachers work for the government, they're doing the job "out of the goodness of their hearts."

"For private schools, it's all about the money." Funny you should say that, considering the way public schools DEMAND more funding. Average public school spending per-pupil DOUBLED from 1971 to 2001- from $4479 to $8996. But graduation rates? Stayed the same. (In fact, they dropped from 75.6% to 72.2%). Can you see why I'm skeptical of the claim that "We need just a little more money!"

In other words: Both private schools and public schools want to get more money. But if the directors of private schools raise tuition, the market will respond by them losing students. If politicians raise public school spending, people vote for them.

[Alt+F4]

Originally Posted by Admiral

Both private schools and public schools.

Before I respond I need you to define your terms. When you say "private school", do you mean:
1. charter schools, which are public schools, but are operated semi-independent (well at least in NYC they are).
2. private schools which charge tuition, such as Catholic schools.
3. schools for-profit, meaning schools run by a corporation that answers to it's shareholders.

Thanks

[Alt+F4]

Originally Posted by Admiral

"For private schools, it's all about the money." Funny you should say that, considering the way public schools DEMAND more funding. Average public school spending per-pupil DOUBLED from 1971 to 2001- from $4479 to $8996. But graduation rates? Stayed the same. (In fact, they dropped from 75.6% to 72.2%). Can you see why I'm skeptical of the claim that "We need just a little more money!"

Since this part of your post specifically refers to public schools I'll address it. The Special Ed. population has EXPLODED since the early 1970s and special needs children are much, much more expensive to educate than general education students. A moderately-to-severely autistic child needs 1-on-1 instruction, that's about $40,000 a year for ONE child. 1 in 166 children is diagnosed with a disorder on the autistic spectrum. Remember the "crack babies" of the 1980s and 1990s? Well they ended up in public schools with a wide variety of learning disabilities requiring expensive in-school services: speech, physical therapy, resource room, etc.

The building in which I teach is realtively new and can accommodate wheelchair students. We have about 200 (out of a student body of about 3,500). Each one of those wheelchair students is required to have their own School Aide assisting them throughout the day, so add another $25,000 (average School Aide salary) to the cost of that child's education.

And you know what? For all the money taxpayers spend on these kids, few of the Special Ed. students I've mentioned in this post will ever graduate from high school, hold a job or live independently.

As for general education students, think about the technology. Gosh, today even 1st graders are using computers in school. How much do you think all this technological upgrading over the past 30 years has cost?

What do you think public schools spend their money on, teacher's salaries and chalk?

[Alt+F4]

Originally Posted by Admiral

Claiming otherwise, that you're a better person and better teacher because you work in a public school, is arrogant.

In which post have I claimed this? Ad hominem.

[Thanz]

Originally Posted by Admiral

There's a reason the iPod sells so ridiculously well. It's ridiculously popular! I WANT items like the iPod, which consumers love, to be rewarded with an enormous market share and terrific profits- because that makes every company out there do everything they can to create "the next iPod" or "the next Google."

So tell me how, if you were a powerful politician, you would use subsidies to solve what you declare is "The iPod Problem." Go on. Would you offer millions of dollars to Microsoft to make a better mp3 player than Apple? Something tells me they don't have a problem with summoning up funds for the entry costs, and they don't need taxpayer money. Would you offer the money to Sony? They don't really have a money problem either.

iPods may be an even worse example than restaurants. I don't think that anyone needs a subsidy to compete with Apple. There already is enough competition in the mp3 player market.

Quote:

And why are you looking to punish companies for creating immensely popular products?

I'm not. And Apple didn't so much create the iPod as it took the idea from Creative Labs and were very successful in marketing it. Creative made the first protable mp3 hard drive players. Apple copied the idea, made it look cooler, and then marketed the heck out of it. The story of the iPod is not really a story about creating an innovative product - they had to pay Creative $100 million to settle a patent infringment lawsuit - but one of extremely successful branding and marketing. It is not that iPods are better at doing the functions it does - it is that they are "cooler", which is all marketing.

Which really is beside all of this. Sorry for the derail.

[shecky]

Originally Posted by Admiral

Which makes things worse in some cases. Even the vague possibility that students could be expelled, however few (maybe 1 in 500) actually are, keeps students and parents acting appropriately.

If I know that there's no way I can be expelled if I'm a 15-year old in a public school, what reason do I have to respect teachers, or come to class, or do anything?

