What will little Johnny learn in school?
When you were handed a textbook in school, did you ever question what made it in- and what didn’t? Probably not. Did your parents look it over to see if it was giving you the correct version of history? Math? Or even biology? Could your teacher substitute a different book?
All of these ideas are not something most of us think about- even our educators don’t get much of a say. In a strange twist of geography and demographics coupled with national perceptions of California being a little too out there- most of the decisions on what goes into your text books comes from one state, the same one that gave us George W. Bush: Texas
The state’s $22 billion education fund is among the largest educational endowments in the country. Texas uses some of that money to buy or distribute a staggering 48 million textbooks annually — which rather strongly inclines educational publishers to tailor their products to fit the standards dictated by the Lone Star State. California is the largest textbook market, but besides being bankrupt, it tends to be so specific about what kinds of information its students should learn that few other states follow its lead. Texas, on the other hand, was one of the first states to adopt statewide curriculum guidelines, back in 1998, and the guidelines it came up with (which are referred to as TEKS — pronounced “teaks” — for Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills) were clear, broad and inclusive enough that many other states used them as a model in devising their own. And while technology is changing things, textbooks — printed or online —are still the backbone of education.
In fact, 15 lay people who are elected to the Texas State board of education somehow get to set the standards for most of the county. You really need to read the entire NYT article to understand how borked this whole process is.
If you think that’s whacked, you should enjoy today’s Dayton Grassroots Daily Show: (note: Greg did the titles- and misspelled “Ohioans”- or maybe it’s just a Texas drawl slipping in…
When I was in high school, 1941-1945, we were in the midst of a war. Everything was rationed. We had to return our used toothpaste tubes to where we bought them. We had blue points for some things and red points for others. Meat took red points, unless you were willing to eat chicken innards. Unless our parents were doctors or ministers, the family car (if any) had an “A” sticker, for about a gallon of gas a week. [Andy Hardy’s car had a “C” sticker because Andy’s father was a judge. Why did judges, who did not need to travel get more gas than other people?]
Despite this, we got new textbooks every year in things like physics (as if they had updated Boyle’s law or the laws of gravity). Our history textbooks (in which we never got as up to date as Word War I) had all that jazz about the New Deal, but we never got to that. I wondered then why all this was necessary and why textbooks weren’t rationed.
David’s Dad:
Good point; from your experience in the ’40s to Feynman’s experience in the ’60s, to the silliness discussed on the Grassroots Daily show today, not much has changed about the textbook racket.
For so many of the things we need to teach kids, the material hasn’t changed in decades (or centuries), that’s why I like the idea of Open textbooks, or MIT’s Open Courseware, a lot of the basics really are a commodity, so the price should be close to free.
Greg and David on the school board? Common guys DPS are already messed up enough…
By the way – I’ve talked about e-textbooks before on this site- but this is probably the most relevant post: http://esrati.com/e-book-textbooks-are-being-tried-in-the-wrong-places/700/
Publicly funded schools = publicly wasted dollars. There is probably a competitive environment out there for delivering better education at better prices.
“There is probably a competitive environment out there for delivering better education at better prices.”
That would be the general concept behind the charter school movement. The result has been a system that performs, at best, no better than current public schools and that dominates the state auditors list of public funds improperly spent.
@Robert Vigh: Getting rid of public schools means that education will become a profit-driven commodity. If that happens, then school administrators would determine what to teach children based on what is most profitable to teach them rather than what is most useful, ethical/moral or even most truthful to teach them. If it became more profitable to teach students that the Earth is 6000 years old rather than to teach them that it is several billions years old, you can be sure that the schools would teach that rather than run the risk of being less competitive, losing market share and having a harder time securing the loans required to remain in business.
This is not a system I’d like to see ever happen. In my opinion, the above situation is exactly what is wrong with our news media, that it has become more important to put out profitable news rather than truthful or informative news.
@David, Greg: Nice show! It reminds me of a bit on the Daily Show where, in criticizing the New York Time’s print section as obsolete, the Daily Show correspondent pointed out that what-is-commonly-called “Today’s” newspaper has no articles regarding what has occurred today.
Additionally, I agree that I’d prefer to see more of the Founding Fathers’ version of Christianity, the Age Of Reason, God-As-Clockmaker, focus-on-science-to-better-understand-and-appreciate-God’s-creation version of Christianity. I’m tired of the fundamentalist and authoritarian (as in, explicitly trust and never question authority, whether it’s God, clergyman, lawman or newsman as they know what’s best for you) never-question-the-Bible version of Christianity which the Religious Right and Christian Coalition has made popular.
