Vouchers can fix some problems, not all.
If we were serious about fixing the education problems, we would return it to a market of consumer choice and first-party payment.
Printable View
Vouchers can fix some problems, not all.
If we were serious about fixing the education problems, we would return it to a market of consumer choice and first-party payment.
Could you imagine if the government told you which grocer to shop at and when you got there government employees gave you the food items it decided for you and garnished everybody's paychecks to pay for them? Anybody think that's crazy? Well that's similar to how k-12 education works right now.
Given that's perfectly non-insulting or offensive criticism of me, which came from spoonitnow of all people, I'll have to seek the truth in it.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Am I wrong about fanaticism? I understand fanaticism as the adherence to a belief despite any and all contrary evidence which may or may eventually come to light.
As such, any statement which expresses, "You'll never convince me otherwise," is inherently, and definitively fanatical.
If I'm misusing the word, I apologize.
If something else, you have my attention.
There is no such thing as a scientific fact, or if there is, the "scientific" part makes it not a "fact" in the colloquial usage.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Nothing can be considered a scientific result unless it describes the means by which it can be shown it is false.
Newton said, paraphrasing, F = ma. Einstein showed that is definitely false, without special treatment of m, which Newton definitely did not say or mean to say.
So any assertion that F = ma and "nothing could convince me otherwise," is a perfectly unscientific statement.
No matter how true it seemed for a couple hundred years, eventually, more information came to light, and showed it was not true.
This is the exact difference between science and fanaticism.
It's less crazy when you consider that an apt analogy to education would also specify that the government is responsible for funding the operations of the farms and factories that produce the food.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
On the topic of the facts involved with blacks and poverty, I'd say the facts are not persuasive because enough confounding variables exist that allow for different interpretations.
A lot of this stuff can get figured out with just the facts. For example the facts probably do not show increasing racism correlating with increasing black poverty. Like Sowell discusses, the opposite has happened, racism has been declining while black poverty has been increasing. There are some facts that counter, like a positive correlation between the drug war and black poverty. I don't know if this correlation is real, but I think it might be. I think we should focus on interpreting these types of statistics as best we can. For example, the claim is common that there aren't that many black fathers anymore because theyre all in prison. Well, okay, so, one thing that implies is that drug dealers would become fathers if they didn't get caught. Well, that doesn't make sense. We can look at other facts, like how the theme is very well-known by blacks (as far as I know) that male promiscuity is big and fatherhood is very unpopular. That ain't gonna be caused by the police.
The best economic explanation I know of by a long shot is that of welfare, which is probably why such a prominent economist like Sowell discusses it so much. When you pay women to be single mothers, what are you going to get? Is that the only factor? No. Though it makes the most sense as the most pivotal factor. Like Sowell says, blacks were overcoming the factor of racism just fine for quite a while. Even though it is relevant, it isn't what pivoted the communities into ghettos.
I don't understand the point. Are you saying that governments are responsible for education but not responsible for feeding? If so, that's by law. Are you saying that should be the case by philosophy? If so, why the distinction? Why is the private sector good at feeding itself but not good at educating itself?Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
I guess that means you're going to ignore what I'm about to say, but I know you'll read it anyway, so here ya go ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
YesQuote:
Am I wrong about fanaticism?
No, the word you're looking for there is "faith". It's different.Quote:
I understand fanaticism as the adherence to a belief despite any and all contrary evidence which may or may eventually come to light.
Is it fanatical to say "You'll never convince me that the sun won't rise in the east tomorrow morning?"Quote:
As such, any statement which expresses, "You'll never convince me otherwise," is inherently, and definitively fanatical.
Is it fanatical to say "You'll never convince me that wiping my ass after shitting is less sanitary than not wiping"
Is it fanatical to say "You'll never convince me that Pepsi is not fucking delicious"
If so, then I guess I'm guilty as charged. I'm sorry I don't subscribe to your hair-splitting, annoying, nerdy philosophy where science doesn't actually know anything, and nothing is actually true. I live in the real world, where for practical purposes, we throw out the possibility of events with an infinitesimally low likelihood.
If you wanna be a nerd about it, then I guess in some backwards, upside-down, parallel universe, I could be convinced that babies having babies and dropping out of high school has no impact on their long-term economic success. There....are you happy nerd??
How about you apologize for this ass-hole de-rail?? I mean, what's the point of this semantic douche-baggery??? We were having a nice discussion about politics and economics, and you came in here for no other reason than to shit on me.Quote:
If I'm misusing the word, I apologize.
