Meltdown

[Florestan]

I made no such suggestion.

You didn't but Simon's article (which you apparently resonate with) seems to have made it all right. Anyway, I just wanted to point out that criticizing libertarianism for the current state of affairs in the US is pointless because it has never ever got the upper hand in the US politics.

[Karl Henning]

Just a bogey to whip up the fervor of the whackadoodle right

[milk]

Ah, yes, the old throw more money at the problem solution:

Among other things, it recommended higher pay and better work conditions for teachers and principals, and universal high-quality early education. The commission said that the U.S. could afford to pay teachers more, and it argued that raising starting pay to $65,000, instead of today's average of $37,000, and increasing top salaries to $150,000, instead of around $70,000, would help attract better teachers.


Of course, with teaching, annual salaries are practically understated because, of course, almost all teachers in the US work less than the normal full time worker.  But I guess they work hard, so making adjustments for actual hours worked is probably unfair.  $37K on average to start is not too bad, really, though it depends on where one teaches.  Where I live, teachers start in the low to mid 30s and advance within only a few years to north of $60K, which is well above the state average income.  I'm not convinced that more money is the solution in every state.  In a state like Arizona, it makes more sense to focus on bumping salaries. 

And this ignores the double dipping phenomenon where teachers work until retirement, gain their pension, and return to teaching again, on either a part time or full time basis, thus having two incomes.  It's pretty common where I live, though I haven't read up on all the stats.  That's nothing short of manipulating the system for personal gain, all on the public dime.

One of the more interesting developments over the last couple decades has been the emergence of what some commentators - mostly minority, liberal/lefty minded commentators, I hasten to add - have called resegregation of schools, and it is turning out to be more pronounced in more affluent, more "liberal" areas.  I find this most humorous.  I suppose I would, since I live in the outskirts of a Deep Blue city - Portland, OR - which has the unique distinction of being the only major city in the US that became whiter between 1990 and 2010, at least per the Census Bureau.  Portland leaders not only resegregated education, but everything else, too.

I'm sure libertarians and conservatives are responsible for all of these trends and changes somehow.

None of this makes me any less concerned by what's suggested in the report about the kind of education the poor receive. Some of the relevancy escapes me. It's pretty darn sad, isn't it? As far as elected politicians go, yeah, I'd apportion to them responsibility at least equivalent to the percentage of seats they hold in various elected bodies. Probably, you and I should share some responsibility also.       

[milk]

You didn't but Simon's article (which you apparently resonate with) seems to have made it all right. Anyway, I just wanted to point out that criticizing libertarianism for the current state of affairs in the US is pointless because it has never ever got the upper hand in the US politics.

I disagree. Just because it hasn't the upper hand doesn't mean it doesn't have, or hasn't had influence. I think criticizing libertarianism is a good idea. I'm probably not the best man for the job...but anyway, libertarianism has obvious shortcomings.   

[Todd]

None of this makes me any less concerned by what's suggested in the report about the kind of education the poor receive.

I'm not poor, and my daughter attends a well funded public school, and I'm concerned about the quality of education she receives*, as well as the education everyone, including the poor, receives in general.  The point of including what I included was to illustrate that the system is not working optimally, or close to it, and that increasing pay by itself or even as a primary solution won't address all of the issues involved.  There are broader issues involved, some not directly related to education. 

As it pertains to poorer kids, how does one get the financial and human resources where needed?  Money is only part of it.  And then there's the issue of measuring achievement.  I'm not advocating the most extreme cases of firing teachers because this or that test score is sub-par, but some type of assessment is needed, to know where we as a district/state/country are at.  But with the current system, even that is seemingly out of bounds.  The same Mr Duncan who advocates high salaries to the general applause of teachers and their unions and other groups, received a decidedly less enthusiastic response within only the last few weeks when he talked about how poorly American students fared in PISA testing compared to other countries, with arguments ranging from class based discrepancies - which have foundation in reality, though in this case not as much since even the top scoring US students fared relatively poorly - to notions that testing doesn't offer useful information - which is fantasy.




* How could I not be?  At her current school (she's in sixth grade), one of her teachers said, just a couple months ago, that spelling is not taught because kids can use spell check.  During the same visit, her math teacher said he didn't grade homework because he wasn't here to grade homework.  I'm not sure this is really worse than her prior school, though, where the principal took on important issues and made bold decisions like banning the singing of Happy Birthday in classrooms.  These strike me as egregious examples of incompetence and foolishness, and I am certain that not all teachers and administrators are this bad - I've dealt with excellent examples of both - but if I experience it where I live, how many others have similar experiences?