Thank you both for setting a good example through your own actions of speaking out and questioning. We need more people like you two, and hopefully your actions help us get more people just like you two.
I have no intention of getting deep into it. But:
@Joe: Where do Charter schools get most of their money? The government correct. So, we created a competitive market for government money which is not a competitive market.
@Zak: Teaching what is useful? They would teach what their consumers wanted them to teach or they would not receive their consumers dollars. The inverse of your statement is that you think we need the state to teach us morality. From your own words: (as in, explicitly trust and never question authority, whether it’s God, clergyman, lawman or newsman as they know what’s best for you). This is the same with schools.
I Thank God everyday that my parents were not my educational instructors. Look, books should not change that much, but face it school should be hard because frankly life is hard so get used to it. We live in Bizarro world where no one is accountable, but I do not like that world and I am delusioned by it. I like public education and so did the Founders but it has seriously eroded and I guess I am lucky for that because the stuff they are producing today cannot seem to reason through anything. ADHD on everything so they bounce around like a pinball on all subjects. Easy to pick off when push comes to shove. In the meantime, MUCH LOVE!
So you’re saying the governments shouldn’t fund schools?
Joe, why are you surprised? Robert has said on esrati.com that the government shouldn’t fund streets.
Now I will agree that governments should not fund roads, but should fund schools. Look at the developers and developer dollars that pervade the suburban electorate and then you will connect the dots.
@Robert: You said, “They would teach what their consumers wanted them to teach or they would not receive their consumers dollars.” Is that what you see in the economy these days, that producers are producing what the consumer desires that they produce, or what the investors desire that they produce? Because, if it was what the consumer desired, then we would see quality improve and prices go down as a result of increased productivity and decreased production costs. However, even as technology allows one person to do more and more work (just between 2007 and 2008, increases in efficiency allowed 4 people to do the work of 5) and as production costs go down due to the use of cheaper workforces in foreign countries, we’re still seeing product quality degrade while prices go up. Why is this? Is it because the producers are answering consumer demands? That doesn’t match the facts. And yet these same producers continue to receive consumer dollars, whether it’s for increasingly unreliable cars, increasingly less nutritious foods, or in any other market that you can imagine. Why do you imagine for-profit education would be different? Also, your knowledge of inverses is incorrect. When I say that profit-motivated schools will not focus on ethics/morality, I do not imply that non-profit-motivated schools will. That is a false inverse. The true inverse would be that schools that do focus on ethics/morality are schools that are not profit-motivated. I could break this down into mathematical language consistent with college-level Philosophy Of Logic courses, but I don’t think you’d be interested. Please ask if this assumption is incorrect and I’ll break it down the inverse mathematically. @Greg Hunter: I am not certain I agree with your assessment of the Founding Fathers’ view on public education. While all of them would agree with Thomas Jefferson’s statement that a democracy depends on an informed electorate, some of them believed that an informed electorate (and thus democracy) were impossible ideals and as such saw public education was a pointless endeavor. Their lack of faith in the people for self-governance was shown… Read more »
Zack Gillman
Yes; that’s what I see (which has about the same support / efficacy as your argument, but many fewer words).
Because at the college and post-graduate level we already have many ‘for-profit’ educational institutions that are among the best in the world.
Translation: I have taken an intro philosophy of logic course and feel the need to show off, but instead of doing it on my own blog, I’ll use David’s instead.
Somewhat related story in the NYT:
How well were those kids served by that publicly funded education? Do you think a competitive marketplace might have been more agile and responsive to serving their needs? I think publicly funded schools make sense if only because of the public good they provide in cutting down on the roving bands of child scofflaws.
Zak (sorry about misspelling your name above) said:
That’s from a Dr. Dre song right? I know I’ve got that album around here somewhere…
Then neither of you get what you want.
Maybe you should realize many consumers are happy with many of the things they consume. And just saying that if it were cheaper AND of better quality is bullshit. Companies have to make money or guess what? You get ZERO choice to begin with.
Take any consumable good. There is “GOOD ENOUGH” economic factor in our economy. Sure, it could be cheaper or of better quality, but generally not both.
Investors don’t say “let’s push apples on these dumb people….” Fellas, there is a market for apples, they are known as apple eaters (in any form.) Could they be cheaper? Sure. But then they may go out of business. Could they be of better quality? Sure, but then they may be out of business.
