Video: Why monopolies are bad, and why school choice makes sense
posted at 1:36 pm on February 9, 2010 by Ed Morrissey
The Center for Freedom and Prosperity released another of its Econ 101 video series today, this time with Isabel Santa of Cato discussing the problems of monopolies — especially in regard to school choice. The government-imposed school monopoly squelches innovation and provides an inefficient model for education, Santo argues, much as monopolies in other areas make inefficient use of capital. The problem is that government only reluctantly allows private enterprise to compete with its near-total lock on compulsory primary education by forcing people who opt out to pay into both systems. That creates a situation where only the wealthy and powerful have the option to choose how their children will be educated — although far more of the people who protect the government monopoly choose to opt out of it than the general population:
One can make the same argument about health care, or more closely, the student-loan market, although the latter exists mainly in response to government intervention in the first place. Some services require a government monopoly, such as the military or the use of force in law enforcement. Almost all other issues are better left to the private sector, where competition forces innovation and efficiency — and creates positive employment through voluntary associations, rather than bureaucracies funded through tax receipts.
Besides, any government monopoly that 44% of the Senate and 36% of the House avoid is one that should be either ended or forced to compete on a more even basis with private-sector suppliers.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
Your repeating of the same statement multiple times does not make it true. You have still not responded to my comment regarding Intel and AMD. Do you have a clean crisp answer? Or do you just want to respond by talking points?
peter_griffin on February 9, 2010 at 4:23 PM
So you want to have compulsory education, but you don’t want public schools. Am I understanding you correctly?
Proud Rino on February 9, 2010 at 4:27 PM
We need to start over from the top down, from the overarching philosophy (a free education is a “right” to a free education is a “privilege”) to the legislature, to the schools. You’re right, nothing less will do, and it’d take a long time–a generation at least, as it’s taken that long to get us where we are today.
Bob's Kid on February 9, 2010 at 4:28 PM
Well, yeah, basically. We didn’t have public education mandated in every state from 1789 to the 1920s or so (and even then just primary school). The private sector had plenty of time to develop schools for all children, and it failed to do it. We didn’t get the educated populace that we now have without public schools, you won’t find another industrialized country in the world without public education, and now you want to get rid of it?
Proud Rino on February 9, 2010 at 4:32 PM
So, which children don’t deserve the privilege of an education?
Proud Rino on February 9, 2010 at 4:33 PM
Proud Rino on February 9, 2010 at 4:27 PM
Uh yes.
Students should receive public funds to attend school and they should be required to attend school, up to a certain age.
This isn’t a difficult or hard to implement concept. You can require education without even having a single public school. Again, it’s what they do in Belgium.
NoDonkey on February 9, 2010 at 4:34 PM
Great! Now we’re getting somewhere. All right, so you want there to be vouchers because you don’t want parents to have to pay for an education their kids won’t receive, but you *do* want heavily subsidize private school education for people who can’t afford by having people pay for educations their own children won’t receive. Got it.
Proud Rino on February 9, 2010 at 4:37 PM
Yes, heavily subsidized and regulated private schools, that’s the free market working at its very best.
Proud Rino on February 9, 2010 at 4:40 PM
Still waiting for a response here. Which kids don’t deserve an education?
Proud Rino on February 9, 2010 at 4:41 PM
…to — eventually, when we finally emerge from underneath our dangerous illusions — there is no such thing as a “free education”.
This isn’t to say we shouldn’t have government-subsidized education, or even government-provided education. But calling it “free” — even innocently — when it is anything but is not only bad karma but engenders an atmosphere where poor spending decisions are made and continue to be made. Before it all comes crashing down, it may be the most expensive “free” thing we’ve ever undertaken as a society (though “free” medical care is giving us a good run for the money; at least much of it is only partially “free”, another oxymoron).
RD on February 9, 2010 at 4:44 PM
What? If you are saying that I don’t want parents to have to pay for public schools AND private schools, that’s correct.
Again, what? There should be no distinction between public and private schools is what I’m saying. What’s important is proper education for children, not preserving the public schools.
The vast majority of private schools are funded at a lower level than public school, truth be told. They just don’t get their coffers filled by the tax man while they’re crying “poverty”.
If public schools can compete, great. They can stay. If not, I don’t give a damn. I care about the kids, not an organization chart.
NoDonkey on February 9, 2010 at 4:48 PM
Since the govt has power to regulate commerce with foreign nations & among the states & Indian tribes, then it has a responsibility to be a hands off referee.
A judicious one.
So Canadian use of US banned pesticides (Mexico does this, too) resulting in a finished product being sold in the US at no disadvantage is a problem. And companies who go across the border to do this in order to make a buck are being subversive & not more efficient. They just know that govt is not going to enforce it’s own laws.