And if students can't be expelled for being serious problems, then there's only one solution for teachers: promote them a grade whether they're learning or not. After all, they have two choices- keep problem students another year, or shunt them off to someone else.

You make these declarations as if they're bad things.

[Tony]

Originally Posted by Admiral

"The children are too important to be left to the market." So every other industry- you know, the unimportant ones- should be left to the system that actually works... but the most important industry should be handled by a system that doesn't work.

Umm, the public school system works. It's why the vast majority of people in the US know how to read and write. To claim otherwise is flat-out wrong.

[Admiral]

Originally Posted by Thanz

iPods may be an even worse example than restaurants. I don't think that anyone needs a subsidy to compete with Apple. There already is enough competition in the mp3 player market.

You were the one who said "If anything, Apple is the one with the monopoly."

You can't keep saying "That's a bad example" and expect me to take on faith that there's a good example somewhere out there. Please. I'm asking you. Name some industry where subsidies to promote competition would be a GOOD thing. You claim that there are- it's your job to find them, not mine.

Quote:

I'm not. And Apple didn't so much create the iPod as it took the idea from Creative Labs and were very successful in marketing it. Creative made the first protable mp3 hard drive players. Apple copied the idea, made it look cooler, and then marketed the heck out of it. The story of the iPod is not really a story about creating an innovative product - they had to pay Creative $100 million to settle a patent infringment lawsuit - but one of extremely successful branding and marketing. It is not that iPods are better at doing the functions it does - it is that they are "cooler", which is all marketing.

Which really is beside all of this. Sorry for the derail.

No problem. Incidentally, I support intellectual property too.

[Admiral]

Originally Posted by Tony

Umm, the public school system works. It's why the vast majority of people in the US know how to read and write. To claim otherwise is flat-out wrong.

I'll clarify- use a system that works well and one that doesn't work as well.

To say we should be satisfied with the system just because the majority of Americans can read is silly, and I'm sure it's not what you mean.

And don't try saying, "If the system doesn't work well, then why has there been so much prosperity etc. etc."- that's "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" reasoning. We don't know whether if the system had been privatized from the beginning of the century, there would have been more prosperity or less.

[Admiral]

Originally Posted by shecky

You make these declarations as if they're bad things.

I'm sorry I'm so dense... you're being sarcastic?

[Merko]

Originally Posted by Modified

Is that an obscure way of saying "failure to investigate and prosecute criminals"?

Your phrase only deals with the fact that someone is breaking the current set of laws, it says nothing about the nature of those laws. A criminal is simply someone breaking the existing laws. A failure of the government to interfere in order to curb destructive practices on the market may equally be (and often is) a failure to institute proper laws to begin with, resulting in such destructive practice without the persons doing it being criminals.

Let me take an example which has popped up here in Sweden. Nowadays, air line companies usually advertise fake prices, and only after you've more or less completed your order for a ticket will they disclose the actual price, claiming the added part consists of 'taxes' (often with very creative or outright fraudulent definitions of taxes, including fees for the basic operation of airports for example). This is clearly destructive, because no one is interested in these fictional prices, it just hinders consumers from making an informed choice. This should simply be banned: air liners should be forced to state the total price. Of course they should not be stopped from disclosing additional information of what, in their opinion, is the 'tax' part of that price, but they should have to state exactly how much I really have to pay when I buy one of their tickets.

[Admiral]

Originally Posted by Alt+F4

Since this part of your post specifically refers to public schools I'll address it. The Special Ed. population has EXPLODED since the early 1970s and special needs children are much, much more expensive to educate than general education students. A moderately-to-severely autistic child needs 1-on-1 instruction, that's about $40,000 a year for ONE child. 1 in 166 children is diagnosed with a disorder on the autistic spectrum. Remember the "crack babies" of the 1980s and 1990s? Well they ended up in public schools with a wide variety of learning disabilities requiring expensive in-school services: speech, physical therapy, resource room, etc.

The building in which I teach is realtively new and can accommodate wheelchair students. We have about 200 (out of a student body of about 3,500). Each one of those wheelchair students is required to have their own School Aide assisting them throughout the day, so add another $25,000 (average School Aide salary) to the cost of that child's education.

And you know what? For all the money taxpayers spend on these kids, few of the Special Ed. students I've mentioned in this post will ever graduate from high school, hold a job or live independently.

You say vouchers can't handle these kids? OK, then adjust the voucher so it gives more based on disabilities. Allocate the money however you do in public school. Whatever you want.