Investors say “how can we get more people to eat apples, how do we get current apple eaters to eat more ” BC if it was your case, why don’t people push shit sandwichs, those are cheap and some people produce top quality shit. Oh, that is right, there is NO MARKET FOR SHIT SANDWICHES. Not every little last product is meant to be “perfect,” rather “good enough” to most consumers.
McDonald’s proves you wrong, Gene. There is a market for those sandwiches.
haha bill. same could be said about someones pizza…… but not yours of course. Bill has never had McDonalds….. ok, once. and it was shit-ville.
@jstults:
Hmmm, perhaps there is some truth there…
I do not recall arguing against a competitive marketplace of both public and private education. In fact, I was attempting to be very careful in not criticizing religious schools (which are not publicly funded and yet do not have profit as their overriding motive), as they are an example of private education which does a fine job. Additionally, I would imagine that some private charter and vocational schools do fine jobs, though I know little about them.
I do recall arguing against the idea that, as Mr. Vigh put it, “Publicly funded schools = publicly wasted dollars.” Unfortunately, I took his idea as if he had said that all public schools should be closed, which he did not say (but may have meant), and took his comment about a “competitive environment” as one that completely lacks a public component. Instead of defending public education, I attacked the idea of profit-driven education and went off topic into some unrelated anti-corporate rant.
I apologize for my poor skills at stringing together an argument. I think I’m going to sit back and watch a bit.
@Gene:
I would consider a Creationist-based science class as the educational equivalent of shit sandwiches, and there very much is a market for that. As such, are you certain there’s no market for shit sandwiches?
You were making the point that “investors” tell/make “consumers” buy their products and/or services. That is simply not the case. Investors invest in what people “want.” The “want” is the “market,” and if there is a “market” for any one idea or product or service then people invest.
You missed my point entirely. Private schools “teach” what their consumers want. You were saying otherwise…… Certainly investors, owners and management of any business have ideas to produce more sales, but you were saying that investors could produce “shit” and we would be forced to accept that, as if there are no alternatives. There is a market for “for profit education” so investors invest towards that market. Robert is right, you Zak are wrong, unless I am reading you statement wrong.
No, people don’t buy shit sandwichs so no one trys to sell them. Even McDonalds. But once a shit sandwich was wanted by a lot of people then BOOM, McShit Burger could start and investors would follow. Not the other way around.
Zak:
Why? No one here has all the answers (or the arguments) down pat (even if the graphic sandwich analogies are pretty impressive). The mere fact that you have taken a course on logic (while the rest of us are busily searching wikipedia), and you don’t seem to type in ALL CAPS (just kidding Gene) means you probably have something worthwhile to add.
This isn’t any fun, and no one learns anything if everyone just lurks, bring it on! On the Internet, nobody knows you’re a dog.
I DO IT – bc I know it REALLY makes PEOPLE mad. KiNd Of LiKe NoT uSinG SpEllLL CHeCK.
These little pleasures in life are what keeps me going….
Ok, the sandwich was a bad idea. The point is “private” schools could teach anything so long as there is a market for such learning. If people hated the teachings then no one would attend, then bye bye school. Investors can dictate this and that, but if there is no market then it won’t be taught. McDonalds investors could all get together and say “hey, egg shells are cheap. Practically FREE. Put that between two slices of bread and sell (force) our customers to buy it…” It does not work that way. The consumer would shy away from an eggshell sandwich and a shit sandwich. Some consumers like faith based education. Others don’t. Investors are not “forcing” anything down throats. People eat up the “creationist” view bc that is what they want. If they did not want it (ie those yummy sanwiches) then the “creationist” teachings would not exist. Can’t rape the willing….
Zak, for pure puzzle like amusement, I thought I would give this inverse thing a shot:
Using your original assertion: Getting rid of public schools means that education will become a profit-driven commodity. If that happens, then school administrators would determine what to teach children based on what is most profitable to teach them rather than what is most useful, ethical/moral or even most truthful to teach them.
Rob’s inverse: The inverse of your statement is that you think we need the state to teach us morality
Zak’s corrected inverse: The true inverse would be that schools that do focus on ethics/morality are schools that are not profit-motivated.
Symbolic logic and debate differentiates here some, because I am going to enter assumptions that you may not have accounted for.
Assumption #1: Non-profiting private schools cease to exist.