I never used that term. But thanks for the lesson professor.Quote:
There is no such thing as a scientific fact, or if there is, the "scientific" part makes it not a "fact" in the colloquial usage
Doesn't BStand live in one of the boroughs? Hyperbole is how they talk over there.
How many beliefs do we currently hold that are untrue? In Banana's case it's obviously zero, but I'm speaking of scientific beliefs (or "Facts" if you will). I hazard it's a value close to 100%.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Stop trying to convince people you aren't me.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
And if by 'boroughs' you mean NYC, you're wrong. I have no interest in even visiting.
I currently reside in what might possibly be the last bastion of individual freedom in America.
Live Free or Die
Congrats on digging to try to find a cherry-picked case that has nothing to do with inner city schools in predominantly black neighborhoods. However, to your question, there would be a profit-driven motive for another school to be built in that situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Your misstep is on the word "belief." He doesn't believe it. He knows it. That makes it not subject to your definition of fanaticism.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
For example, I believe you're a cuck, and there's nothing that could change my belief in that. That is fanaticism, in a completely hypothetical example.
Wait, spoon is arguing and being sarcastic with himself now?Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Yep.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Well it's a problem that affects the entire state of NH. One fiftieth of the country. That's a huge fucking cherry.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
So you would selectively implement this voucher program only in certain neighborhoods?Quote:
that has nothing to do with inner city schools in predominantly black neighborhoods.
By whom? With what money?Quote:
However, to your question, there would be a profit-driven motive for another school to be built in that situation.
Nope the monkey is right. You don't 'know' anything, you only believe it.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Consider the 'knowledge' that the Sun will rise in the East tomorrow. How do you know? Because it's always risen in the East? So, something that's always happened will always keep happening? Negative.
I think I had this argument with Ong once and he wasn't stoned enough to get it.
Or more to the point, consider the 'fact' that 'blah blah blah' (whatever Banana said about x). This is a 'fact' how? Because it was reported as such in some newspaper or even better, Fox? That don't make it a fact, it makes it information that Banana finds credible - not the same thing.
1. NH is hardly 1/50 of the country by any measure.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
2. I would implement it in all neighborhoods. In your example you asked about, assuming it would change nothing is not sufficient reason to not switch to the voucher system.
3. By someone who could profitably run a better school than what's available with their own money or with the money of investors. That's how free markets work.
We don't know that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow. We know that it will rise in the east if the conditions do not change.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Excellent argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Sure thing snowflake.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
That's equivalent to saying we don't know it will rise in the east, since we don't know conditions won't change.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
fypQuote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Any measure?? What about Senate representation? HA!Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
So a universal solution that only solves problems for a fraction of the population is a good thing?? I thought you were a conservative?Quote:
2. I would implement it in all neighborhoods. In your example you asked about, assuming it would change nothing is not sufficient reason to not switch to the voucher system.
That means that the existence of the school, like any private enterprise, is subject to risk. And in a nationwide aggregate, surely some schools will fail, leaving some kids education-less. So you've traded one problem for another. Where's the upside??Quote:
3. By someone who could profitably run a better school than what's available with their own money or with the money of investors. That's how free markets work.
As I've discussed previously, one of the the few core responsibilities of government is to provide every citizen with access to a fair marketplace. Someone without an education has less, or no access. Therefore, it's the government's responsibility to provide that education. And in that endeavor, I don't think it's right for the government to be taking risks. In the aggregate, long-enough term, some risks are realized. And when they are....real lives are hurt.
Heh. I've considered moving over there, something something free state project. In concept it's great. In execution, I've heard a mixed bag.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Ah I'm happy you've made this point. Because a good deal of education is counterproductive. For example, somebody who will be a janitor or a plumber is wasting valuable resources with the vast majority of the education he receives. This even applies to others it may seem like it doesn't, like accountants, just to a lesser degree. Each hour a future janitor spends reading Shakespeare or doing algebra that he otherwise wouldn't if the government didn't tax and spend and organize the structure such that he decides to do that schooling, the worse off he will be than if he just started working early. This person at the lowest rung will tend to gain skills better that way, and at the higher rung will accrue significantly more wealth by doing so (time value of money because he smartly saves as a young worker).Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
I get that people think everybody deserves a chance at an education. Okay, so then make that the policy, make it so that if they want to pay for it they have that option. But structuring it like we do now hurts the least skilled and least intelligent the most by displacing them and taking away their most productive years.