[Todd]

libertarianism has obvious shortcomings.

Of course it does.  The fruitier proponents of libertarian thought advocate policies reminiscent of 19th Century thinking.  That will not do.  And then, of course, some libertarians are libertarian only in certain areas, usually as it pertains to what they perceive as free market economics, while still endorsing certain aspects of big government, namely the military.

[milk]

I'm not poor, and my daughter attends a well funded public school, and I'm concerned about the quality of education she receives*, as well as the education everyone, including the poor, receives in general.  The point of including what I included was to illustrate that the system is not working optimally, or close to it, and that increasing pay by itself or even as a primary solution won't address all of the issues involved.  There are broader issues involved, some not directly related to education. 

As it pertains to poorer kids, how does one get the financial and human resources where needed?  Money is only part of it.  And then there's the issue of measuring achievement.  I'm not advocating the most extreme cases of firing teachers because this or that test score is sub-par, but some type of assessment it needed, to know where we as a district/state/country are at.  But with the current system, even that is seemingly out of bounds.  The same Mr Duncan who advocates high salaries to the general applause of teachers and their unions and other groups, received a decidedly less enthusiastic response within only the last few weeks when he talked about how poorly American students fared in PISA testing compared to other countries, with arguments ranging from class based discrepancies - which have foundation in reality, though in this case not as much since even the top scoring US students fared relatively poorly - to notions that testing doesn't offer useful information - which is fantasy.




* How could I not be?  At her current school (she's in sixth grade), one of her teachers said, just a couple months ago, that spelling is not taught because kids can use spell check.  During the same visit, her math teacher said he didn't grade homework because he wasn't here to grade homework.  I'm not sure this is really worse than her prior school, though, where the principal took on important issues and made bold decisions like banning the singing of Happy Birthday in classrooms.  These strike me as egregious examples of incompetence and foolishness, and I am certain that not all teachers and administrators are this bad - I've dealt with excellent examples of both - but if I experience it where I live, how many others have similar experiences?

I wonder about testing though. Is it being overemphasized? Here in Japan, testing and rote learning is a lot of what they do. And it shows in the students' general weakness in confidence and in communication, creative, and logical and abstract thinking abilities. Although to be fair, the focus on testing is just one part of the problem. 

[milk]

Of course it does.  The fruitier proponents of libertarian thought advocate policies reminiscent of 19th Century thinking.  That will not do.  And then, of course, some libertarians are libertarian only in certain areas, usually as it pertains to what they perceive as free market economics, while still endorsing certain aspects of big government, namely the military.

It seems to me that libertarianism has no answer for the effects of something in the distant future. I'm not strong on economics. But I don't see how the market can bring any concern to bear on what will happen in fifty or a hundred or two hundred years.

[Karl Henning]

. . . one of her teachers said, just a couple months ago, that spelling is not taught because kids can use spell check.  During the same visit, her math teacher said he didn't grade homework because he wasn't here to grade homework.

To borrow one of my tenth grade English teacher's pet phrases (God rest his soul): Pinheads on parade!

[Todd]

Is it being overemphasized?

Probably, but it is essential, in my view, to assess where students are.  I would think it should be used as a tool to guide where resources flow and not as a definitive measure of success.

[milk]

Probably, but it is essential, in my view, to assess where students are.  I would think it should be used as a tool to guide where resources flow and not as a definitive measure of success.

Right. Here in Japan, universities throw enormous resources into entrance exams. Each one creates it's own exam and certain faculty members are assigned to the grueling year-long task. Any mistakes on entrance tests are big black marks on a university's reputation. Students are put under intense pressure to succeed on these all-important tests. The ones that can afford cram schools are, of course, likely to do better. Then, once students enter, they are guaranteed to graduate if they show up at the university. Most students do no more than one hour of homework a week while at university. This may all sound strange, but not to them. It fits into the general thinking about education and life in general. So this is an extreme I bet many Americans wouldn't imagine existed. 

[Todd]

But I don't see how the market can bring any concern to bear on what will happen in fifty or a hundred or two hundred years.