By doing that, you'd be offering parents a CHOICE of where to educate their disabled children. If a parent is dissatisfied with how their child's school is treating them, what right do you have to say they should be forced to keep sending them there instead of educating them at a better private institution with the same money?

Quote:

As for general education students, think about the technology. Gosh, today even 1st graders are using computers in school. How much do you think all this technological upgrading over the past 30 years has cost?

I'm well aware of the technology used in public schools- I'm a fairly recent graduate of a public high school myself. Frankly, I'd say we had too many computers. That's what happens when you keep getting money without accountability as to how you spend it- after all, it's easier just to say "Let's buy the new computers" then to deal with raising some teachers' salaries (thanks to union rules about paying all teachers the same).

You're pointing to what they're doing instead of looking at results. That's my whole point. When public schools get more money, they can spend it on more and more expensive computers, large construction projects on new gyms, and whatever else they want- but is that what's best for the students? Just because some bureaucrat says some buzzwords like "technological upgrading," does that give him the right to educate children without accountability to their parents?

Private companies are accountable to the consumers. (Yes, by the way, they're accountable to the shareholders first if they're public. But what shareholders care about is profits, which means they're under constant pressure to get attract and keep consumers). Public schools, on the other hand, are accountable to the government. What public schools are under pressure to do is look like they're helping students, from the perspective of bureaucrats. Any argument against vouchers eventually comes down to saying that bureaucrats know what's better for individual children then parents do.

Frankly, if I had children, I wouldn't care whether bureaucrats thought that they were spending my money well. I'd want to send them to the school that I thought offered the best education. That would often mean schools that were making different choices with my money than the public schools were.

[Admiral]

Originally Posted by Merko

Your phrase only deals with the fact that someone is breaking the current set of laws, it says nothing about the nature of those laws. A criminal is simply someone breaking the existing laws. A failure of the government to interfere in order to curb destructive practices on the market may equally be (and often is) a failure to institute proper laws to begin with, resulting in such destructive practice without the persons doing it being criminals.

Let me take an example which has popped up here in Sweden. Nowadays, air line companies usually advertise fake prices, and only after you've more or less completed your order for a ticket will they disclose the actual price, claiming the added part consists of 'taxes' (often with very creative or outright fraudulent definitions of taxes, including fees for the basic operation of airports for example). This is clearly destructive, because no one is interested in these fictional prices, it just hinders consumers from making an informed choice. This should simply be banned: air liners should be forced to state the total price. Of course they should not be stopped from disclosing additional information of what, in their opinion, is the 'tax' part of that price, but they should have to state exactly how much I really have to pay when I buy one of their tickets.

Understand that when you said "Mafia-like pressure," Merko probably assumed you meant, well, Mafia-like pressure, of the "Close down or I'll break your legs" variety.

However, I agree to an extent- that should be considered fraud. I wouldn't compare it to throwing a Molotov cocktail in the other airline's window, though.

[Tony]

Originally Posted by Admiral

I'll clarify- use a system that works well and one that doesn't work as well.

Besides theory, what evidence do you have that your system works well? Was the population more educated and more literate before the wide-spread institutionalization of the public school system?

[Merko]

Originally Posted by Modified

And if so, responsible parents will move their children to a better school.

Moving your children to another school is not like changing to a different brand of soap. Responsible parents do not, and should not, consider this unless the situation is absolutely unbearable.

Quote:

That's no different than what happens now in US public schools. The worst problem students (or in many schools, all problem students) are expelled.

Only if the public schools operate according to some sort of pretense market system. I don't know much about the US public school system, but we do have that problem in Sweden in some areas. Public services in general should not be run like companies, and its officers should have no motives to do such things. If they do, the system is certainly flawed.

Quote:

You must have had a fortunate experience with public education. I would use that very same argument against public schools. This is something that, in my experience, most private schools provide and most public schools do not, and something that parents specifically look for in a private school. Of course, parents who send their children to a private school may not be a representative group.

Certainly it is also something most parents specifically look for also in a public school. I'm afraid you're not really providing any arguments here, you're just stating your conviction that private schools are better. Certainly some private schools are better than some public schools, and vice versa.

Quote:

I do think you underestimate most parents.