Somebody who can't eat doesn't have access to a fair marketplace either. Why should the government run the farms and the transportation and the grocers?Quote:
Therefore, it's the government's responsibility to provide that education.
I'll add something that we covered a bit in my labor economics class was that we don't even know if education makes people smarter, more skilled, or better off because we don't know if it's just that those who are smarter and more skilled gravitate towards education. Bryan Caplan argues even further, that the data show specifically that education is not improving outcomes.
The most valuable concept I learned in college is along these lines. If somebody is not gravitating towards education, get him out of it, get him working, and get him saving. In that case, his most productive years will be remarkably productive. A poor as dirt and unintelligent person can become a millionaire by retirement if he just works early enough and saves within reason. Policy can make that common. If he spends too much time in education, he will just be worse off by wasting time and energy and getting poor results.
I know that there is big hubbub these days about how so many jobs require so many skills that can't be acquired on the job. Some do. Most don't.
Who refers to ages 14-18 as "their most productive years"Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
This is pretty farfetched wuf. Plus, it only holds water if that 15 year old janitor saves money instead of blowing it on microtransactions in video games.
Furthermore, you're destroying income mobility. By sending this 15 year old out into the world with a narrow education and set of skills, you have committed him on a path with few future options. That's not a good thing.
Further, furthermore, how would you even implement this plan? Do you really want the government evaluating the long-term prospects of each kid and deciding which teens should stay in school, and who gets handed a broom??
Is hunger really the result of a lack of access?? Is it at least possible that this hungry person had access to food, but decided to spend money on heroin instead? I would contend that the majority of cases of hunger and homelessness are caused by a person's bad choices, and not because of a lack of access, or opportunity.Quote:
Somebody who can't eat doesn't have access to a fair marketplace either. Why should the government run the farms and the transportation and the grocers?
Regardless, in those cases, a humane society would provide safety nets for those people. Food stamps are a thing wuf.
In many ways they are. At those ages you have bigger capacity to benefit your life in ways that you don't at older ages.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
There are other ways of looking at this, like with the time value of money. A 15 year old who saves til he's 65 is making significantly more money than is in his paycheck and it's significantly more than if he started at 35.
The people who gravitate towards that work are already in that situation. For them, education is already wasting their time, energy, and earnings potential. I'm not interested in "sending" anybody anywhere, but allowing them to more accurately adjust for their skills and preferences than the k-12 (and college grants/loans) are doing.Quote:
Furthermore, you're destroying income mobility. By sending this 15 year old out into the world with a narrow education and set of skills, you have committed him on a path with few future options. That's not a good thing.
I want the government to spend zero dollars and zero cents on education. Let parents choose what kind of path best suits their children. Like you said earlier, the gains kids make are coming from the parents anyways.Quote:
Further, furthermore, how would you even implement this plan? Do you really want the government evaluating the long-term prospects of each kid and deciding which teens should stay in school, and who gets handed a broom??
This is as it is now. We're talking hypotheticals and philosophy. You said that because of how important education is, the government has a duty to provide it. I am applying this logic to food.Quote:
Is hunger really the result of a lack of access?? Is it at least possible that this hungry person had access to food, but decided to spend money on heroin instead? I would contend that the majority of cases of hunger and homelessness are caused by a person's bad choices, and not because of a lack of access, or opportunity.
Do you really believe that opposite though.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Finishing highschool is an automatic bias in the sample. Even if you took a sample where everyone was equally able and then looked at those who graduated you'd find that bad things make people drop out and have a longer term effect on your life and people that don't face those issues graduate and are less likely to have those issues in the future. It's pretty self fulfilling.
The difference in life quality of those who barely miss out on graduating and those who barely graduate is actually pretty indifferent and that's with a pretty big bias in employment and opportunity to those who do graduate.
The bits about not having children is also interesting. The first point is that good schools in bad areas (which is surprisingly common) combats this. So that would imply that having kids, whilst an issue, isn't that big of a factor. It just turns out that when things are going well you're less likely to have children. This is also an effect which is seen throughout loads of different socioeconomic groups basically across the world.
The next is that, in the UK at least, asian cultures tend to have children at an earlier age and also have more children yet their success rates are also much better than both white and black people when comparing across poorer socioeconomic backgrounds. This has huge amounts to do with the culture that is around for dealing with these things. So once again it's more an effect of negatives than it is the cause of negatives.
You also find that black and ethnic pupils actually tend to do much much better whilst in the later years of education and the progress they make is amongst the best.
