Classic Milton Friedman on Equality vs. Liberty
"You can only aim at equality by giving some people the right to take things from others. What ultimately happens when you aim for equality is that A and B decide what C shall do for D; except that they take a little bit of a commission off on the way."
93 Comments:
Music to my ears! We certainly could use his clarity and ability to make such a concise point on the national stage today.
I wonder where the young man in the video is today and what impact this had on him?
An excellent computer engineer working at a big tech firm in Silicon Valley may become a millionaire before he's 35.
However, an excellent english teacher working at an average school may never become a millionaire.
So, it seems, there should be progressive income taxes and some redistribution of income, although the federal government is out of control spending over $1 trillion a year more than it has.
PeakTrader - An excellent computer engineer produces services and products worth much more to someone than the value placed on the English teacher's output.
If I work excellently at digging holes and filling them up again in my backyard, should I also be a millionaire before the age of 35?
Philip, if you're excellent in english and want to be the best, should you go into computer engineering?
PT, There already is a redistribution ongoing to the tune of over $2 trillion a year. That amounts to per capita annual payments to individuals of almost $7,500.
"Philip, if you're excellent in english and want to be the best, should you go into computer engineering?" PT
Only if you value financial success over other considerations. But you alone should make that choice. As a society we have already put a premium on computer engineers relative to english teachers and no one is forced to do either.
If you are an excellent computer engineer - how did you get there?
Isn't reading and math fundamental to that job?
we're back to "you did not build that" where we take for granted the education that that computer engineer received .... a de-facto redistribution of income to provide him with the education that allowed him to become an excellent computer engineer.
So the person(s) who actually provided him with his education does not deserve any of his subsequent success..right?
"So the person(s) who actually provided him with his education does not deserve any of his subsequent success..right?
The moment you begin deciding "who deserves what" in an intellectual exercise as opposed to a determination through price funcion, then you are giving up freedom in pursuit of equality. And Dr. Friedman's metaphor holds in its entirety. You will immediately begin having a power-broker slicing his piece off the top in order to take from the engineer and give a reduced piece to the teacher.
isn't reading and math fundamental to that job?
You paid somebody the going rate to teach you those things. That's already factored in. No more is owed them and nothing was taken for granted.
You know, Larry, I use a lot of computers. I did not build the computers, yet they are integral to the success of my firm. Should the government redistribute income from me to the computer manufacturer? Market makers like me are essential to keeping the cost of capital down for companies. Perhaps we should redistribute their profits to us market makers.
Does your dog own your house, Larry?
"So the person(s) who actually provided him with his education does not deserve any of his subsequent success..right?"
If the teacher "deserves" some of his success, who is going to decide how much? How do we know how much parents or other mentors contributed as well? If the students go on to become deadbeats that cost the state, does the teacher "deserve" to pay for those losses, too? Besides, didn't someone else provide that teacher with his education? If the success belongs to one predecessor, it belongs to an infinite chain of predecessors, and it is impossible to administer such a system fairly or even guarantee that it would be more fair than the current system. In fact, since there would be administers taking a "commission" there is reason to believe it would be even less fair than the current system. And since the current system involves teachers voluntarily trading their teaching skills for a previously agreed amount, how is the current system deficient in fairness to begin with?
No one gets wealthy simply by being excellent at something. One gets wealthy by doing something that others find valuable.
Peak,
However, an excellent english teacher working at an average school may never become a millionaire.
So, it seems, there should be progressive income taxes and some redistribution of income, although the federal government is out of control spending over $1 trillion a year more than it has.
This doesn't follow at all. Note you completely ignored the fact that a quality writer can make millions, even billions (JK Rowling).
People get paid the value the create in the world. English teachers don't add as much value as a computer engineer on average.
So what is it that anyone thinks suppresses income mobility or opportunity in this country?
I see everything as a matter of personal choice and taking responsibility for the consequences of those decisions.
No one gets wealthy simply by being excellent at something. One gets wealthy by doing something that others find valuable.
this is very true and I have to agree.
but one of the greatest wealth redistribution aspects of industrialized nations is public education which means that every child gets opportunity no matter their parents wealth or lack of it.
