| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Boblion
France8043 Posts
On February 05 2009 08:36 oneofthem wrote: what if a less costly improvement project to a public school achieves the same result as a private voucher program? Blasphemy :O Public money can't be as efficient than a private program ! | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
On February 05 2009 08:36 oneofthem wrote: what if a less costly improvement project to a public school achieves the same result as a private voucher program? Its hard to define improvement. Some politicians may think that simply a new building means the school has been pulled out of mediocrity. The best way to tell which schools are actually "good" is to see where parents want to put their children (since parents generally want what is best for their children). To gain that knowledge, parents have to be able to move their children around if they want. Also, politicians have been trying for decades (centuries?) to improve the public school and yet the best successes have been in the private market (no big surprise there). If they couldn't do it in the past 60 years (even with Bush doubling education spending), then why would they all of a sudden be able to do it now? But maybe if we broadened your question. If we could somehow eliminate teachers unions at public schools, that may make us able to reach some of the benefits that have eluded us. Superintendents and school boards really DO have their students best interests in mind, and if they could fire bad teachers, reward successes and pressure teachers without unions choking them, we might see big gains and the need for vouchers would diminish. | ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
You're right that it's not about the spending. I know I've made that point in the past against you and I was definitely off base. It's interesting that the big push for education reform started in the early 1980s with the "nation in crisis" talk, and we acted on it, but those people were completely wrong at the time. Today, partly because of the actions we've taken, it's become a problem. There are still many issues with schools of choice that need to be resolved. Shutting down "failing" or unpopular schools, means people will go without education or other schools will become overcrowded. I'm beginning to lean towards this, but there's still many other sides to education reform that need to be addressed. I also think you're giving too much credit to superintendents and administrators. They're a huge part of the problem in nearly every school district. If you look at them as managers and teachers as employees, then most of the blame is deserved at the managerial level. | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
Republicans are calling for a plan with more tax cuts and less spending. They also want more emphasis on helping homeowners. One Republican proposal could double the tax credit for home buying from $7,500 to $15,000. That's the welfare directed at the upper-middleclass I was talking about. We can debate all day about whether the poor or middle class deserve it more, but that's what that statement represents. Spending = welfare for poor, tax credit = welfare for middle/upper | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
Thats the great thing about money it is always equally helpful to everybody....1 dollar given my gov't is 1 dollar recieved by the person that they can spend however they want. EDIT: Also, I am not so sure helping homeowners trying to sell (by giving people incentive to buy) and people looking to buy a home is just "upper middle class". Lower middle class and many (if not most poor people) own a house or a trailer (both of which are homes). So whether you are selling or buying, this helps you. But cash is still better imo. | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
| ||
|
Choros
Australia530 Posts
On February 05 2009 10:46 Savio wrote: And just giving them money (my plan) = welfare for both. Thats the great thing about money it is always equally helpful to everybody....1 dollar given my gov't is 1 dollar recieved by the person that they can spend however they want. EDIT: Also, I am not so sure helping homeowners trying to sell (by giving people incentive to buy) and people looking to buy a home is just "upper middle class". Lower middle class and many (if not most poor people) own a house or a trailer (both of which are homes). So whether you are selling or buying, this helps you. But cash is still better imo. Giving people money is a good way to go but the benefit that it gains dollar to dollar depends on who gets it so targeting is important. What would you think of the German idea floating around that says that you should give people gift vouchers that expire meaning that people wont save they will go straight out and spend it. They are not going to do this becuase the dont think it would inspire much confidence. | ||
|
rushz0rz
Canada5300 Posts
| ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
| ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On February 05 2009 11:22 rushz0rz wrote: Anyone hear about the new Buy American provision in the new stimulus package? You think they would have learned something from the Great Depression. God I hate how America is our #1 exporter. If it is passed we are going to be severely fucked, not to mention trade protectionist policy doesn't even create jobs, it just reshuffles them. I can't believe there are still idiots like this running a country. I hope Obama isn't one of them, I did hear in our news that he is against it. The provision only applies to steel and it would only apply to the public works that the bill would fund. It's bad, but there is no reason to overstate the impact it would have. | ||
|
rushz0rz
Canada5300 Posts
| ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On February 05 2009 11:32 Mindcrime wrote: The provision only applies to steel and it would only apply to the public works that the bill would fund. It's bad, but there is no reason to overstate the impact it would have. The Senate one goes much further. http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0204/p08s01-comv.html | ||
|
Choros