There is the affect of people from certain areas being forced to live in worst places and having less when it comes to immigration. This is true of a lot of people who immigrated however you tend to find that the people who have integrated the best in the society have the better results. Now there is an argument that this is down to what you do to intergrate and I agree however how easy it is to single you out as different plays a huge part. If you're 3rd generation Irish immigrant basically no one knows you aren't American, if you're third generation african-american they know you are different. It matters.
The ways you deal with it and how you approach it is a different thing but ignoring it's existence is rubbish.
I like Hannibal Buress. He's a fairly smart guy and is doing pretty well for himself.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a17qOxIiROQ
This is like a textbook situation on how not to deal with the police.
You're still not explaining how hunger denies access to the market. Can a hungry person not work, earn money, and buy food?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
The net effect of food stamps is not one of a safety net. Besides, when is it government's job to make a safety net? Why is it not your job, your parents' job, your family's job, your friends' and selected community organization's (like a church) job? Those listed have comparative advantage in providing over government, and when government "provides" its typical fashion, like has resulted regarding food stamps, is to not even function like a safety net but an entitlement.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
What do you think this means?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
If you're talking about fixing society then ye dur obviously but that means something different to everyone and doesn't really mean much. By the police understanding and developing their policy and action they can make huge differences and it's much more under their control.
This is the type of bullshit that people get behind in a way where like police being dicks to people in society is excused because they're trying to fix the problem and the people they are dealing with is the issue. It just isn't true.
I didn't say hungry, I said can't eat. If you can't eat, yeah, you have a significant to whole inability to work, earn, etc.. But that doesn't matter. Here's what matters: the assumption in your point is that the food is already available. Okay, why is it available? The private sector has made it available. Since this is the case, does it work for education?Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
He does this silly shit a lot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
I'm not a big fan of some of police culture. It could be fixed. The amount of problems it is causing and the value gained by attempts to fix it are minuscule in comparison to that of ghetto culture.Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
But it does seem to be I'm a fairly smart guy doing well for myself therefore the only reason you can be arresting me is because I'm black.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Well no people who are successful get in trouble with the police all the time they just deal with it so much fucking better. In fact if the police are racist (and they are) then you make sure you deal with it so much better than others because that type of stuff has a huge negative if you don't.
Now when you're pissed it's different especially if you've had a bad night and are in a mood but come on. Also no one saw that happen and commented that the police dealt with a drunk angry man really well.
No it isn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
Huh?? What bad things? What future issues?? Black kids are dropping out of high school at a rate above 30% because they believe it's pointless, not because of some catastrophic life-issue that occurred when they were 15.Quote:
Even if you took a sample where everyone was equally able and then looked at those who graduated you'd find that bad things make people drop out and have a longer term effect on your life and people that don't face those issues graduate and are less likely to have those issues in the future. It's pretty self fulfilling
Patently false. go watch the video again. The study was done in 1992, and updated in 2007. The results showed that 92% of people who met those 3 criteria, were not poor. The results also showed that just about 80% of people who did not meet those 3 criteria (one of which being high school) are poor.Quote:
The difference in life quality of those who barely miss out on graduating and those who barely graduate is actually pretty indifferent and that's with a pretty big bias in employment and opportunity to those who do graduate.
What's not clear here?? Stay in school 90% chance you won't be poor. Drop out, 80% chance you will be. You call that "indifferent"?
Huh?? THe out of wedlock birth rate among African Americans is over 70%. How is that possible if schools are "commonly" combating this??Quote:
The bits about not having children is also interesting. The first point is that good schools in bad areas (which is surprisingly common) combats this.
It's a HUMONGOUS factor if you're unmarried or under 20 years old!!!! That's the point. Having kids within a nuclear family with both parents living under the same roof doesn't have a big impact on prosperity. But if you do it any other way....you're fucked!Quote:
So that would imply that having kids, whilst an issue, isn't that big of a factor.
We're talking about people under 20 man. Do you really think their having children is dictated by "how well it's going"?Quote:
It just turns out that when things are going well you're less likely to have children.
I'm not sure I follow this. But see if you can follow this. Black people commonly fail the 3-criteria poverty test that I put forward. As a result, they are more affected by poverty. More poverty = More crime. Hence 13% of the population commites 50% of the murders and robberies.Quote:
The next is that, in the UK at least, asian cultures tend to have children at an earlier age and also have more children yet their success rates are also much better than both white and black people when comparing across poorer socioeconomic backgrounds. This has huge amounts to do with the culture that is around for dealing with these things. So once again it's more an effect of negatives than it is the cause of negatives.