Many a person who grew up in poverty or modest circumstances got a good "free - wealth distributed" education that they did use to become a computer programmer or a builder/designer of computers, or a "creator" of jobs even.
without education.. your opportunities to do anything are seriously limited.
So, what's your point, Lar?
Since everyone supposedly benefits from this fabulous education, then EVERYONE owes for that eduction and there's no argument for progressive taxes.
If you and I receive the same education, and I sit on my ass for the rest of my life while you work hard to produce something of value (which is much harder than people think it is - particularly people who don't), why do you owe me and why do I owe less than you?
my point Methinks?
is that the public education system is a huge benefit to many folks who could not afford an equivalent private educate - and, in fact, is one of the biggest wealth transfers in our country...
and while it does not guarantee that you will not get it and then sit on your ass - NOT getting it would pretty much guarantee that you'd not be doing any work that DOES require a decent education.
So basically, Larry, what you're saying is you've decided to wander off topic and into left field again.
Noted.
methinks-
"You know, Larry, I use a lot of computers. I did not build the computers, yet they are integral to the success of my firm. Should the government redistribute income from me to the computer manufacturer?"
didn't you already do so? (i presume you bought them.)
what more perfect manner to value these computers than the number you are willing to buy and at what price could one devise?
what more perfect manner to value these computers than the number you are willing to buy and at what price could one devise?
it's not the computer per se.. that's just hardware.
it's the DESIGN and architecture of the hardware and even more - the software.
people that successfully design hardware and software are exceptionally well educated and have excellent basic educations that they likely received as k-12 public education - that classic wealth transfer..problem.
Methinks.. I think I've asked you several times if you are saying that most people's pension plans are NOT invested in the stock market.
can you answer that one?
Morganovich,
My point exactly! According to these bozos your dog owns your house and my computer manufacturer owns by business.
Larry,
You're on the wrong thread and I've stopped answering your pointless questions because you've once again lost the thread and I've answered the same question 100 times. you're limit up, dude.
Larry,
is that the public education system is a huge benefit to many folks who could not afford an equivalent private educate
This is largely an assumption as Americans have been pretty well educated for the entire existence of the US. In fact, "[l]iteracy rates were as high or higher [during revolutionary times] than they are today".
Statements that public education are so great because so many people are educated ignore the huge costs public education burdens tax payers with, as well as the dubious benefits that are bestowed. The people you claim can't afford education afforded it just fine before the government decided to put their children in the hells on earth that are called inner city public schools.
This is largely an assumption as Americans have been pretty well educated for the entire existence of the US. In fact, "[l]iteracy rates were as high or higher [during revolutionary times] than they are today".
Ken, have you got a credible cite?
"You can only aim at equality by giving some people the right to take things from others."\
It is a false premise, therefor the rest of the argument is moot.
"So, it seems, there should be progressive income taxes and some redistribution of income, although the federal government is out of control spending over $1 trillion a year more than it has"...
BS pt...
Thiose who can do, those who can't teach English...
"but one of the greatest wealth redistribution aspects of industrialized nations is public education which means that every child gets opportunity no matter their parents wealth or lack of it"...
Well larry g offers up an excellent reason why that waste of extorted tax dollars called public education (socialist baby sitting) should be done away with...
Larry,
Ken, have you got a credible cite?
You can see here and here.
Well larry g offers up an excellent reason why that waste of extorted tax dollars called public education (socialist baby sitting) should be done away with... .
ever industrialized country in the world - those with the most superior economies in the world - have public education.
the countries without public education are uniformly economic basket cases ...
do you think that is a coincidence?
Ken - the operative word was CREDIBLE.
Do you have a CREDIBLE cite that can be VERIFIED by actual facts and evidence?
In 1820, 20% of the entire adult population was illiterate, and 80% of the black population was illiterate. By 1900 the situation had improved somewhat, but 44% of black people remained illiterate
http://nces.ed.gov/naal/lit_history.asp
Larry,
Do you have a CREDIBLE cite that can be VERIFIED by actual facts and evidence?