Australia530 Posts
| ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On February 05 2009 11:45 Jibba wrote: The Senate one goes much further. http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0204/p08s01-comv.html wat That is fucking stupid. | ||
|
rushz0rz
Canada5300 Posts
Yep. The US is not only going to bring Canada down with it, it's actually going to weaken the economy further and prolong the agony. | ||
|
L
Canada4732 Posts
in the case of food stamps, why do i say savio is concerned with its unfree nature, rather than its welfare impact? because of the way he frames the alternative: if we take the food stamp money and relax restrictions. the existence of food stamps does not preclude direct welfare payments. knowing nothing of the political tradeoffs, we do not know how much food stamp is equivalent to how much welfare checks. from a policy view, there is no basis to make savio's alternative the rival case, because they are not presented as actual choices within the political framework. rather, food stamps is seen as one of many ways government tries to actively infringe or constrain personal choice and thus lives. what is in need of neutralizing, for the sake of a free humanity, is the creeping hand of government, rather than lost degrees of welfare. I think that this type of analysis would make sense in the context of a broader approach to determining which policy outcome would be superior, but my aims weren't so large. My aims were to show that a series of unfounded and false assumptions were being made, and I did so to inject a much needed sense of reality towards the issue being discussed. It wasn't an issue of a choice between stamps and liquid cash in the general sense, because that case is not one I find worth making in the general sense; if the argument had been for government stamps in the sector of washing machines, rolling pins and gold plated toilet seat covers I'd have fully agreed with Savio's position on the relative value between freedom of choice and government deciding what's in your best interest. That said, the issue wasn't on such frivolities, it was on food. Using the same set of basic assumptions for washing machines and food 'works' in the context of broad policy, which is the angle that you seem to be attacking at, but that doesn't solve the real problem with the targeted decision making, or debate surrounding the issue. The real issue is that the assumptions made are factually incorrect, which lead to a materially poorer conclusion. The main remedy in this case, in my view, isn't to attack the policy on ideological grounds, but to display the practical, rather than political, tradeoffs. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
yes, that is my point as well. with that buy american stuff, i think america's political isolation is really hitting home. seriously guys killing the teachers union will also kill teacher motivation. i dont see why that is an imperative. labor has as much right as administration in getting a better deal, since the generation of value in the case of teaching is largely on the teachers' side anyway. faced with structures like school districts, obviously labor suffers from an organizational deficiency. | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
On February 05 2009 11:15 Choros wrote: Giving people money is a good way to go but the benefit that it gains dollar to dollar depends on who gets it so targeting is important. What would you think of the German idea floating around that says that you should give people gift vouchers that expire meaning that people wont save they will go straight out and spend it. They are not going to do this becuase the dont think it would inspire much confidence. Americans have very low savings rate and I think most economist agree that increasing that savings rate would be good since savings-->investment and we would not have to rely so much on foreign investment. Also during recessions, trade balance in the US tends to shift toward smaller deficits which means we will not be receiving as much foreign investment. I don't see people saving some of their money as a bad thing at all. It may stabilize banks a bit as well as providing domestic investment. | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
On February 05 2009 11:22 rushz0rz wrote: Anyone hear about the new Buy American provision in the new stimulus package? You think they would have learned something from the Great Depression. God I hate how America is our #1 exporter. If it is passed we are going to be severely fucked, not to mention trade protectionist policy doesn't even create jobs, it just reshuffles them. I can't believe there are still idiots like this running a country. I hope Obama isn't one of them, I did hear in our news that he is against it. That provision is retarded. | ||
|
Dazed.
Canada3301 Posts
On February 05 2009 11:22 rushz0rz wrote: Obama is for a protectionists stance on the economy, he reconsidered the degree of protectionism when the EU complained and threatened a trade war. The policies will still be enacted, just to a smaller degree.Anyone hear about the new Buy American provision in the new stimulus package? You think they would have learned something from the Great Depression. God I hate how America is our #1 exporter. If it is passed we are going to be severely fucked, not to mention trade protectionist policy doesn't even create jobs, it just reshuffles them. I can't believe there are still idiots like this running a country. I hope Obama isn't one of them, I did hear in our news that he is against it. Edit: It's shocking that people find Obama's policies shocking. He made them pretty clear throughout the campaign. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Stormgate Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Heroes of the Storm Other Games gofns11010 tarik_tv10422 summit1g4451 Grubby2834 fl0m827 mouzStarbuck270 Livibee90 Fuzer  73oskar68 Trikslyr64 Sick32 |
|
RSL Revival
RSL Revival
SC Evo League
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
CSO Cup
Sparkling Tuna Cup
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
Wardi Open
RotterdaM Event
Replay Cast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