Meanwhile asian people are about 4 or 5% of the American population and commit less than 1% of the murders and robberies. Are you saying that has nothing to do with their cultural emphasis on education and nuclear families??
Sorry I was talking to spoon and would like his input on a subject he knows something about. You're a retard and I don't care what you have to say about something you know nothing about.
Explain what you mean by "can't eat". Exactly what affliction are you referring to? And it DOES matter because you're forcing a completely un-apt analogy. We're talking about access to a fair market place. Education provides that, food doesn't. What are you missing here?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
It's a question of risk. The private sector providing food is not as much of a risk since the government is equipped to take emergency measures in cases where the private sector fails. That's what FEMA does when there is a hurricane.Quote:
Here's what matters: the assumption in your point is that the food is already available. Okay, why is it available? The private sector has made it available. Since this is the case, does it work for education?
If a private school fails.....what's the government's play then? How does the government fulfill it's responsibility to offer everyone fair access?
I know the results of two separate studies done 15 years apart directly refute virtually every statement you made.....retard..Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
Where are these market-wide private sector failures? I only know of ones caused by government. The hurricane example is good for showing the economic theory for how the government responds more poorly than the private sector.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
That's a bold statement to make about an enormous number of people who come from every background and demographic imaginable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
Blue lives matter. Make America Great Again.
Once upon a time there was a private enterprise called Central Vermont Public Service. They sell electricity. However, in order to protect consumers, the market must be regulated by the government, otherwise.....this happens....Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
First, some explanation. CVPS must get it's prices approved by the government. And this example illustrates why. Basically they add up all the capital the company has invested in it's infrastructure to deliver electricity. Then they apply a competitive market rate of return. That amount of dollars is divided by the amount of KW hours they plan to sell and voila....there is your price for electricity.
As you can see, there is a profit-motive to invest capital. Therefore, the managers at CVPS are incentivized through a bonus program that requires them to spend their entire budget. Saving costs is discouraged.
Here's the result....
Let's say you're a project manager charged with building some electrical doo-hickey somewhere in Vermont. You check it out and find that you need a permit from the town in order to construct a building to house your little doo-hickey. Except before you get a permit, you need to submit an environmental impact study. And then you have to get your plan approved by the board of selectman which meets infrequently. So all in all....the red tape you have to navigate means you might get to break ground on your new project in 14 months.
But you were charged with spending your whole budget this year. Otherwise you are considered a failure at your job.
What do you do?
you go into future years and you pull projects that aren't due yet, into the current year so you have something to spend money on. Now those telephone polls that aren't due to be replaced for another five years, get replaced today.
The result, is that CVPS increases it's capital investment, thus increasing the amount of money they require from the public, in order to generate the same return on investment.
So CVPS got busted doing this, and the VT gov't said "WHOA, you can't do that! Your'e charging people for shit they don't need yet!"
So then the gov't basically disqualified huge chunks of capital investment for the purposes of a rate calculation. This left CVPS with terrible cash flow and their bond rating plummetted to 'junk' status overnight.
So then the CVPS shareholders are like....."why the fuck am I doing this?? I could just invest my capital in a mutual fund and make more money with a fraction of the risk"
What's stopping them from pulling out and leaving Vermont in the dark?
It's hard not to imagine this same model would apply to privatized education. the investors in the school-business are going to expect a return on their investment that is competitive with other similar investments, and makes it worth the risk. How do you prevent this from being excessive? How do you prevent a school from adding extraneous amenities like yoga studios and and seaweed buffets in order to drive up capital investment, and therefore increase revenue without actually providing better education?
You can say "the market" but that's not true. If the market rejects that school, and it fails, then what happens??
in the case of the failing CVPS and a failed private school, the government would have to intervene, or at least make concessions in order to help the business stay afloat. And if that's the case, why doesn't the government just run it in the first place??
If you're going to have the goverenment subsidize the risks of private businesses, then those businesses are not taking any risk. And if there is 0 risk, what kind of return should they expect? NONE in my opinion.
If they are making a return, it's because the government put their thumb on the scale. And I have a problem with a private enterprise making profits only by way of the government subsidizing their risk. that's essentially the government picking winners and losers among private businesses.
So in these instances, it's probably better if the government just handles it themselves.