That's right. I forgot to whom I was talking. The man for whom "credible" = "what I all ready believe".
Is there some reason to believe The Freeman or DuPont de Nemours are not credible? Or is it simply that de Nemours found "that only four in a thousand Americans were unable to read and write legibly", which contradicts your cherished beliefs that make him not credible?
Larry,
Also, I note that you incorrectly quote your citation. The year was 1870, not 1820 for you statistics. 1870 is well after the drive for public education started. Also not that a 20% illiteracy rate in 1870, after the public education had grown quite large, is much much higher than the 0.4% illiteracy rate found by DuPont de Nemours about a century earlier.
Larry,
What this means is that after a century of public education, literacy rates dropped. That's not exactly a ringing endorsement of public education, is it?
it's not credible Ken.
look at other countries that don't have public education.
literacy is terrible.
you are living in your own little world on this.
public education increased literacy in every single country that it has been instituted and countries that do not have public education have not gained.
you have an ideology that you believe in and you just ignore the facts and realities that are all around you and pick one source that is seriously in question as your cite and that source has an agenda against public education ....
sorry Ken.... public education has a proven record - around the world - and in fact most other industrialized countries beat us.
kids of people who cannot afford private school do not get educated unless there is public education.
just look a the countries that do not have public education.
the countries without public education are uniformly economic basket cases ...
do you think that is a coincidence?
The Soviet Union had on of the very best public education systems in the world. Nobody can call the USSR an economic basket case, eh Lar?
This comment has been removed by the author.
Larry,
it's not credible Ken.
Ha! Argument through assertion. Good one, Larry!
you have an ideology that you believe in and you just ignore the facts and realities that are all around you and pick one source that is seriously in question as your cite and that source has an agenda against public education ....
Again, ha! You're the one not saying how your citation contradicts my sources and give absolutely no reason why the Freeman and Dupont de Nemours are not credible. Also, I'm not the one misquoting my sources just to make my case.
Methinks - literacy alone will not assure a good economic system.
but without literacy, we know what happens.
Ken is living in LA LA land - because he has an ideology and he needs the history to confirm it - even if the history is bogus.
I'd certainly be open to a list of countries that don't have public education that do have good literacy rates... as evidence.
but from his source you get his kind of garbage:
" The results of colonial America’s free market system of education were impressive indeed. Almost no tax money was spent on education, yet education was available to almost anyone who wanted it, including the poor. No government subsidies were given, and inefficient institutions either improved or went out of business. Competition guaranteed that scarce educational resources would be allocated properly. "
Who educated the poor? and how? and where did the money come from to pay the teachers? and how did those schools actually compete?
the guy just pulls these things out of his butt and throws them on the table and then cites another likely equally biased source: " The Messianic Character of American Education"
I'm still trying to understand how you get "universal" education (i.e. everyone gets it) but it has no visible means of financial support but it does "compete" and the less capable versions of it go out of business...
LORD!
Ken is living in LA LA land - because he has an ideology and he needs the history to confirm it - even if the history is bogus
Really? It's Ken rocking a bias and not the guy who said:
"look at other countries that don't have public education.
literacy is terrible."
In the face of high illiteracy rates in countries with public education?
Please inform us of the countries without a public education system. Without resorting to hunter gatherer tribes in sub-Saharan Africa, I couldn't find one.
public education itself may not be universal nor "good"
but I await examples of non-public school systems that provide good literacy rates for the given country.
Let's see the evidence not silly assertions in books that have no real evidence to support the assertions.
Ken is living in LA LA land.. he believes in an ideology and facts and evidence are troublesome concepts.
the best education systems in the world are public education systems.
but I await examples of non-public school systems that provide good literacy rates for the given country.
And I "await" your provision of a list of countries without public education systems. Surely someone who declares that they are inferior places to countries with public education has such a list readily available. Or can at least google something to cover his ass.
Surely, you wouldn't be smacking your gums without any evidence to support your assertions, Larry.