Assumption #2: In order for a non-profiting school to exist, it requires government subsidy, what I will call “public” moving forward.
Assumption #3: That which is profitable, is not always moral.
In your assertion you state: If education becomes a profit driven commodity then education will be based on profits, not on morality.
From your assertion, I ascertained that profit driven schools will not focus on morality. Therefore, the only schools that could focus on morality are non-profiting schools. Since only public schools will exist as non-profiting schools, then it will only be public schools that could focus on morality. Since it is only public schools which could focus on morality, it stands that we require the state to teach us morality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I believe my “knowledge” of inverse was used correctly.
That is my quick run through. I am sure it is soft, but it was entertaining. If you do want to knock out the symbols, please do, I would take much interest in it.
I sit here, invent the shit sandwich argument to defend Robert, and get no mention from Robert? Come one Bobby, shit sandwichs for hours and no backing me up?
@JoeL: I think education would be better served if they were not government funded.
@DL: I kept my post short and sweet, I said I did not want to get crazy deep into it. Just a quick “look at the failings of government” snipe.
@Zak: I would be content with the closure of all public schools………..or……..more realistically……..anything that began to shift the cost of education to those that were receiving the education as opposed to spreading it across everyone to various degrees based on everything except the amount of education received.
Gene,
Please accept my sincere apology. I had time to post early and late and that is all. I always enjoy your posts! I thought the advent of the GSS (Gene’s Shit Sandwich) was quite nice. But I thought you defended yourself quite nicely when you got around to your last post.
“If that happens, then school administrators would determine what to teach children based on what is mostprofitable to teach them rather than what is most useful, ethical/moral or even most truthful to teach them.” You would assume then that you are stating that publicly funded schools teach what is moral because they have no reason to teach other than what is moral or useful. Why would you assume this? How are public schools funded? The compulsion of people to fund “education” with which they do not believe or agree. Therefore, in order to ensure continued funding, public schools must teach that compulsion is good, they also teach that profit is bad. Is this moral? Is this ethical? Ever wonder why you think profit is bad and compulsion is good? You also, seemingly, do not understand your initial statement. Profitable and useful are not necessarily mutually exclusive in your statement. Therefore your statement is: Pr = P and potentially U So the inverse that you offer: “that schools that do focus on ethics/morality are schools that are not profit-motivated.” U = not P Is not correct. reality: Pu = potentially U with no chance of P and no chance of F Pr = potentially U with potential for P or F Pu = necessary compulsion because of the lack of P and no chance of F Also, “Is that what you see in the economy these days, that producers are producing what the consumer desires that they produce, or what the investors desire that they produce?” Investors want to make money. Investors make money when the companies they own provide a product or service of the quality the consumer requires for a price they are willing to pay. Consumers and investors are not enemies. They do not have competing interests. The consumer wants a product or service more than they want some other asset (money). The investor wants the other asset (money) more than they want the product or service being offered. They are mutually benefited in the interaction. Without mutual benefit they would not engage in the interaction as they are not compelled… Read more »
Wow, there’s a lot to respond to… Please forgive me if I don’t respond to all arguments or if I miss the most important point that one of you has made. @Gene: If I am understanding your “shit sandwich” argument correctly, you are saying that supply does not exist independent of demand. That, if there is not a demand for a particular product, such as shit sandwiches, then no one will supply them. This rings a bit hollow to me. There was no demand for tainted beef that has fallen on a shophouse floor, swept up with sawdust, hair and rat feces, and put in a can, and yet “potted meat” sold quite well before Sinclair Lewis’s The Jungle revealed the practice, leading to the creation of the FDA. There was no demand for “shit sandwiches,” and yet, demand for “cheaper than normal sandwiches that are good enough” was linked to an existing supply of “shit sandwiches.” (Off-topic, but for consideration: 1) Artificially creating demand is the entire purpose of advertising. If there is no demand for shit sandwiches, create demand. 2) Innovation sometimes creates a supply of something before there is a market for it, as seen with the automobile) But I’m getting further off-topic. I should relate this argument to my earlier arguments from earlier posts. Your argument, if I understood it correctly, was that people just plain won’t buy a horrible product, as there’s no demand for it. Further, if I understood correctly, that argument was meant to be a response to my anti-capitalist screed about how investors will force producers to produce an inferior product. The purpose of your argument, I infer, was to counter the idea by saying that consumers would simply not buy said inferior product and thus the producers would resist the investors’ demands. However, I’m not sure I believe that. Even if consumers are unwilling to buy the inferior product, and even if the producer knows that fact, I can’t see the producer running the risk of having that investor pull out his investment. If the investor demands a larger return-on-investment and tries to force the producer to cut costs or… Read more »