The police as an institution has quite little to do with the individuals who make up the police force.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
I know I asked, and thanks for responding. I'm burned out on this so I don't think I have much to respond with. I'll say these two things.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
That scenario isn't market failure. And an elimination of the profit incentive is effectively equivalent to elimination of the good/service itself. It sounds nice to have the government step into markets and eliminate the profit incentive, but it doesn't work. It only appears to work for a period of time and because it's being subsidized by something else.
You asked for a market-wide failure. If you're contending that it's not market-wide because it doesn't affect people who live without electricity, then I think I have to shake my head and walk away. Can you clarify?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Right. So what happens if a school becomes unprofitable? What will it's shareholders do with their investment instead?Quote:
And an elimination of the profit incentive is effectively equivalent to elimination of the good/service itself.
It's certainly plausible. Let's say a school does a massive expansion/remodel with the intention of attracting a larger student body and generating more revenue. Now let's say people don't change to that school enough to cover the additional overhead and the school starts losing money. Why would that school stay in business?
What happens to the students when it shuts down?
This is not what I'm talking about happening. What I'm talking about is the government stepping into markets and eliminating risk. When the government subsidizes risk, you create a situation where the business is actually encouraged to take higher risks, seeking higher returns, but never feeling exposed because the government has your parachute ready. This is bad for consumers. It means businesses, in this case the very business that controls education, and thus your entitlement to fair access to the market place, is able to take on new risks with impunity.Quote:
It sounds nice to have the government step into markets and eliminate the profit incentive, but it doesn't work
Bottom line. If you're going to privatize education, then you must either
A) have the government subsidize the risk. Essentially declaring schools "too big to fail". This is bad.
B) accept the risk that a school, or district, might fail and essentially leave those citizens without access to education. This is also bad.
Honestly wuf, if you're going to advocate to privatize anything, even if it works, the final resolution is probably going to be some slow, complicated, unweildy monster made up of a hybrid of private business and government. Why bother??? Wouldn't your efforts be better spent using the political tools at your disposal in order to drive effective management of education by the government?
If you're just gonna say "government sucks at everything, so why bother trying to fix it", then you're guilty of the same cynicism that drives black youths to drop out of high school.
One firm collapsing at one point in time is not a market failure. A market failure would be if those people in Vermont had an electricity market in which government didn't intervene and the private sector also didn't find a solution, both within reasonable time.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Note that we should be saying "free market" in this case instead of "market". But we're generally using "market" to mean "free market" so let's leave it as is. That's normal.
Use your imagination. Markets correct for this sort of shit constantly in all sorts of other markets.Quote:
Right. So what happens if a school becomes unprofitable? What will it's shareholders do with their investment instead?
It's certainly plausible. Let's say a school does a massive expansion/remodel with the intention of attracting a larger student body and generating more revenue. Now let's say people don't change to that school enough to cover the additional overhead and the school starts losing money. Why would that school stay in business?
What happens to the students when it shuts down?
Two things: (1) this has the frequent effect of creating other risk. The concept is called moral hazard. (2) The risk has a cost, so the cost of the attempt to eliminate it should be balanced with that cost. Government tends to adjust for this risk/cost dynamic less well than the private sector. We end up with a situation where a specific risk is eliminated at a higher cost than the people affected value it.Quote:
This is not what I'm talking about happening. What I'm talking about is the government stepping into markets and eliminating risk.
The first part is correct and shines of the moral hazard issue. I'm confused on how you go from there to the second part. In a free market, the government isn't subsidizing risk nor do businesses control education. Consumers control it more than anything in that case. There is not taking on of risk with impunity in the marketplace free from government intervention. It's the intervention that causes the impunity.Quote:
When the government subsidizes risk, you create a situation where the business is actually encouraged to take higher risks, seeking higher returns, but never feeling exposed because the government has your parachute ready. This is bad for consumers. It means businesses, in this case the very business that controls education, and thus your entitlement to fair access to the market place, is able to take on new risks with impunity.
It's awful and it's not free market capitalism. It's crony capitalism.Quote:
Bottom line. If you're going to privatize education, then you must either
A) have the government subsidize the risk. Essentially declaring schools "too big to fail". This is bad.
This is a screenshot. Economics discusses what happens over more than a screenshot. In the situation you described, the incentive for others to fill the gap increases. But that's still not the right way to look at it because there are millions of moving parts. We see the millions of moving parts in action in other markets, where firms fail all the damn time yet quality and quantity of goods/services keep increasing.Quote:
B) accept the risk that a school, or district, might fail and essentially leave those citizens without access to education. This is also bad.