Surely, you wouldn't be smacking your gums without any evidence to support your assertions, Larry
Ken's stated premise was that public education was not needed and that it was done successfully on a private basis.
I call that total ideological bunk.
I question HIS ASSERTION
and I ASK him and you to provide examples of countries that do not have public education but have high literacy rates.
there is no such thing and you know it.
go flap your cheeks kiddo.
what Ken asserted originally was that this country had a higher rate of literacy prior to 1800 than it does now.
that's just totally off the wall ideological blather with no basis in fact and his "cite" is basically people making that claim without every really providing any serious statistics.
but beyond that he claims that everyone got an education even the poor but there was no govt funding but bad schools went out of business.
that's total story telling by those who like to believe it...and little else.
Larry,
and I ASK him and you to provide examples of countries that do not have public education but have high literacy rates.
there is no such thing and you know it.
Except for, you know, the US in the late 1700's. But hey, that's, like, totally not a Larry approved fact, so will be ignored, despite being unable to say why.
Except for, you know, the US in the late 1700's. But hey, that's, like, totally not a Larry approved fact, so will be ignored, despite being unable to say why.
it's not a fact Ken.
it's more confirmation bias ... total bunk put out on the internet to support libertarian fantasies.
Larry,
that's just totally off the wall ideological blather with no basis in fact and his "cite" is basically people making that claim without every really providing any serious statistics.
Except that I cited a the credible source of Dupont de Numerous, something that you were so taken aback by that you claim that this person is not credible (largely for providing a strong counterexample to your statist impulses), that your reaction was immediately denial.
here's the guy that wrote the book:
" Rushdoony has been accused of Holocaust denial and racism.[14] Rushdoony wrote that interracial marriage, which he referred to as "unequal yoking", should be made illegal.[15] He also opposed "enforced integration", referred to Southern slavery as "benevolent", and said that "some people are by nature slaves".[16] Kerwin Lee Klein, however, argues that Rushdoony was not a "biological racialist" and that for him "racism founded on modern biology simply represented another pagan revival.""
this is who Ken is citing as a source.
Given some of the responses to my statements, it seems, many people don't value a liberal arts education enough, including philosophy or logic and math, along with english (given prior its and it's).
Larry,
Where do I cite Rushdoony? I cite Robert Peterson of The Freeman, who cites DuPont de Numerous, the person who wrote National Education in the United States of America. Not content with living in denial, you are actually lying.
In Dupont's book he writes:
The United States are more advanced in their educational facilities than most countries. They have a large number of primary schools; and as their paternal affection protects children from working in the fields, it is possible to send them to the school-master - a condition that does not prevail in Europe. Most young Americans, therefore, can read, write and cipher. Not more than four in a thousand are unable to write legibly - even neatly . . . In America, a great number of people read the Bible, and all the people read a newspaper. The fathers read aloud to their children while breakfast is being prepared - a task which occupies the mothers for three quarters of an hour every morning. And as the newspapers of the United States are filled with all sorts of narratives . . . they disseminate an enormous amount of information.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Larry,
Additionally, you commit the logical fallacy of ad hominem: attacking the man instead of the argument. Even if Rousas John Rushdoony was what you claim him to be this does not invalidate his arguments, much less his sources, i.e., statistics gathered by another man. This is nothing but argument by SQUIRREL!!
Nice try though. Let me know when you find credible sources that contradict Dupont's claim of high literacy rates in the late 1700's (not some source that qotes literacy rates of 1870).
re: " You can see here and here."
this is the link from the second "here":
http://www.amazon.com/The-Messianic-Character-American-Education/dp/1879998068/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1346089933&sr=8-1&keywords=The+Messianic+Character+of+American+Education
The Messianic Character of American Education [Hardcover]
Rousas John Rushdoony (Author)
did you read up on this Ken or just grab it?