Large slaughter houses are allowed by the USDA to inspect their OWN product for contamination. USDA sends out inspectors to small butchers who RECEIVE their product from the slaughterer.
Why is this allowed? The govt AND the larger industry is allowing to happen.
It is a problem of govt exercising power they do NOT have & some business taking advantage of the govt’s complacency.
I do not want to give the govt more power.
I want them to enforce the laws that are already there.
The Free Trade agreements the govt has, the companies that use their $ & power to seduce govt officials to get breaks, none of that would be happening if they enforced the basic laws that are already there to begin with.
So while some refereeing is necessary, there is way too much of it in inappropriate areas & not enough in the areas that it should be.
I am not asking for govt subsidies for food.
I am not asking govt to get rid of Walmart.
I am not asking for the govt to come in and break up successful companies.
But I am asking that they in the very least enforce their anti-trust laws.
If they are using illegal means then no it isn’t.
Anti-trust laws are there for a reason.
Companies that break laws, even a little bit,are doing so bcs they can get away with, whereas many other businesses follw the law & cannot get ahead bcs they are not competing unfairly.
I want the govt to stop looking away on some issues & start enforcing their powers given to them in the LAW-not in policy.
Perhaps we have a disaggreement, Mark, with anti-trust law.
Perhaps you prefer unfettered capitalism with no limits whatsoever.
Badger40 on February 9, 2010 at 4:53 PM
But you do want them to pay for their own kids to go to private schools, in addition to paying for needy children to go to private school as well, because you support compulsory education.
How is that any different?
Oh, really, then you should talk to this guy
Proud Rino on February 9, 2010 at 4:54 PM
Which antitrust laws are they not enforcing?
Proud Rino on February 9, 2010 at 4:56 PM
Because I pay my taxes and my children also get to go to the school of my choice, not the monopoly school foisted upon me by the government.
And I paid property taxes for two decades before I even had children.
Again, if the public schools can’t compete, that’s their problem. They aren’t too big to fail.
NoDonkey on February 9, 2010 at 5:05 PM
My answer to this question, whatever it might be, is immaterial to the point I raised; and regardless of my what my answer might be, you would still punish Johnny Schoolbuilder’s descendants for the alleged sins of his neighbor’s ancestors. That, to me, is the more important issue by far, and says everything about the mentality represented here.
An aside: There are better commenters than me on the subject of literacy in the young United States, but I distinctly remember the subject being raised in the past. The subjects discussed there led me to conclude that the party-line parable on the public school system bringing the average citizen out of the proverbial darkness is a little tendentious and exaggerated, to say the least, not to mention dismissive of the real prevailing level of education (both general and task-specific) in evidence at the time. So from that point on I’ve been a little more, shall we say, cautious than you in jumping to credulous conclusions like the one quoted above.
RD on February 9, 2010 at 5:08 PM
Public schools in action in Mokena, IL.
Last year the school gives a new contract to the teachers including pay raises.
IN last week’s election the school asked the voter’s for more money. The voters said NO.
A private school would most likely ask their teachers to take a pay cut to weather the storm (like other private companies have done this recession).
A public school, due to the teachers union, will just fire teachers and cut classes and activities.
WashJeff on February 9, 2010 at 5:09 PM
I think you’re missing the point: What we have now is, you have your public school default option, and if you want to go to private school, you have to pay for that. You still have to pay for public school education for other children though.
What you are proposing (although you keep changing your mind, so I’m just going with the most coherent thing you’ve said) is that you want only private schools, and then for the taxpayers to fund all the kids who can’t afford to go to private school enough so that every child gets an education, and my question is, how are those two things any different from the perspective of the taxpayer? You’re still paying for your kid to go to school and you’re still paying for other kids to go to school too.
The only difference is that, in one case, you’re paying the government to put kids in school, and in the other case, you’re paying the government to act as a middleman while private firms put kids in school. Your proposal is, improbably…incredibly, actually less efficient than what we have now.
Proud Rino on February 9, 2010 at 5:10 PM
I don’t see him saying that at all.
Sometimes the govt has to step in when industry will not do it themselves.
It is stupid to think that the market will always provide the solution to every problem.
It doesn’t. That is fantasy.
I know people who have huge farms, + large agribusiness corporations that have operations near me (not in ND we do not allow corporations to own agriculture businesses-other nearby states)that ABUSE their land & make it unproductive. I have seen them STARVE their animals bcs they have such huge operations that the loss is no big deal to them.
This is what you get when you go big.
Businesses DO engage in practices that are not profitable-I have SEEN it with my own EYES.
And yet they can bcs they are so big the losses are absorbed.
Look at Butte MT with its huge open hole in the ground that affected water quality (copper mine)-bcs of some environmental regs, by the GOVT, we were able to come up with better practices that didn’t ruin everything.