The reason for not focusing on better management by government is because by nature it is not possible (over time, on average, in aggregation). That is, unless you can show in theory that the government has an information advantage over the private sector. To be more specific, a government education system simply cannot undergo the same level of trial and error to progress that a private system can. I want to put my efforts where they matter.Quote:
Honestly wuf, if you're going to advocate to privatize anything, even if it works, the final resolution is probably going to be some slow, complicated, unweildy monster made up of a hybrid of private business and government. Why bother??? Wouldn't your efforts be better spent using the political tools at your disposal in order to drive effective management of education by the government?
I don't say that. I say government sucks relative to the private sector because it does not have as robust structural incentives regarding bettering peoples' lives as the private sector does.Quote:
If you're just gonna say "government sucks at everything, so why bother trying to fix it", then you're guilty of the same cynicism that drives black youths to drop out of high school.
One thing to clarify. Decentralizing, localizing government does have a positive effect on its ability to progress and benefit it constituents. It could be the case that a sufficiently small government that has a sufficiently small and local constituency with sufficient enough interaction between the government and the community could function as well as the private sector.
We used to have that. Not anymore. Power creep took care of that.
The same thing that happens now: It gets shut down.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
The question is in a market why would a school become unprofitable?Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Because its consumers don't value its service as much as the next best option. What arises from that? The next best option.
This is the process of markets. It's how we went from having zero restaurants to having so many that you haven't even been to them all in a given area. It's how we went from clothes being knitted by Grandma to having great variety of choice in aesthetic and cost for clothing. The same can work for schools if we let it.
Bannon goes down!
More to come.
"Sneaky Diane"
Nice
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018...ocahontas.html
Are you guys here old enough to remember "Garbage Pail Kids"??
I'm gonna start a fake news rumor right now that says Trump isn't thinking of these names himself. While moving into the white house, he came across a box of Don Jr's old GPK cards.
Missing his best tho: Dopey Mark Cuban.
Bernie's too much of a fucking cuck for that picture to be believable.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Oh yeah, try this....Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
http://beckett-www.s3.amazonaws.com/...ie-Sanders.jpg
That's much better.
I still don't see how that's a compelling reason for segregation. You said yourself that an absentee father is a greater indicator on a persons outlook in life than any other factors. If that's true, why would you advocate segregation based on another trait that loosely correlates with that trait? Wouldn't it be more effective to segregate based on family composition? Or let's say you want to reduce violence in a certain area. The vast majority of crimes are committed by people carrying a Y chromosome, so why not deport those people? I can see there could be some legitimate objections to gender or mutation based segregation, but there are also a number of behavioral phenotypes that are more indicative of a persons outlook in life than the phenotype related to melanin. Segregating based on those would be much more effective than segregation based on ethnicity.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
None of what you wrote has anything to do with why black people are less likely to grow up with a father (the question I was answering), and none of what I wrote has anything to do with segregation (the topic of your latest incoherent rant). I have no idea why you do this.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
We started off talking about ethno nationalism or whatever the kids call it these days and you keep dodging the subject and now the subject is so thoroughly dodged that you yourself forgot what we were talking about.
You have conversations like old people fuck.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
You have the ability to focus on talking points akin to the late great Marty Feldman.
We were talking about education. At no point were we talking about segregation, and you seemed like you wanted me to defend a pro-segregation stance that I've not stated a preference for.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Only first sentence relevant, but didn't want to quote out of context.
I don't think you can "allow" people to have their own homeland without displacing other people, unless you want to find a nice patch of jungle and recreate your own Jonestown. Even if you could I don't think ethnicity or culture is a good deciding factor on who goes where, and ultimately I think it's unethical in any practical application that has a chance of working - urban gentrification is not what I would expect to ever yield results that would satisfy the condition of "people having their own homeland"Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Sessions is going after Obama: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018...ll-report.html
Cool. Who cares?Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Wut? Certainly not me. I thought you had "reasonable arguments" to support the idea that people should have their own private "homeland"
Finally some real drama. That's some Clinton level shit if true.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...aundering.html
Israel is a good example.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
lol
Protip: when Trump tweets something that could be true, it means he already knows it's true. He has done this so many times already.
What's the new one?
"“House votes on controversial FISA ACT today.” This is the act that may have been used, with the help of the discredited and phony Dossier, to so badly surveil and abuse the Trump Campaign by the previous administration and others?"
