Government shutdown

@kazetnagorra said
You shouldn't design policy based on stereotypes and wishful thinking, but based on what is proven effective policy judging by empirical evidence. Really, you should try a bit harder to justify why measures that have been shown to be effective elsewhere would not work in the U.S. than a mere "that's jus' the way it is."

It's not wishful thinking or stereotype to suggest that competitive forces virtually always increase quality. There is plenty of empirical evidence for that in virtual every sphere of human endeavor.

@zahlanzi said

How long until you realize education cannot function in a free market? If we treat Harvard as a company, it has a limited amount of product to sell. It doesn't care if poor people can afford it since it can find enough rich people that do afford it.

You, however, as a citizen, should care. You should care that a talented and intelligent young person doesn't get to be an engineer or a doctor and instead wastes their potential on an assembly line job or worse, in jail.

Of course education can function as a free market. There is no theoretical reason it could not and nothing about the service of providing education that even remotely suggests a so-called "natural" monopoly like public utilities or justice or defense. And when it comes to utilities, even those services improve with competition.

@zahlanzi said
I have trouble arguing over this post since it's filled to the brim with worthless fortune cookie platitudes.

Iron competitive discipline of impersonal market forces? Wtf are you talking about? 99% of americans don't engage in the market, they only suffer the results. They go to work, they get a paycheck. That's it. All people do the same all over the world, the differen ...[text shortened]... college if he would refuse a government sponsored free college because "that's how communism starts"

99% of americans don't engage in the market, they only suffer the results. They go to work, they get a paycheck.

If you work and get a paycheck you are engaged in "the market".

@lemon-lime said

99% of americans don't engage in the market, they only suffer the results. They go to work, they get a paycheck.

If you work and get a paycheck you are engaged in "the market".

In the same way people in a theater audience are "acting".

@spruce112358 said
Of course education can function as a free market. There is no theoretical reason it could not and nothing about the service of providing education that even remotely suggests a so-called "natural" monopoly like public utilities or justice or defense. And when it comes to utilities, even those services improve with competition.

"Of course education can function as a free market. There is no theoretical reason it could not"
I just told you a reason why. Where you not paying attention or is it too hard for you to counter it? Should i repeat it?

A company selling a product does so with the aim of making a profit. There is absolutely nothing compelling them to make their product affordable to everyone if they can make the same profit selling for a high price to fewer people. This is obvious when you realize there are no 100$ yachts on the market yet the yacht industry is doing just fine.

If you allow education to function by free market rules, you will inevitably have some people who will not be able to afford education. Do you accept that? Do you accept that a person who is capable and willing to become a certain professional will be barred from doing so simply because of the circumstances of one's birth? How is one born free if from birth it is decided some roads are closed to them because of being poor. Or in the worse case, that his road in life ends abruptly because of a lack of health insurance (which i am assuming is another thing you think "the government shouldn't be in the business of"😉

"And when it comes to utilities, even those services improve with competition."
Nobody stops you from hiring a bodyguard in addition to the police security everyone has. Nobody stops you from going to the best possible hospital your money can buy if you get sick. A society should offer these entitlements by default to every one of its citizens at the highest level it possibly can. Or are you saying the american society is incapable of educating and curing americans below a certain income line?

@zahlanzi said
In the same way people in a theater audience are "acting".

If people in a theater audience are paid to be there, it can't be a very good show.

@spruce112358 said
It's not wishful thinking or stereotype to suggest that competitive forces virtually always increase quality. There is plenty of empirical evidence for that in virtual every sphere of human endeavor.

There isn't a lot of evidence that it is effective in the case of certain goods and services - particularly those that involve long-term goals and externalities. Again, for a market to work effectively you need to build in financial incentives on the short term that tie to results that come on the long term. It's just not that straightforward as "let the market figure it out."

@kazetnagorra said
What I find surprising about this whole shutdown-every-other-minute business is that apparently no one seems to think that it would be a good idea to, I don't know, not have them anymore? I'm pretty sure the last one they had here was in 1945. Even in freaking Belgium when they had a caretaker government for a year they had no "government shutdown" or anything like it.

If the Trump only knew as much of running a government as most primary school students.

“We told the president we needed the government open,” Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader, told reporters outside the White House. “He resisted. In fact, he said he’d keep the government closed for a very long period of time, months or even years.”

(my highlight)

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/04/us/politics/democrats-trump-meeting-government-shutdown.html

The Trump is obviously ignorant of the effects of a government shut down.

Apparently, he also only know the gunslinger variant of negotiation. There's a reason most experienced negotiators don't use this form in negotiation situations that are more than just a one-off.

@spruce112358 said
It's not wishful thinking or stereotype to suggest that competitive forces virtually always increase quality. There is plenty of empirical evidence for that in virtual every sphere of human endeavor.