Ken: Not more than four in a thousand are unable to write legibly - even neatly
It would be very difficult to accurately survey the early American republic. People were spread out from Maine to Georgia and west to the Alleghenies and beyond. Do you have evidence of such a survey? And what about the slave population?
re: " Additionally, you commit the logical fallacy of ad hominem: attacking the man instead of the argument. Even if Rousas John Rushdoony was what you claim him to be this does not invalidate the statistics gathered by another man."
there are no verifiable statistics Ken...
here is what one historian wrote about this guy:
His sources are atrocious, secondhand, and unverified; that he held this position speaks volumes about this appalling incompetence as a historian, and one can only speculate as to why he held the position from a moral perspective... He deals with the matter under the issue of the ninth commandment and, ironically breaches it himself in his presentation of the matter.[21]
there are no statistics..just stuff this guy pulled out his butt...
and then he was cited as a source by the first "here"..
and now you are citing them as a source for your assertion.
the whole thing is totally bogus but it is the typical thing these days for folks like you that have a particular belief and ignore everything else except for one or two really bogus psuedo sources - all because you've adopted an ideological view and seek out only sources that back hour beliefs.
this is likely one of the other sources of Ken's "data" :
http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/19026.aspx
methinks-
yes. i know. it amazes me that people cannot grasp this basic notion: people pay for value.
to profit, any business most give its customers things it values.
government does not.
what do we spend, $12k per student for public school? that's a huge amount of money for really mediocre results. how so many folks can argue that nearly $400k per classroom per year is a great deal just baffles me. we could be getting far better results for that money if the market for it was not so broken by forced payment and limited choice.
i would recommend not wasting your time with larry. he's just going to bounce from logical fallacy to logical fallacy and never actually grasp the issue. (appeal to authority and practice being favorites with some ad hominem tossed in for good measure)
he'd argue that newton was an alchemist so we should ignore his laws of motion and that Copernicus was wrong because every developed country thought the sun revolved around the earth and not see why that was absurd.
he is literally impervious to notions of basic logic no matter how many times you explain it.
what do we spend, $12k per student for public school? that's a huge amount of money for really mediocre results. how so many folks can argue that nearly $400k per classroom per year is a great deal just baffles me.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/30/AR2009083002335.html
I'm not defending public school performance but comparing Private to Public schools is an apples to oranges comparison. Public schools are forced to accept all students were private schools are not. Private schools can easily deal with discipline issue with expulsion. Private schools will greatly change when vouchers allow the children of uncaring parents to attend.
One other note on vouchers, most public school funding and tax rates are set on public school attendance. Obviously private school attendance is not included in state or local budgets or tax rates. It's a big game changer.
Morganovich says: "it amazes me that people cannot grasp this basic notion: people pay for value."
Obviously, that's not always the case.
Some people need to hire a tutor.
Larry,
His sources are atrocious, secondhand, and unverified; that he held this position speaks volumes about this appalling incompetence as a historian, and one can only speculate as to why he held the position from a moral perspective... He deals with the matter under the issue of the ninth commandment and, ironically breaches it himself in his presentation of the matter.
This was said of DuPont? And which historian said this, since you failed, again, to cite a source.
Zach,
It would be very difficult to accurately survey the early American republic.
So? Are you saying no statistics about the early republic are reliable? If so, then all arguments for and against public education fail because there can be no reliable before and after comparison.
People were spread out from Maine to Georgia and west to the Alleghenies and beyond. Do you have evidence of such a survey?
I provided evidence of such a survey: National Education in the United States of America by DuPont de Numerous, neither of which you nor Larry care on which to comment. Do you find this lacking? If so, how?
Fortunately, Dr Perry is giving free english lessons too.
Larry,
there are no statistics..just stuff this guy pulled out his butt...
Except that DuPont's statistics have been cited far and wide outside of Rushdoony. So good luck defending the above statement.
Ken: Are you saying no statistics about the early republic are reliable?
No. An actual census was made in 1800, counting more than five million persons. However, there was no question about literacy as part of the census. An off-hand remark by someone who once visited the U.S. doesn't constitute a credible statistic. What was the methodology of the survey? How many were included in the survey? How were geographic regions balanced? Were slaves counted?
"ever industrialized country in the world - those with the most superior economies in the world - have public education"...
So larry g responds with another of his patented load of factless nonsense...