If Jonathan Langdale was still tweeting, he would be freaking out right about now. He always said that protecting FISA might be the one reason that Trump/Sessions/Mueller wouldn't indict members in the previous administration that could go high enough to include Obama. Well, Trump now has confirmed that he'll cut down even the most beloved of state power to get criminals. Good news.
looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooolQuote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Fact: 100% of illegal immigrants are criminals.
Trump attacks protections for immigrants from ‘shithole’ countries
https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.8db9eab87702
rofl
Well, obviously all you need to ask to find out if someone will be a productive member of society is whether or not their neighbors are productive. We should have thought of this sooner. It's not like there are any individuals outside of the good ol' USA.
I'd say with >80% certainty that the quote is fake news.
80% is probably quite low too. This isn't the kind of thing somebody like Trump is likely to say or believe, but it IS the kind of fake news that is The Washington Compost's bread and butter.
On that, being somebody who succeeds in a shithole probably signals even greater talent than being somebody who succeeds in a well-off place. Whether or not that is true can depend on lots of different variables, but it gets at the idea that a way to spot the most skilled people is to spot those who have had more to overcome. A blanket rejection from "shithole countries" could be a stupid idea because of this.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
I got so excited when I read that, because I want to hear how Scott Adams spins this to fit his narrative. If he pulls it off, that will be some cirque du soleil level shit.
This is not the type of thing Adams discusses.
https://i.redd.it/jao932383k901.png
Can ya spot the reason the people who brief the media on what happened behind closed doors said Trump said shitholes?
Go back to your shithole
nm
Grab her by the shithole
Whether a previous office holder is guilty or not, using the power of the state to go after political rivals sets a precedent that incentivizes our current and any future presidents to cling to power.
I think the pro-Trumpers have some legit grievances, but I also think there are some legit reasons why the causes of those grievances happen. I think we all take the stability of our society for granted a bit too much-- you start cutting out pillars like this, one at a time, because they individually don't make sense or seem vile, and well, down comes the house.
That is an issue. It could be part of why Trump and Sessions are nowhere near anything regarding investigation of Trump's rivals. It takes somebody like Mueller to do so with credibility. Also there's a thought that Trump would or should pardon them if it ever comes to that. That could in part be due to wanting to keep the system stable.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
There are definitely unintended consequences for prosecuting criminals with enough power. There are also unintended consequences for not doing it.
If people know they can commit major league crimes and not be investigated, charged or convicted, then they have no incentive to obey the law.
Who the fuck is scott adamsQuote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Most people don't care what the laws are.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
It's not like people are all walking around not being thieves and murderers because of laws.
It's not like laws against thieving and murder have done much if anything to eliminate thievery and murder.
He's a breakthrough scientist who has discovered that you don't need any facts or numbers when you have your feelings and your anecdotes. He forms the holy trinity of the enlightened with Stephen Molyneux and Ben Shapiro. Together they lead their disciples on /pol into a brave new era where white people will no longer be genocided, where trans people and minorities will no longer oppress the white race and to a reality where Donald Trump is by no means a babbling retard, but very possibly the smartest man on earth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
Ah, I see. One-part of The Right Jesus. Didn't know thatQuote:
Originally Posted by oskar
lolQuote:
Originally Posted by oskar
A serious question: what evidence is there that suggests Trump is smart?
A theologian might be better equipped to answer this. The easiest one is to presuppose the condition you're trying to prove. Let's say Trump literally shits on the floor in the oval office. The act of shitting on the floor in the oval office has no obvious benefit, but it does have some consequences like: every media outlet is going to talk about it. So obviously, since trump is a maximally smart being, the reason he shat on the floor was to bring attention to him shitting on the floor. Why would you cause attention on that scale for no obvious benefit? To divert attention from all the other cool stuff he's doing of course!
Conclusion: Trump is a master manipulator.
This is very much mistaken. All of the relevant data suggests that the vast majority of people don't avoid doing bad things because they're inherently good but because they're inherently cowards and are afraid of the legal consequences of committing crimes if they get caught.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
You have some Pollyanna tendencies as it is, so I think it's natural for you to assume this, but it's just (unfortunately) not the case.
Perhaps unrelated to below: Trump won 2,654 out of 3,141 (84.5%) counties in the United States against Hillary Clinton according to official numbers.
That he beat the most prolific politician of our time who hasn't been president on his first serious try of running counts for something, but the American people didn't choose Trump because of how smart they thought he was. They chose him because he was the best candidate.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
https://i.imgur.com/mLZmCCQ.jpg
Shithole