Here in Sweden, we do have a school voucher system, and the ill effects I'm talking about are very observable. For example, those schools that have been successfully attracting many students almost always profile themselves in various popular but more or less completely useless ways. 'Media' has been very popular, but teaches no useful skills that you can't easily pick up by yourself, and doesn't help you find a job. 'International' schools have also been popular, but this doesn't appear to mean you learn more languages as students learn much less languages than only a few years ago when this reform was put in place. Instead of languages or math, there are all sorts of flummery courses that were unknown before. We also have a bad problem with grade inflation and it has been shown that the private schools are leading this trend (unjustifiably).

Also, the system has clearly led to a lot of segregation in various ways.

Quote:

I'm not sure what you mean here.

Teachers in private schools are not seldomly put in a difficult situation when they realise that one of their students is being mistreated at home. If they confront the parents, for example, the response can easily be that they move the child to another school (they are 'customers' after all).

[Merko]

Originally Posted by Admiral

However, I agree to an extent- that should be considered fraud. I wouldn't compare it to throwing a Molotov cocktail in the other airline's window, though.

The mafia-like behaviour was just one example, the important point was the curbing of destructive practices. We also have problems with people walking around in MC gang outfits, never actually threatening anyone with anything, but still getting the message across. Not saying that is easy to legislate against, but it's surely a problem.

[DavidJames]

Originally Posted by Admiral

Charge them for it if they're not returned. That's what my high school did.

Students at the high schools my daughters graduated from in the past few years were not allowed to graduate without returning the books.

[Alt+F4]

Originally Posted by Admiral

I'm well aware of the technology used in public schools- I'm a fairly recent graduate of a public high school myself. Frankly, I'd say we had too many computers. That's what happens when you keep getting money without accountability as to how you spend it- after all, it's easier just to say "Let's buy the new computers" then to deal with raising some teachers' salaries (thanks to union rules about paying all teachers the same).

The school is which I teach has too few computers. So are public school bad because they have too many computers or too few computers?

Again, you state that teachers should be paid for performance but you have no answers on how to judge that performance other than test scores. I could get every kid in my class to get 100% on every test - just give them the answers!

[Alt+F4]

Originally Posted by Admiral

By doing that, you'd be offering parents a CHOICE of where to educate their disabled children. If a parent is dissatisfied with how their child's school is treating them, what right do you have to say they should be forced to keep sending them there instead of educating them at a better private institution with the same money?

Under the federal "No Child Left Behind" law children in schools "in need of improvement" are eligible to transfer to another school in their district, so no, children are not being forced to remain in failing schools.

In NYC there is widespread outreach to inform parents of their school choice options, yet few take the transfer (yes, it comes with transportation).

Now might some children be rejected from the "better school" because it's already crowded? Of course, but the same case could be made if parents had a voucher to attend any school in the country...it's about supply and demand.

K-12 education in the U.S. is a multi-billion dollar operation so why haven't smart entrepreneurs opened up thousands of for-profit schools? Why has schools run by coroprations failed so terribly since being introduced a decade ago?

[Alt+F4]

Originally Posted by DavidJames

Students at the high schools my daughters graduated from in the past few years were not allowed to graduate without returning the books.

Many, many parents here in NYC can't afford to replace a $50 text book. Kids leave books on public buses....they're kids.

Short of the rack, what can a public school do but eat the cost?

[Alt+F4]

Originally Posted by Merko

Here in Sweden, we do have a school voucher system, and the ill effects I'm talking about are very observable.

I'm always curious about education in other countries. Could you tell me, does Sweden have for-profit schools or do parents use school vouchers on private schools, such as Catholic schools?

[shecky]

Originally Posted by Admiral

I'm sorry I'm so dense... you're being sarcastic?

No.

In the US, children are pretty much compelled to attend school. And the state is compelled to provide the education. Under these circumstances, there are times when school will be a glorified babysitter.

We need to stop thinking of schools as magical institutions that dump knowledge into children's minds and if it doesn't take, it's because schools aren't doing it right.

It's hard for me to take all this voucher talk seriously if the justification is smaller government. Vouchers are still publicly funded. Government won't get any smaller, taxes won't fall. It's simply contracting out government mandates.

[Admiral]

Quote:

The school is which I teach has too few computers. So are public school bad because they have too many computers or too few computers?

I don’t know, for the same reason that I don’t know how to run a restaurant- I never claimed to be an expert in running a school. However, I would never claim that because I don’t know how to run restaurants, that restaurants should be run by the government and everyone in each district should be forced to go to their district’s restaurant.

What’s great about the market is that the people that KNOW how to run a school will be attracted to the industry, for the same reason that people who know how to run a restaurant head towards that industry.