BTW larry g how many of these countries with 'superior economies' are saddled with federally mandated reverse descrimination?
what do we spend, $12k per student for public school? that's a huge amount of money for really mediocre results
we spend too much for the results we get, I AGREE.
and I'm not at all opposed to private schools nor home schooling as long as we have compulsory attendance and standards that must be met.
re: credible stats
I'm not seeing any. The guys that Ken cites are both opposed to public schools, and are not providing objective data but rather data that supports their preconceived biases.
Ken - see the wiki for Rushdoony. there are about 20 cites for the wiki for him. He's a wacko who was always against public schools plus quite a few other things that are considered perfectly acceptable by most folks now days.
other countries do spend less than us and get better results but many do not have many of the extras we provide - just the basic academics plus they provide a viable no college technical skills track that is equally robust for math and science just targeted to technical jobs.
re: " BTW larry g how many of these countries with 'superior economies' are saddled with federally mandated reverse descrimination?"
I do not know but that's not a central issue to the idea of compulsory public school IMHO - though it is important.
I see Larry The Lying Liberal hijacked another thread and filled it with his usual idiocy par excellence.
"other countries do spend less than us and get better results but many do not have many of the extras we provide.."
Yeah, extras like not being able to fire worthless teachers, and pensions for bus drivers. "Extras" like that.
Yeah, extras like not being able to fire worthless teachers, and pensions for bus drivers. "Extras" like that
I support tougher standards and firing of those who do not meet them.
the "extras" are for courses and extra-curricular activities that are not offered in other countries or you have to pay extra for them.
I support that.
I think taxpayers should provide a basic education and if parents want more then they should pay more and probably get it at non-public schools.
This conversation has reminded me of this
This comment has been removed by the author.
I like it Jon!
:)
JM,
I nearly choked laughing! You are the funniest monk I've ever met.
Hancke
I'm not defending public school performance but comparing Private to Public schools is an apples to oranges comparison.
Fair points, but the U.S. public school system also spends more per student than European public school systems and produce inferior results to those European school systems.
You are the funniest monk I've ever met.
Former. I have since rented my soul to the evil Capitalist corporations as an economist.
schools in the US are social centers that offer a wide range of courses,electives,extracurricular activities, sports,etc.
and we say that class size is important no matter if it is 1st grade reading or 11th grade photo journalism or Latin IV.
but the blame for this is on the parents themselves because most schools are heavily funded from local funding and parents are fine with the increased taxes if it adds swimming or lacrosse or whatever to the list of "opportunities".
Europe and Asia tend to focus on core academics and preparing students for either a college or technical track.
Parents in the US do not want tough academic standards because they want their kids to get into the better colleges and harder courses that result in lower grades hurt their kids chances.
we are the enemy here, not the "govt" and not teachers or unions.
JM,
You will always be a monk to me. In spirit. Even if you rent your soul. But, you know...you wouldn't be the first monk in history to do that.
But, you know...you wouldn't be the first monk in history to do that.
Excluding myself, my company has three ex-ministers on the payroll :-P
Paul: you convinced me that you think you had a superior position
No back up, but..... ...
"If you are an excellent computer engineer - how did you get there?
Isn't reading and math fundamental to that job?
we're back to "you did not build that" where we take for granted the education that that computer engineer received .... a de-facto redistribution of income to provide him with the education that allowed him to become an excellent computer engineer.
So the person(s) who actually provided him with his education does not deserve any of his subsequent success..right?".
I and many of my fellow college students only excelled in school (and subsequently and significantly boosted our incomes)through late nights of studying. We couldn't have made it without lots of Dunkin Donuts coffee. It only seems fair to take some of our income and give it to the guy behind the counter who makes a much more modest income. Right? And riding my old Schwinn to class saved time vs. walking allowing me a few extra minutes of study each day. Seems only right to kick in a little more for the repair guy at the local bicycle shop. One has to wonder where this ends.
any govt-sponsored loans for your college?
is the college you attend supported by public funds?
we're not talking about bikes or donuts.
we're talking about specific things the govt(other taxpayers) do with infrastructure, loans and funding of institutions such as schools - that benefit you.
are you a total no-govt-help-at-all libertarian or are you just another parasite sucking off of others (that's what you get called in CD if you use things paid for by tax dollars.