The conceptual key is accurate accounting of externalities.  If all costs of economic activity can be accurately calculated, or at least reasonably estimated, then the market will become more efficient, with less probability of market failure.  Pretty much everyone acknowledges externalities.  It's been a good number of years since I studied economics in an academically rigorous fashion, but when I was studying it, the most potent criticism leveled against environmental economics, in particular, but also all arguments concerned with externalities, was that externalities were not being quantified.  Right when I finished college, a lot of good work was being done in this area to accurately quantify externalities.  (No more proclamations like "It will cost billions!", but rather statements like "Estimated remediation will cost X billion a year.")   Now it is pretty common to see pretty good estimates of externalities and total social cost as it pertains to many policies.  It's not perfect, of course, but it's better than what was in place years ago.  Even so, sometimes the more efficient solution may be blunt government action - eg, a carbon tax would almost certainly be better and more efficient than carbon exchanges in reducing carbon emissions.  (This assumes that one accepts that measured levels of carbon in the atmosphere are high and rising and anthropogenic in nature and harmful, but that is something different.)

This offers, in my view, a good example of the value of the perceived intransigence of some conservatives: rather than just accept that bad things are happening, that doom is assured, they demand that a monetary value be determined before acting or changing.  After all, it's money that is used to pay for things, not ill feelings, and spending more on one policy may require spending less on another, at least in the short term.

Politics, of course, is often informed by other motivations, which can render all of the above irrelevant. 

[ibanezmonster]

Right. Here in Japan, universities throw enormous resources into entrance exams. Each one creates it's own exam and certain faculty members are assigned to the grueling year-long task. Any mistakes on entrance tests are big black marks on a university's reputation. Students are put under intense pressure to succeed on these all-important tests. The ones that can afford cram schools are, of course, likely to do better. Then, once students enter, they are guaranteed to graduate if they show up at the university. Most students do no more than one hour of homework a week while at university. This may all sound strange, but not to them. It fits into the general thinking about education and life in general. So this is an extreme I bet many Americans wouldn't imagine existed.

I know about the entrance exams insanity but did not know about the near absence of homework while at a university. I guess I'm clueless about their university life, but I'm not sure how almost no homework would even work. That must mean extremely long classes, but how could you schedule that around work? Sounds like an odd system.

[milk]

I know about the entrance exams insanity but did not know about the near absence of homework while at a university. I guess I'm clueless about their university life, but I'm not sure how almost no homework would even work. That must mean extremely long classes, but how could you schedule that around work? Sounds like an odd system.

Ah! It's such a weird system that it's hard to guess how it works, isn't it? No, they have many classes! First-year students have 10-15 classes a week. That's 10-15 different teachers. Plus most students have part-time jobs and long train commutes to fill their time (more than half live at home; average commute is one hour each way. But there are many students who do more). Furthermore, university clubs and circles are deemed nearly the most important part of university life. Then, in their last two years, they spend lots of time doing job hunting. Japanese companies hire large groups of graduates every year and they start the hiring process in the students' junior year. Consequently, it's very hard to build anything one week to the next in the classroom or get the students interested.

[milk]

The conceptual key is accurate accounting of externalities.  If all costs of economic activity can be accurately calculated, or at least reasonably estimated, then the market will become more efficient, with less probability of market failure.  Pretty much everyone acknowledges externalities.  It's been a good number of years since I studied economics in an academically rigorous fashion, but when I was studying it, the most potent criticism leveled against environmental economics, in particular, but also all arguments concerned with externalities, was that externalities were not being quantified.  Right when I finished college, a lot of good work was being done in this area to accurately quantify externalities.  (No more proclamations like "It will cost billions!", but rather statements like "Estimated remediation will cost X billion a year.")   Now it is pretty common to see pretty good estimates of externalities and total social cost as it pertains to many policies.  It's not perfect, of course, but it's better than what was in place years ago.  Even so, sometimes the more efficient solution may be blunt government action - eg, a carbon tax would almost certainly be better and more efficient than carbon exchanges in reducing carbon emissions.  (This assumes that one accepts that measured levels of carbon in the atmosphere are high and rising and anthropogenic in nature and harmful, but that is something different.)

This offers, in my view, a good example of the value of the perceived intransigence of some conservatives: rather than just accept that bad things are happening, that doom is assured, they demand that a monetary value be determined before acting or changing.  After all, it's money that is used to pay for things, not ill feelings, and spending more on one policy may require spending less on another, at least in the short term.