This isn’t about me telling people how to run schools. It’s about me saying, in fact, that I, the taxpayer and voter, should get out of the BUSINESS of running schools! I shouldn’t be electing the people that are appointing the people that make these decisions!

Instead, I should “vote” on who runs the best school by, when I have kids, sending them to the school in my district that I consider the best! I don’t know how to run a restaurant, but I know how to pick one that’s best for me. (By the way, it’s John’s Pizza in Manhattan, New York. One location on Bleecker Street in Greenwich Village, one on West 45th, in between 8th and Broadway. If you haven’t been there, I highly recommend it.)

Quote:

Again, you state that teachers should be paid for performance but you have no answers on how to judge that performance other than test scores. I could get every kid in my class to get 100% on every test - just give them the answers!

Test scores are NOT the only way to judge teachers. In fact, they are a terrible way. Which is part of the reason I oppose government running the schools- test scores are EXACTLY what they fall back on to hold schools “accountable.” Like the No Child Left Behind Act.

In no way are test scores the only way to judge performance. You could review teachers’ lessons on a random basis. You could use evaluations from students and from parents. Since, as I said, I never claimed to be any kind of expert, I’m not claiming I have the best answers.

BUT the private sector is exactly what makes those answers come out of the woodwork! If I were alive in the 1960s, and you asked me, “How can we build computers that are smaller and faster than the enormous ones we have today,” I would have admitted that I didn’t know. That didn’t mean there wasn’t a solution, though- and scientists working at Bell Labs came up with one.

If you gave the market a chance by offering students choice, then people that figured out ways to evaluate teachers well would be greatly rewarded! As the system is now, though, there is virtually no incentive to find ways to better evaluate public schools, simply because of the immense regulations surrounding paying teachers different amount.

What’s more, think for a second about your attitude. Your attitude is, “I can’t think of a way to evaluate teachers, therefore there isn’t one, we shouldn’t look for one, we should support a system where bosses don’t have the ability to evaluate teachers, and we should trust teachers to do the right thing even though we don’t have the ability to evaluate them.” How is that putting the children first?

Quote:

Under the federal "No Child Left Behind" law children in schools "in need of improvement" are eligible to transfer to another school in their district, so no, children are not being forced to remain in failing schools.

In NYC there is widespread outreach to inform parents of their school choice options, yet few take the transfer (yes, it comes with transportation).

First of all, that program certainly has the right idea. (I’m not a fan of NCLB in general, but that school choice aspect is a good part of it).

Secondly, how is “Well, there’s a little choice, so we’re good!” an answer? Why isn’t more choice a better option? If the whole system is roughly equally unqualified (you, after all, are the one who has been extensively explaining everything that’s wrong with the school district you work in), then what good will transferring to another school in that system do?

Thirdly, if, as you say, few parents want to transfer out of their school (which you imply means they’re satisfied), then you have absolutely nothing to lose by offering vouchers. You say parents are happy with their schools and don’t want to change? OK. Then stop making it financially impossible to change. Put your money where your mouth is.

Quote:

Now might some children be rejected from the "better school" because it's already crowded? Of course, but the same case could be made if parents had a voucher to attend any school in the country...it's about supply and demand.

Could you please explain more about this choice system? Does the money follow the student that changes schools?

Quote:

K-12 education in the U.S. is a multi-billion dollar operation so why haven't smart entrepreneurs opened up thousands of for-profit schools? Why has schools run by coroprations failed so terribly since being introduced a decade ago?

Because the government currently provides enormous disincentives to going to private schools!!! They’re called public schools!!!

The government is already taking people’s money and using it to pay for public schools. That means that middle and lower class people get to send their kids to public school for “free,” but if they want to send their kids to private schools, they have to pay for them (again). The government isn’t forcing people to send their kids to public schools- but they ARE forcing them to give their money to public schools.

So of course in such a system, where people are financially punished for going to anything besides public schools, the only private schools that can survive are elite private academies (in other words, only the rich get school choice), and parochial schools (religious schools where the costs are kept down by fundraising and church contributions). That’s a RESULT of the government punishing people financially for going to non-public schools. It’s not a justification for it.

Now, if you instated a voucher system, where the government WASN’T giving public schools an enormous “head start” over corporate schools, and THEN corporate schools didn’t succeed even after some time passed, THEN you would have proven your point.

[Admiral]

Also, Thanz, I'm still waiting on hearing an industry where subsidies WOULD help competition. You claim they're out there- name one!