Larry, as public education for children of wealthy-parents are paid through the state by the wealthy parents, is it correct to assume, that it's the wealthy people with poor parents who owe something to 'the others' - so it's not and argument for progressive taxation per-se, but only for progressive taxation of the people with poor parents?
Additionally, people who got rich despite not having attended to public college (or having attended private primary education - mostly children of wealthier parents) should not be definitely progressively taxed. Right?
re: " wealthy people with poor parents"
how about expanding a bit on this idea?
one would think the opposite, that good parents produce kids who are much more likely to be successful - that the vast majority of successful people will credit their parents not the opposite.
but what does any of that have to do with taxation for public education in the first place?
Every single industrialized country in the world taxes for public education regardless of the good/bad wealthy parent issue.
how about expanding out your point?
Sure, Larry.. in one of the first post you wrote:
"So the person(s) who actually provided him with his education does not deserve any of his subsequent success..right?"
Because wealthy parents have already paid for education of their children, it seems to me that the state (or other people in the same state for that matter) who DID NOT provided the child with education - actually do NOT deserve any of his subsequent success.
Every single industrialized country in the world taxes for public education regardless of the good/bad wealthy parent issue.
Yes, but it seems to me that the reason you provided is kind of insufficient. So wahat? Pretty much every country about 100 years was anti-semitic. Half of the countries (even developed ones) about 50 years ago had quite strong socialistic systems. Why should such arguments persuade me? Would you care to elaborate?
BTW: I thing E.G.West (if I remember the word correctly) did some work on private primary education in U.K. and I think the conclusion was that transition to public system didn't more or less have any effect on underlying trends.
re: " it seems to me that the state (or other people in the same state for that matter) who DID NOT provided the child with education - actually do NOT deserve any of his subsequent success."
what else did he use ..roads, water/sewer, college, vaccinations, police, fire, EMS, etc?
if someone went totally private and pay for everything out of their personal funds, then yes.. I'd agree.
You can actually live that life in most 3rd world countries - you just put a wall around your place and have your own electrical generator and guards, etc.
Not sure what you do about water/sewer in those situations... but I'm sure if you are truly taking care of yourself, you'll figure it out.
"what else did he use ..roads, water/sewer, college, vaccinations, police, fire, EMS, etc?"
So you admit that the people who did not provide these children of wealthy parents education - do not deserve any of their subsequent success, that would otherwise deserve because of public education?
Now the second question is why would anyone 'deserve' a success of children of wealthy parents, when all these people (public schools, all other services) were alread paid by their parents through the tax system?
not only the "wealthy" paid for these things but the real point is no matter whether you were wealthy or not, you ability to advance yourself depends on these things that have been provided -yes through taxes.
if you want to compare - think about how well you might advance yourself by your own efforts - in a place like Haiti or Somalia.
the same people who rail against taxes are the same ones who take for granted the things that taxes provide and that enable them to succeed.
if you think that's a bad system, and you can do better.. get thee to Haiti where you get to keep more of your money and your destiny is much more up to you.
"not only the "wealthy" paid for these things but the real point is no matter whether you were wealthy or not, you ability to advance yourself depends on these things that have been provided -yes through taxes."
Situation A) private sector provides the services (education, roads bridges)
Situation B) public sector provides the services (let's be generous - with the same effectivity and same price), they're paid by taxes
You claim that in situation B other people deserve share on my success. Why don't they in situation A?
"if you want to compare - think about how well you might advance yourself by your own efforts - in a place like Haiti or Somalia."
Yep, why not to compare it to U.K. for the most part of 19th century? Umm...wouldn't it enforce the point, that maybe it's not the missing public education what's the problem in Haiti or Somalia....?
You claim that in situation B other people deserve share on my success. Why don't they in situation A?
how about a modern day example or is this just a theory?