“There was no demand … and yet “potted meat” sold quite well before Sinclair Lewis’s The Jungle revealed the practice, leading to the creation of the FDA. There was no demand for “shit sandwiches,” and yet, demand for “cheaper than normal sandwiches that are good enough” was linked to an existing supply of “shit sandwiches.” The logic that no demand existed for “shit sandwiches” or “cheaper than normal sandwiches” but that people were buying them is not really even logic, it is the opposite of logic. Now you may have an argument that peoples contracts were breached if they were being advertised potted meat that didn’t contain hair, sawdust, or rat feces. That is the role of government. To enforce contracts. If businesses were engaged in defrauding customers, then the government had a role to stop that fraud and provide justice for those who were defrauded. I believe that you incorrectly infer that producers will ignore the demands of investors. The point is that investors don’t have an unlimited pool of money. If consumers do not buy the product provided by Investor A and Producer A and instead buy the product provided by Investor B and Producer B, then eventually both Investor A and Producer A will be out of business. Driving up ROI is a wonderful goal for investors. The profits gained allow 1) reinvestment (which is the basis of efficiency gains), 2) consumption (which encourages the production of end products), or 3) savings (which, in a natural state, lowers interest rates and provides opportunities for other investors to borrow the money and invest (providing gains in efficiency) or consume (encouraging production of end products). Again, it isn’t the investor vs the producer. They are, again, on the same team. Investor A wants some amount of effort or production out of Producer A more than they want some good (money). Producer A wants some amount of a good (money) more than they want that amount of effort or production. Investors and producers both gain via the interaction. There is not “class competition”. It is not Bourgeoisie vs Proletariat. It is Bourgeoisie vs Bourgeoisie and Proletariat vs Proletariat.… Read more »
Jesse:
That may be true in the narrow sense of the word ‘competition’, but in the big game, we’re all looking to maximize our profits. If a class-member can increase their profits at the expense of someone in another class then they will (rational self-interest). This might not properly be called competition, since the two different classes provide different inputs into the economy, so what would you call it? Maybe your euphemism for that process is ‘market clearing’, and someone else calls it ‘class warfare’. Maybe even thinking that you are a member of a class rather than an individual, and cooperating within the class rather than competing is a form of market distortion?
Jstults:
How can you increase your profit at the “expense” of someone else without force or coercion?
You want $5 for a thing, they want the thing more than they want $5. Then latter as demand rises, you want $7 for a thing, they want the thing more than they want $7. Are you saying that the additional $2 you are asking for the thing is at their “expense”? By that definition, the entire $7 is at their “expense”. It doesn’t evade the fact that they want the thing more than they want the $7. By that definition all trading of products and services comes only at the “expense” of someone else. You would rather people live in a society where no products or services are voluntarily exchanged?
Cooperation is fine. As long as no force or coercion is used to enforce the cooperation. Unions as organizers of “mass-quits” are fine. Unions as organizations supported by government force and coercion are not and do provide market distortions.
Jesse:
The example given above about a type of knowledge asymmetry (which you rightly called fraud) is a good one. Both parties participated willingly, but the level of knowledge about the state of things was not even.
I think we’ve gotten pretty far-afield from ‘what will johnny learn in school’ (maybe you are saying he should learn some Austrian econ?).
Jstults:
If you have any respect for me at all, please do not misconstrue my comments. I am not equating knowledge asymmetry and fraud.
Knowledge asymmetry is a reality of individuality and the nature of time. People can not know all that all other individuals know about a topic. If this were a requirement, all trade would be impossible.
Fraud has nine elements:
a representation of an existing fact;
its materiality;
its falsity;
the speaker’s knowledge of its falsity;
the speaker’s intent that it shall be acted upon by the plaintiff;
plaintiff’s ignorance of its falsity;
plaintiff’s reliance on the truth of the representation;
plaintiff’s right to rely upon it; and
consequent damages suffered by plaintiff*
I agree that we have gotten pretty far-afield from ‘what will johnny learn in school’.
I am a big fan of Johnny learning whatever Johnny, his guardians, and those voluntarily paying for the education want Johnny to learn. Most importantly, whomever is voluntarily paying for the education. Eliminate government “standards” and “public funding” and allow markets to work.