[Thanz]

Originally Posted by Admiral

Also, Thanz, I'm still waiting on hearing an industry where subsidies WOULD help competition. You claim they're out there- name one!

I don't think I did claim that they were out there. I pointed out that increasing competition could be a goal and a result of subsidies. I didn't make any specific industry claim. Think of it like an economics model - you know, like the world where you use the same inputs to create guns and butter.

Is there such an industry? I don't know, and I'm not about to go searching for one either.

[shanek]

I am at a complete loss to think of any situation where subsidies would increase competition. Usually they're put in place to stop competition.

[Admiral]

Originally Posted by Thanz

I don't think I did claim that they were out there. I pointed out that increasing competition could be a goal and a result of subsidies. I didn't make any specific industry claim. Think of it like an economics model - you know, like the world where you use the same inputs to create guns and butter.

Is there such an industry? I don't know, and I'm not about to go searching for one either.

Quote:

This is too simplistic an example. The efficacy of subsidies depends on who they are going to and for what period of time. If you give start up subsidies to people to encourage them to start up a business in an area that is dominated by one or two major players, the subsidy can help the company overcome some of the barriers to entry in that market. If they can get over the initial hump and establish themselves a toehold in the market, then you wean them off the subsidies and you have increased competition in that market.

You made the claim that if a business is dominated by one or two players, that subsidies would have a good effect. I responded by asking you to name such an example, where a business is dominated by one or two players and where subsidies would have a good effect, since I don't believe that one exists.

If someone argued that many psychics out there were genuine, you'd ask them to name a psychic they believed was genuine. Imagine they responded, "I never claimed that there was any specific one out there, and I never made any specific claim about any psychic, but only that my model of the universe shows that psychics are possible. Is there such a psychic? I don't know, and I'm not about to go looking for one."

I explained why economics provided all kinds of reasons why such a situation wouldn't occur. The fact that you constructed a fictional and elaborate scenario where subsidies could help doesn't prove anything- I want evidence that such situations arise. (There's nothing wrong with saying you've changed your mind).

More importantly, what is your suggestion in terms of actual policy? Would you support eliminating over $100 billion in federal corporate subsidies, or would you oppose it with the claim that "There might be some industry out there, somehow, where the government gives subsidies that succeed in provoking competition in a monopolized market, even though I can't name even one specific example where this would help."

[Thanz]

Originally Posted by Admiral

You made the claim that if a business is dominated by one or two players, that subsidies would have a good effect. I responded by asking you to name such an example, where a business is dominated by one or two players and where subsidies would have a good effect, since I don't believe that one exists.

And I have told you that I don't know of one off the top of my head, and I'm not going to look for one.

You made the claim that under your education plan ($9000 per student to go to whatever school) you could make "eight figures" in New York. I asked you about expenses, you never replied. But you don't see me hounding you, do you?

Quote:

More importantly, what is your suggestion in terms of actual policy? Would you support eliminating over $100 billion in federal corporate subsidies, or would you oppose it with the claim that "There might be some industry out there, somehow, where the government gives subsidies that succeed in provoking competition in a monopolized market, even though I can't name even one specific example where this would help."

I honestly don't know enough about what the current subsidies are in the US or for what reasons they were implemented. It is quite possible that none of them were implemented to increase competition, but for other reasons altogether. Or it could be that some were implemented not to increase competition in the US, but to give US industry a competitive advantage on the world market. People fight about subsidies on this level all the time.

[Admiral]

Originally Posted by Thanz

And I have told you that I don't know of one off the top of my head, and I'm not going to look for one.

Would you accept that from someone who claimed psychics existed?

Quote:

You made the claim that under your education plan ($9000 per student to go to whatever school) you could make "eight figures" in New York. I asked you about expenses, you never replied. But you don't see me hounding you, do you?

OK, let's talk about that. It got lost in the posts since.

I've changed my position since then, from $9000 a student nationwide to a program that allocates funds accounting for disabilties. Allocate the money however you would in public schools- after all, since the average tuition per student is $9000, any additional money that goes into special education students has to be taken from the $9000 apiece "given to" students that don't have disabilities.

For example, suppose a school has 100 kids, and has a budget of $900,000 (on par with the national average), but 10 kids have special needs and cost the school $300,000 of its budget (assume for the sake of math that these kids have the same disability. If they didn't, we'd just divide them down further). "OK," I say, "Then give the 90 kids without disabilities $6,667 apiece, and give the 10 kids with special needs $30,000 apiece." The total budget is the same- $900,000.