Yep, why not to compare it to U.K. for the most part of 19th century? Umm...wouldn't it enforce the point, that maybe it's not the missing public education what's the problem in Haiti or Somalia....?
why are you looking at historical analogs and not ones that exist now days?
you have choices now.
You have developed nations, developing nations and 3rd world nations.
if anything, the theory you espouse would most favor countries with the least amount of govt where it is much more up to the private sector to provide the things that small govt in those countries does not provide.
A majority of the world is NOT industrialized nations - out of 200 countries at least 100 are "small govt" where the private sector is much more prominent than govt.
you apparently want industrialized nations to revert to 3rd world status so they can "start over".
why?
Are you not taking for granted the things that industrialized nations DO provide and want to rely on that in your reversion to 3rd world status?
It is no accident that industrialized nations are also referred to as "Advanced" nations.
they have evolved to that advanced status.
if you want an experiment why not choose a nation that has not "advanced" and is much more like what you advocate?
Larry, to answer some of your qeustion:
If you are an excellent computer engineer - how did you get there?
Actually, I'm quite a good programmer. How did I get there? Well, I spent years at home reading everything all over the internet and programming.
"Isn't reading and math fundamental to that job?"
My parents taught me to read and some basic math, actually...and no, math isn't needed for most computer oriented things.
"So the person(s) who actually provided him with his education does not deserve any of his subsequent success..right?"
My parents paid them with taxes. And they would pay it directly, if they were not forced to channel money through some buroucratic state system (who chipped some money away...).
I have no idea what it means for me and my success - I just see nobody who deserves share on my success (except my parents, but that's a personal matter).
Can we stay on the 'education' topic and could you, please, either tell me, why should anyone deserve share on my success (concerning my public education), or just plainly admit, that public education has nothing to do with that?
"how about a modern day example or is this just a theory?"
Some children in the U.S.A. have home teacher and do not attend public school system.
Can you know answer the question?
"why are you looking at historical analogs and not ones that exist now days?"
Because there are no nations today, that would serve as an experiment of public-vs-private education. The 'all-other-things-equal' is just not met. If you try to compare to Haiti, you probably missed some classes at school on making relevant comparisons.
So I am looking at historical occasions, where - from time to time - there actually were instances of very well developing nations - with almost fully private educations systems. E.g. you could compare austro-hungarian empire with public-education in most parts and U.K. which was mostly private. If I wanted to use same crap arguments as you, I would say the U.K. won handsomely.
An excellent computer engineer working at a big tech firm in Silicon Valley may become a millionaire before he's 35.
If he is productive that is true. Good computer engineers are in high demand because there are few of them and many jobs that need to be done. The high salaries send a signal in the marketplace that get more smart kids to become computer engineers to fill the need. That is as it should be.
However, an excellent english teacher working at an average school may never become a millionaire.
Correct. The average school has a public union that does not believe that compensation should be based on skills and merit. As such the average teacher will get the average salary that the union can negotiate with the school districts.
But teachers are not rare. Many people can teach well and as such the market would send a signal that would discourage new ones from entering the market. As it should.
So, it seems, there should be progressive income taxes and some redistribution of income, although the federal government is out of control spending over $1 trillion a year more than it has.
No. If we need more skilled people the high salaries are a signal to get more of them into the field. By doing so the average compensation level will drop until there is a relative balance over the short term. On the other hand, if there are too many teachers we need to encourage them to look for new jobs. That is also done by the salary levels. Redistribution would only serve to mix up the signals and create more waste.
Philip, if you're excellent in english and want to be the best, should you go into computer engineering?
It is up to you. But if you take English in university and there are no high paying jobs that require the skills that you have you have to live with the consequences. The market price for labour only tells us what is in demand, not what you should do. If you choose wrongly do not expect others to give up part of their income to support your bad decision.
a teacher COULD become a millionaire the same exact way a computer engineer could.
A teacher who figures out a better, cheaper way to obtain better results and monetizes it - could end up in charge of a private school company that out-performs most other schools and has customer banging on their doors to get in.
Think BIG guys1
:-)
Post a Comment
<< Home