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraud
“@JoeL: I think education would be better served if they were not government funded.”
Mr. Vigh’s world of no government funded education would create a system where the 20 percent of children living in poverty would probably not have access to an education. The lowering levels of eduction would probably have many adverse consequences including reduced productivity and increased crime.
There probably are some places where we need less government but the suggestions of some less government advocates would, if implemented, make this country much more like Somalia. It’s a great place if youre a war lord or a pirate.
Their lack of faith in the people for self-governance was shown in the US Constitution’s rules preventing direct election of Senators and the President and in all State Constitutions (save Pennsylvania) denying the right to vote to anyone who did not own property. My contention is the Founders were exposed too and thought more about how good government should operate and also understood the disparity in education of the masses. They also understood the influence of money and power as well as people’s ability to focus, so I love the Electoral College and would welcome a return to this original voting scheme. Let me say that there would be no need to discuss term limits as your Congressman, Senators and Govenenors would change at a greater rate than they do know. In fact, I was attempting to be very careful in not criticizing religious schools (which are not publicly funded and yet do not have profit as their overriding motive), as they are an example of private education which does a fine job. I wonder about that as rise of these schools has seemed to coincide with the decline in science and math. I also think due to attitudes the Catholic Schools provide a “closer to public school” education than say Dayton Christian. (PS I know many intelligent DC grads but they are seriously tainted by that dogma) I would consider a Creationist-based science class as the educational equivalent of shit sandwiches, and there very much is a market for that. As such, are you certain there’s no market for shit sandwiches? Ahh, somewhat the Crux of the Argument for me as Public School is founded on expectations of performance which is a foundation for a “good citizen”. So an expectation of a level of education is beneficial to the group at large. Sorry but I agree that some things should be born as a social cost and to question education without questioning the Military expenditures or Medicare is disingenuous. If businesses were engaged in defrauding customers, then the government had a role to stop that fraud and provide justice for those… Read more »
@Greg Hunter: Holy Fillibuster man! What did that story have to do with anything? 3 retarded companies that made retarded products that consumers could live without? Of course all of them failed. You should post warnings before walls of text that big! lol
There is no motivation to financially improve schools, because whatever one school saves is simply divided amongst the remaining schools that do not. So, why not buy text books every year, every one else buys them. Yet if they were not publicly funded, consumers would appreciate the savings opportunities.
“religious schools (which are not publicly funded”
Religious schools get government funded voucher money, government funded school buses and the benefits of other government funded programs.
Greg,
Wow…that was bigger than my posts. Well done.
Who was hurt in the above interactions that weren’t involved in the situation because of their choice? In other words, who was compelled, coerced or forced to engage in behavior that led to their demise?
The Option D is that you meet the market demand at a price that individuals are willing to pay for with products that meet their expectations. How do you think this conversation is possible? Inventions and companies that create products that meet demand. Microsoft hasn’t failed. It has produced products that meet the demand at a price that consumers gladly pay.
Robert is right to say that those businesses failed because they didn’t meet demand. Robert is also right to say that there is no market motivation to improve schools. This is true in both the ability to meet demand for quality education and to provide education at acceptable costs.
@Greg,
Wow…that was bigger than my posts. Well done.
Who was hurt in the above interactions that weren’t involved in the situation because of their choice? In other words, who was compelled, coerced or forced to engage in behavior that led to their demise?
The Option D is that you meet the market demand at a price that individuals are willing to pay for with products that meet their expectations. How do you think this conversation is possible? Inventions and companies that create products that meet demand. Microsoft hasn’t failed. It has produced products that meet the demand at a price that consumers gladly pay.
Robert is right to say that those businesses failed because they didn’t meet demand. Robert is also right to say that there is no market motivation to improve schools. This is true in both the ability to meet demand for quality education and to provide education at acceptable costs.
Yes long, but it was designed to get you to look at Dmitry Orlov and look at his track record on identifying impending collapse in the American Marketplace, which will lead to inability to produce a great deal of useful products. I know this concept is not appreciable to most people, which is why I linked to Brooksley Borne who also foresaw things about FREE MARKET THINKERS but was ignored. How is that working out for You?
Again, let’s design a society where the slums are like Oakwood and I doubt you would see failure. However when as a society we consolidate all of the problems in one location with not enough examples of following the path to get out, then school does not seem important, because Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs rules.