Since you claim that the public schools can teach these kids with $30,000 apiece, I say that if I found a way to do it cheaper than the public schools and was able to attract the students away from the public schools, I'd make a profit. Considering the way that throughout history, the private sector has consistently found ways to do things cheaper than government bureaucracies, you'd have a hard time arguing that the private sector couldn't teach these students better than the public schools were able to. And if they couldn't (if education really is the miraculous exception to everything we know about economics), they're not harmed by the program.

Quote:

I honestly don't know enough about what the current subsidies are in the US or for what reasons they were implemented. It is quite possible that none of them were implemented to increase competition, but for other reasons altogether.

Considering that it's usually the politically well-connected firms that get subsidies, it would greatly surprise me if any of them actually do increase competition. And if they did, it would surprise me even more if this wasn't the kind of "increase in competition" I was talking about with the widgets, where an inefficient company survives on tax money.

Quote:

Or it could be that some were implemented not to increase competition in the US, but to give US industry a competitive advantage on the world market.

This is an enormous can of worms. If you want me to, I'll explain all my problems with this, but if it was an offhand comment I don't want to go on for pages. We can have that discussion if you want, though.

Quote:

People fight about subsidies on this level all the time.

What do you mean by that?

Yes, they do. I'm fighting on one side.

[Thanz]

Originally Posted by Admiral

Would you accept that from someone who claimed psychics existed?

Well, it depends on what you mean by "accept". If you mean accept as a convincing argument to make me believe psychics exist, no. But if you mean accept that this is their position and that hounding them won't get me further, then I accept it on that level and let anyone reading the thread come to their own conclusions.

Quote:

OK, let's talk about that. It got lost in the posts since.

I've changed my position since then, from $9000 a student nationwide to a program that allocates funds accounting for disabilties. Allocate the money however you would in public schools- after all, since the average tuition per student is $9000, any additional money that goes into special education students has to be taken from the $9000 apiece "given to" students that don't have disabilities.

For example, suppose a school has 100 kids, and has a budget of $900,000 (on par with the national average), but 10 kids have special needs and cost the school $300,000 of its budget (assume for the sake of math that these kids have the same disability. If they didn't, we'd just divide them down further). "OK," I say, "Then give the 90 kids without disabilities $6,667 apiece, and give the 10 kids with special needs $30,000 apiece." The total budget is the same- $900,000.

Since you claim that the public schools can teach these kids with $30,000 apiece, I say that if I found a way to do it cheaper than the public schools and was able to attract the students away from the public schools, I'd make a profit. Considering the way that throughout history, the private sector has consistently found ways to do things cheaper than government bureaucracies, you'd have a hard time arguing that the private sector couldn't teach these students better than the public schools were able to. And if they couldn't (if education really is the miraculous exception to everything we know about economics), they're not harmed by the program.

That is a mighty big claim based on nothing more than the ideological belief that the private sector is better. Since what you are trying to establish is that the private sector is better, you can't simply assume it is in the argument.

Also, there is a real world example of a government bureaucracy being more efficient than the private sector: health care administration. The Canadian single-payer system is much more efficient than the multi-payer system in the US.

Quote:

an enormous can of worms. If you want me to, I'll explain all my problems with this, but if it was an offhand comment I don't want to go on for pages. We can have that discussion if you want, though.

I don't particularly want to get into a sdiscussion of protectionist tariffs, no.

Quote:

What do you mean by that?

I said people when perhaps I should have said countries. Like the US/Canada softwood lumber dispute.

[Alt+F4]

Originally Posted by Admiral

I don’t know how to run a restaurant, but I know how to pick one that’s best for me. (By the way, it’s John’s Pizza in Manhattan, New York. One location on Bleecker Street in Greenwich Village, one on West 45th, in between 8th and Broadway. If you haven’t been there, I highly recommend it.)

The Health Department shut down the Village location last week. Evil government!

[Alt+F4]

Originally Posted by Admiral

Your attitude is, “I can’t think of a way to evaluate teachers, therefore there isn’t one, we shouldn’t look for one, we should support a system where bosses don’t have the ability to evaluate teachers, and we should trust teachers to do the right thing even though we don’t have the ability to evaluate them.” How is that putting the children first?