Market systems allocate resources based on existing patterns of wealth. When there was no public education the result was that the wealthy got really good education and the masses generally got little or no education. Of course, this tended to worsen existing inequalities and retard the development of a prosperous middle class without which our modern economy would be impossible.

The worst thing about public education in the United States pre-university is that funding for it is largely derived from local property taxes which leads to vast inequality in schools with many being substandard and inferior because of low funding levels. And, of course, the failure of our market based systems to alleviate the existence of poverty and deprivation in the same areas also worsens the environment which kids in such areas have to struggle through.

And as KN points out, education is an externality which has benefits beyond those accruing to the economic actors participating in it:

A positive externality is something that enhances society as a whole. It results from an economic transaction that has positive external effects on others not party to the transaction.

One example of a positive externality is the market for education. The more education a person receives, the greater the social benefit since more educated people tend to be more enterprising, meaning they bring greater economic value to their community.[2]

Effect of Education on the Market

Figure 1. The effect of higher education on society.[3]
The social benefit (SD) of obtaining higher education is greater than that of the private benefit (D). Because individuals do not factor in the social benefit, they are only interested in the private benefit and therefore they purchase a level of education which is not socially optimal.

https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Positive_externality

@kazetnagorra said
There isn't a lot of evidence that it is effective in the case of certain goods and services - particularly those that involve long-term goals and externalities. Again, for a market to work effectively you need to build in financial incentives on the short term that tie to results that come on the long term. It's just not that straightforward as "let the market figure it out."

Uh huh. See, the thing is - my solution encompasses yours as follows: I've only proposed, so far, to let parents choose their school and direct their tax revenue that direction. You say, no, the Finnish system is best, we need to implement that.

Fine. With my solution, if it really is true about Finland, then charter "Finnish system" schools will open in the US and parents will flock to them because they believe the evidence that they are really good. They won't be saddled with the problem of "I'm already paying for the public school I hate, but I really want my kids over there. OK, I guess I pay double." Public schools using the old system will shrink and find they have to do something different - or they are unable to compete and will close down.

That's how dynamic the market forces are. Everybody wins - except the government education monopoly. Of course current public administrators hate this idea, and work as hard as they can to avoid it. That's normal - it's a very human reaction not to want to lose control. But the reason is definitely NOT the customer's interest.

As for externalities and creating "public good" - well, trying to do that is how we got here - with high costs and questionable quality.

@spruce112358 said
Uh huh. See, the thing is - my solution encompasses yours as follows: I've only proposed, so far, to let parents choose their school and direct their tax revenue that direction. You say, no, the Finnish system is best, we need to implement that.

Fine. With my solution, if it really is true about Finland, then charter "Finnish system" schools will open in the US and pa ...[text shortened]... ublic good" - well, trying to do that is how we got here - with high costs and questionable quality.

But choosing a school has nothing to do with how they are funded. I went to a public school and there was no restriction whatsoever with respect to what school. And yes, that system does lead to crappy schools closing because no one sends their kids there. But it has nothing to do with private or public funding. What it means is, as no1 pointed out, you need to get rid of this system of funding schools locally using property taxes. Give people real choice, and let the failing "inner city schools" close.

I don't understand what you mean by your comment about externalities.

@no1marauder said
Market systems allocate resources based on existing patterns of wealth. When there was no public education the result was that the wealthy got really good education and the masses generally got little or no education. Of course, this tended to worsen existing inequalities and retard the development of a prosperous middle class without which our modern economy would be im ...[text shortened]... ation which is not socially optimal.

https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Positive_externality

Hey no1m! It's great to "see" you again!

I think technology has dropped the cost of education by a lot compared to back in the day. So even if there was a public good argument back then, it has to be a lot weaker now.

Does the positive externality calculation you are referring to take into account more rapid innovations/improvements in a competitive system?

@kazetnagorra said
But choosing a school has nothing to do with how they are funded. I went to a public school and there was no restriction whatsoever with respect to what school. And yes, that system does lead to crappy schools closing because no one sends their kids there. But it has nothing to do with private or public funding. What it means is, as no1 pointed out, you need to get rid o ...[text shortened]... "inner city schools" close.

I don't understand what you mean by your comment about externalities.

As I said, I'm leaving the funding model alone for the moment. Just adding choice - a lot of the US does not have that at the moment. I haven't sent my kids to public school much - but the few times I did, I always had to petition to change their school, and it was rarely accepted.

Sounds like we largely agree, then.

@spruce112358 said
Of course education can function as a free market. There is no theoretical reason it could not

Really?

How will employers know what skills applicants
have unless there is some uniformity to qualifications?
Both in terms of breadth of study and depth.

How will parents know a school is any good? You only
get one chance at education, it isn't a washing machine
that the consumer can say of "I'll never buy one of those again".

How will teachers be trained?
What code of conduct will teachers adhere to?
What schools will accept less able pupils?

Absolute nonsense to think that education
can be a commodity left to a free market.