Jesse:
I don’t know about that; people move to places with good schools. If you view a growing or shrinking tax-base as a sort of ‘market pressure’, then there is in fact a motivation for having good schools. We’ve discussed this before a little.
Ok, this is totally unrelated to little Johnny or school, but since Greg brought up Brooksley Borne:
Another good example of knowledge asymmetry, aka the Secret Shit Sandwich.
Jstults,
I did not call knowledge asymmetry the same thing as fraud. They are quite distinct.
Knowledge asymmetry is always present in every interaction and exchange. The nature of knowledge and of time require that people have knowledge based on their experience and data-set. All people have unique data-sets and experiences, because time exists and we all die, we can not accumulate all the knowledge that others have.
Fraud =
a representation of an existing fact;
its materiality;
its falsity;
the speaker’s knowledge of its falsity;
the speaker’s intent that it shall be acted upon by the plaintiff;
plaintiff’s ignorance of its falsity;
plaintiff’s reliance on the truth of the representation;
plaintiff’s right to rely upon it; and
consequent damages suffered by plaintiff.
It seems that you think that people should not be allowed to trade. This is interesting.
Why is the government the insurance company? How is that laissez-faire capitalism?
Who rated the “shit sandwich” investment grade?
What does the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission have to do with laissez-faire capitalism?
Jesse:
Sorry you got the wrong impression from what I wrote, but here are some things that I think require consideration:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_asymmetry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal-agent_problem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_hazard
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_selection
That’s certainly debatable (though the people we’re boring won’t be doing the debating).
I wrote this up a while ago, here’s the most relevant section (emphasis added):
Jesse:
Unfortunately, we bought the ‘too big to fail’ argument from a bunch of grifters. I’m not sure what any of it has to do with laissez-faire (red in tooth and claw) capitalism; Goldman-Sachs was quite interested in government ‘hands-on’.
Now we’re really far afield from what Johnny will learn in school (I know, I didn’t help), so to sum up I think the curriculum will be: Austrian econ, fake wasp sex, insurance scams, and shit sandwiches at snack time, all as set forth in the approved Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) requirements. Johnny should be well equipped to tackle any discussion thread on the information superhighway (oh, don’t forget the Nazis, he’ll need to learn about those too).
All people have unique data-sets and experiences, because time exists and we all die, we can not accumulate all the knowledge that others have. I love this maxim as it runs through all things in life. Now the question remains with this maxim is How does one receive credence for the “things learned” and with that recognition of interpreting future events correctly? Brooksley Born was obviously correct and had the best interests of the public taxpayers money in mind when she proposed regulation. However, she was countermanded by those with more Clout and frankly Faith in something undefinable “Free Market”. Believing in the Free Market is like believing in God, the problem is that we are on Earth with Animals in Charge. The story of Born fills me with little hope as it represents a great deal of what is discussed in Dayton and on this blog. People that have made the major decisions that have lead to the decimation of Dayton are still in charge, much like the people that decimated Brooksley. They are still there covering up their tracks and making excuses about why their ideology did not work out. What does the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission have to do with laissez-faire capitalism? Thanks Jesse for posting and again watch Frontline and you will see the head of the SEC lament taking out Brooksley Born. Now your parsing of Educational Asymmetry and this argument reminds me of Lawyer Speak which takes up time and offers little of value. It reminds me of course of Conspiracy Kritzinger: This is more than war. Must be a different word for this. Lange: Try chaos. Kritzinger: Yes. The rest is argument, the curse of my profession. Lange: I studied law as well. Kritzinger: How do you apply that education to what you do? Lange: It has made me distrustful of language. A gun means what it says. Now I have done it again and fulfilled the mathematicians dream – Godwin’s Law, which is why I try to use a more recent example of Utopian Dreamer – Pol Pot. However,Pol Pot gets one… Read more »
Greg,
Who are these “free market” people against whom Brooksley was arguing? If your answer is Greenspan, then please refrain from calling them “free market” advocates. The Fed is expressly not “free market” as socialism of the monetary supply is the underlying problem with fiat currency. Manipulation of the money supply causes market failure. Therefore, anyone who works for the Fed is opposed to “free markets” as evidenced by the nature of their job and their necessary belief about markets.
In what way is believing in the “Free Market” like believing in God?
Do people act? Do people act purposefully? Do people act on the best information available? Can people act to improve on their information? That is the free market. http://mises.org/efandi/ch1.asp
Also, precision in language is important when discussing abstract ideas. I am sorry that you feel that my correction of the inaccuracy of a supposed statement that I made; when the words have definitions with significantly different meanings both expressly and connotatively, is “Lawyer Speak”.