I never said I didn't know how teachers should be evaluated, I said they shouldn't be evaluated on test scores alone. If I take a kid who has a 30 average and get him up to a 50 average by the end of the school year I consider that a success, this child learned something. However, he's still failing, so the teacher is considered a failure as well.

[Alt+F4]

Originally Posted by Admiral

the private sector has consistently found ways to do things cheaper than government bureaucracies, you'd have a hard time arguing that the private sector couldn't teach these students better than the public schools were able to.

It's not hard to argue at all. It's been tired, it failed. As I mentioned in a previous post, research for-profit Edison Schools

School districts that hired Edison paid the company the same per-student cost that the district was spending on each child. In Phildelphia they were paid even more per-student. Edison never turned a profit and now mostly sells achievement programs to schools, rather than actually operating them.

[Admiral]

Originally Posted by Alt+F4

The Health Department shut down the Village location last week. Evil government!

Are you serious?!?

My grandparents (who live in the Village) have been taking me there since I was four! And before that, they took my dad and uncle there!

I'm going to respond to your other posts soon, I promise. Thanz's too. For right now, though, I'm just really bummed. I know it's only temporary, but...

[Francesca R]

Originally Posted by Admiral

I'm still waiting on hearing an industry where subsidies WOULD help competition. You claim they're out there- name one!

Originally Posted by Thanz

I pointed out that increasing competition could be a goal and a result of subsidies. I didn't make any specific industry claim.

Originally Posted by shanek

I am at a complete loss to think of any situation where subsidies would increase competition. Usually they're put in place to stop competition.

This is quite correct. Subsidies in no sense increase competition. Agricultural subsidies in rich countries are the most blatant example of the competition-squashing effect they have.

Thanz may be thinking that—if one company manages to behave anti-competitively (and it is in all companies' interests to try to do away with competition)—then allowing another company to be in a better position to challenge the first one with the help of some anti-competitive subsidy, may create the illusion of a fairer "contest" between them. Well it might, but to the detriment of all other entrants. And it is not increasing competition.

[Francesca R]

Originally Posted by Thanz

it could be that [subsidies] were implemented not to increase competition in the US, but to give US industry a competitive advantage on the world market. People fight about subsidies on this level all the time.

Again, in no sense is protectionism an increase in competition. It's an increase in playing dirty to win.

[Admiral]

I have wonderful news: John's Pizzeria was reopened soon after it was shut down!

http://www.amny.com/news/local/am-jo...-wtc-headlines

I'll get back to the subsidies and school choice when I can, but seriously, we can all celebrate this, whatever we believe!

ETA: This also reminds me of another area of government that is absolutely filled with waste and bad decisions- health departments. I'm not saying we should get rid of it- honestly, I'm willing to see how this is a problem government can have a role in fixing- but in this case it's obviously unjustified.

From the article:

Quote:

Castellotti was ordered to install a sink near the pizza prep area and to patch holes in the basement where rodents could enter. He said he was never told about the need for a sink before the day he was closed down.

They just shut it down after finding a violation? They didn't even bother asking them to fix the violations before shutting it down?

This is what happens when you have politicians and bureaucrats taking care of these things. They make big mistakes (read about the Taco Bell fiasco that preceded this), then they cover it up by flexing their bureacratic muscle elsewhere. Seriously, this is just absurd...

[Alt+F4]

Originally Posted by Admiral

Seriously, this is just absurd...

Oh, I agree. The Health Department went on a hell-bent rampage after the "Taco Hell" fiasco. I think it had alot to do with the fact that the "Taco Hell" in question was inspected the day before the invasion of the rats.

John's and other restaurants should band together to get the City Council to recind some of the more stupid Health Code Violations.

[shanek]

Originally Posted by Admiral

This is what happens when you have politicians and bureaucrats taking care of these things. They make big mistakes (read about the Taco Bell fiasco that preceded this), then they cover it up by flexing their bureacratic muscle elsewhere. Seriously, this is just absurd...

I remember the big ConAgra contaminated meat thing a few years ago...the USDA knew about it for two months and did nothing, didn't even tell ConAgra about it, the whole time the meat was being put on the market. Then ConAgra spotted the problem and went to the press and made this big recall of all the meat...

...and everyone blamed ConAgra and credited the government with stopping the contaminated meat.

Noooo, no one's indoctrinated in this country, not at all...

[Tmy]

You need some govt intervention because the free market is driven by profit and that motive doesnt allways jive with the public good.

Thats why I dont care for a privatized school system. If your just looking to make a buck, you wont be interested in the public good of education for all.