Politics, of course, is often informed by other motivations, which can render all of the above irrelevant.

This gives me a bit of vertigo. Did you address here the question of a company's impact on resources or the environment in the long-term? I mean without government to intervene? I'll be reading this over again. I appreciate the effort you put into rehearsing these arguments.

[Todd]

Did you address here the question of a company's impact on resources or the environment in the long-term? I mean without government to intervene?

Government intervention is inevitable in certain areas, but it is at least conceptually possible to have comparatively less regulation and to rely more on the judiciary to help settle lawsuits between private parties.  Obviously, things like taxation rely on the use of coercive state power, but then so does establishing a market in which to trade things like carbon emissions.  Purists may seek an elimination of government involvement, but more practical sorts seek to minimize the inevitable involvement.

[milk]

Government intervention is inevitable in certain areas, but it is at least conceptually possible to have comparatively less regulation and to rely more on the judiciary to help settle lawsuits between private parties.

People in the future would need a time machine in that case, perhaps to force a lawsuit in the past and change outcomes.

[milk]

Government intervention is inevitable in certain areas, but it is at least conceptually possible to have comparatively less regulation and to rely more on the judiciary to help settle lawsuits between private parties.  Obviously, things like taxation rely on the use of coercive state power, but then so does establishing a market in which to trade things like carbon emissions.  Purists may seek an elimination of government involvement, but more practical sorts seek to minimize the inevitable involvement.

I guess you'd agree that actors in a marketplace unfettered by regulations would have little practical incentive to care about, or even find out about, the impact of their actions in a hundred or two hundred or three hundred years. They might also have little incentive to worry about how their actions affect people who haven't the resources to bring lawsuits or people who have no legal standing. Admittedly, governments and politicians are not exactly long-term thinkers and planners. But I seem to remember a certain Texas politician during the last presidential election struggling to form a list of government agencies to eliminate.

[Todd]

People in the future would need a time machine in that case, perhaps to force a lawsuit in the past and change outcomes.

The point is that factoring in externalities allows for more accurately determining the costs of environmental harm (or other types of harm) caused by companies - and governments - today, and that can be utilized in legal action by property owners and others with legal standing today, and reduces the burdens of direct regulation, and the inherent risk of regulatory capture.  Regulation itself causes harm and it is, or at least may be, possible for some specific regulations to cause more economic or other harm than the activities meant to be curtailed. 

I guess you'd agree that actors in a marketplace unfettered by regulations would have little practical incentive to care about, or even find out about, the impact of their actions in a hundred or two hundred or three hundred years.

Usually, but not always.  For instance, some logging companies in the local region undertook replanting programs on private lands decades ago, before any mandates were dreamed up, and keep it up today; the cost of replanting is small, the long term rewards are large.  In purely extractive or transactional industries, there is little to no incentive to think that way. 

I'm not familiar with Richard Rorty's work, but I can say that I think we're not doomed.  Sure, humans will go extinct one day far in the future, as all currently living species will, but it won't be because of specific topics we are discussing today.  Society will not crumble, democracy will (probably) not perish, and so forth.

[milk]

The point is that factoring in externalities allows for more accurately determining the costs of environmental harm (or other types of harm) caused by companies - and governments - today, and that can be utilized in legal action by property owners and others with legal standing today, and reduces the burdens of direct regulation, and the inherent risk of regulatory capture.  Regulation itself causes harm and it is, or at least may be, possible for some specific regulations to cause more economic or other harm than the activities meant to be curtailed. 





Usually, but not always.  For instance, some logging companies in the local region undertook replanting programs on private lands decades ago, before any mandates were dreamed up, and keep it up today; the cost of replanting is small, the long term rewards are large.  In purely extractive or transactional industries, there is little to no incentive to think that way. 

I'm not familiar with Richard Rorty's work, but I can say that I think we're not doomed.  Sure, humans will go extinct one day far in the future, as all currently living species will, but it won't be because of specific topics we are discussing today.  Society will not crumble, democracy will (probably) not perish, and so forth.

Well, I'm not at all convinced by your examples here. But that's an impasse. I accept that you are making assertions about regulations and the economy. That is the argument from the right. I'm not saying it's never true or that we don't need a balance. I'm just saying I'm not convinced that the libertarian argument isn't a recipe for disaster.