Jesse:
When the belief makes Free Market a Good (not contingent on anything) rather than a good (valued for what it provides). Markets are great, except when they are not. The problem with lots of Free Marketeers (maybe you’re not one of these) is that they don’t deny that externalities or market failures are a problem, they just assume them away:
No need to reply; I just ask you to consider that there might be a role for government action (aside from enforcing contracts) when the assumptions laid out above to support a laissez faire treatement of the production of public goods and bads do not apply.
Jstults,
I have considered your post and have a few questions:
1) What would an example of a role for government action (aside from enforcing contracts) be?
2) If you “internalize” the “externalities” by eliminating “public” property, what would the role be?
3) When, if you are now in the “free market” world where question 2 has been exercised and “public” property is no longer, does the support of laissez faire treatment of “public” “goods” and “bads” not apply?
4) What is the meaning of “public” in this sense?
Please feel free to reply.
Jesse:
I don’t think you considered very carefully; you’ve already decided on the answer, but the school-house assumptions do not always apply; I’ll word it differently:
…when property rights are not clearly defined and transaction costs are high…
It is left as an exercise for the reader to imagine possible real-world examples.
If you feel the need for Socratic dialogue on economic theory you should start your own blog; I’d happily play along in the appropriate sand box, just post a link and I’ll add it to my reading list. This site is valuable because it is Dayton Ohio — Revealed and Discussed, not Austrian Economic Theory — Revealed and Discussed. Sometimes the two might intersect, but not every thread needs to be hijacked to make your point, a few mises.org links and some simple observations are more than enough to sew the seed.
Jstults,
I appreciate your reprimand for making the discussion about economic theory. However, when the topic of choice centers around the best way to improve “public” institutions, and the best answer is to eliminate the “public” nature of the institution, then it is important to be allowed to provide the best answer.
This post was about education and the textbooks that children learn from in public schools. The market has been manipulated by a school board (government) in Texas and causes problems in Dayton? How is this possible? Is it because we are also reliant on government? Wouldn’t the free market mean that the demand for “real school books” would create economies that “real historians” not “cheer leaders” wrote. Wouldn’t a school that taught the “truth” that you know be all the rage? Why can’t you start one and be successful? Is it because of the manipulations of the market by government?
Dayton, Ohio, and the rust belt more generally, have essentially one problem at the root of all of the dilapidation, joblessness, blight, poverty, poor education, etc. It is that government ran things. Government did a bad job. Government made this region less competitive. You want an answer as to how to improve Dayton, on “Dayton Ohio – Revealed and Discussed”, then the answer is going to be universal and it will always be “Get out of my way.” Stop taxing people too much and giving them services they do not want. Stop setting “standards” at public schools. There have been “standards” since schools began. You want real improvement, create real markets by eliminating public funding.
My own blog huh? I really like the embedded audience and the opportunity to have discussions with other than Austrian’s though.
Consider the case of river pollution from the foozle factory. If the people downriver from the factory have a property right in the river, the factory will have to negotiate with them in order to legally discharge waste through their property. We can’t say what solution the participants might arrive at-the factory might shut down, the people downriver might be paid to move, or the factory might install pollution control devices or simply compensate those affected for suffering the pollution. What we can say is that, within a system of voluntary exchange, each party has demonstrated that it prefers the solution arrived at to the situation that existed before their negotiations. Here we go again and it has always escaped me this type of argument and I have “spent” some time on the mises website trying to get my limited brain around this concept of a very limited government but one hell of a legal judicial system that makes all this determination on externalities and costs rendered to reach the “free market” solution. In the above example an pollution let me ask a simple question- Who defined what pollution was? Is this Agency part of the Court? Or is there no agency and it is all based on eventual recognition of the “people harmed” However, the “people harmed” must prove their case with the following legal criterion about harm….. and therefore may only be acted against upon strict causal proof of harm beyond a reasonable doubt. Now how do we “get the data” concerning the potential pollution of a river or air without some disclosure by the company on the chemicals or processes they are using, but is this pollution expected to be endured until “strict causal proof” can be “proven” beyond a reasonable doubt. So what that says, is because we are complex humans and our responses to chemicals in association with our genetics does not correspond to a positive “causal” response “in each and every case” then no regulation or “harm” has been committed? I would argue that this type of thinking is a kin to the Death of… Read more »