If you are a mining operation, then you don’t care if you ruin the land for wildlife or agriculture bcs you are making a profit from the mineral.
They have absolutely NO incentive to clean up after themselves.
This fantasy of ‘the market will always provide the answer’ is utopian.
Unfettered capitalism is fine & all if you don’t want to consider that perhaps our energy sources & food supply are of a national security issue.
If you don’t mind that food shortages could occur bcs food goes to the highest bidder in this ‘global economy’, go ahead.
The nation has an interest in protecting its sovereignty.
Capitalism run amok won’t protect that interest.
Badger40 on February 9, 2010 at 5:14 PM
And of course, I answered your question in the affirmative. I love the free market. I wish everything worked best on the free market. But sometimes it doesn’t. Our ancestors had plenty of time to develop education for all (more realistically, virtually all) kids and they couldn’t do it, so government mandated it.
That’s why we have laws generally, you know – because we’ve failed to adequately police ourselves in some respect that a majority of Americans believe we should, so we use goverment to do it.
So now, answer my question.
Proud Rino on February 9, 2010 at 5:14 PM
–Public schools in our district in TX are reducing non-teaching personnel (like library, computer help, etc.).
Jimbo3 on February 9, 2010 at 5:17 PM
That’s the crux of the problem. It may be efficient but it certainly isn’t very effective.
chemman on February 9, 2010 at 5:17 PM
Read yourself about the Sherman anti-trust act.
Trust just refers to monopolistic behavior.
Bcs the federal govt is our referee, it is a lot like the fox guarding the hen house.
It is hell to get them to investigate in the 1st place.
Badger40 on February 9, 2010 at 5:19 PM
No, that’s not the crux of the problem, public schools are tremendously inefficient, I just think it’s hysterical that this dude wants to propose something that actually *less* efficient than public schools, when inefficiency is the biggest problem with public schools today.
Proud Rino on February 9, 2010 at 5:19 PM
Yes, thanks, I’m quite familiar with the Sherman Act, the Clayton Act, the FTC Act, and the Robinson-Patman Act. I’m asking you, which of the laws are they not enforcing enough to your liking? Name an example of clearly illegal behavior that is being ignored by the government.
Proud Rino on February 9, 2010 at 5:21 PM
It fails bcs we the people are not vigilant enough in holding the govt to its lawful enforcement.
This is much like the fact that we the people are doing a lousy job of making the govt live by the Constitution.
Badger40 on February 9, 2010 at 5:22 PM
How is less efficient for the state to provide all kids scholarship funds from K – 12 based on the averge price for school in the relative area the kid lives from the pool of tax resources available to a state (property, income and sales)?
As long as the scholarship is based on the average school price in the area, every family will have a choice of schools that will not exceed the scholarship amount. If the family wants more “stuff”, they can pay the difference out of pocket. If they want to home school or use a school that has a lesser price, they can apply the savings to future educational needs.
WashJeff on February 9, 2010 at 5:24 PM
Here is one small instance of inequity in the cattle markets.
There is also a lot of good information here.
Some businesses who have a handle on all the competition have a way of tweaking & breaking the rules.
Badger40 on February 9, 2010 at 5:26 PM
You’re kidding. Instead of having the government run the schools, the government is operating as a middleman. So you get the same bureaucracy that you get with public schools, but then you also get all the private school costs. Then what happens if there aren’t enough private schools in an area? You have to heavily subsidize and incentivize people to build private schools in those areas, and thanks to that pesky Constitution, virtually no private school will be able to be religious (unless they refuse the government funds, which they won’t).
Or, just go ask any doctor how efficient Medicare is, because that’s basically what’s being proposed here.
Proud Rino on February 9, 2010 at 5:28 PM
That is what my high school district is doing. No more early bird/zero hour classes, no more vocational classes, non-teaching staff are laid off, etc.
Does the PE teacher that makes $115,000 a year have to take a pay cut? NO.
So instead of giving the kids a zero hour where they can take more classes. Vocational classes for those that may have more talent in their hands then their head. They retain the pay of overpaid teachers. BS me thinks!
WashJeff on February 9, 2010 at 5:28 PM
I retired as a science teacher (chemistry & biology) in California because the system valued efficiency over effectiveness. All they wanted was to be able to put a student in an open seat regardless of their readiness for the class. Teachers were expected to make sure they would pass the class or face the music for giving to many poor grades. It was efficient for the system to operate this way but terribly ineffective for trying to actually educate young minds. That is what I mean by the problem being settling for efficiency over effectiveness. The ideal situation would be both efficiency and effectiveness. But if I can’t have the ideal I’ll opt for effectiveness over efficiency anytime. Opting for efficiency as the ideal is just glorified baby setting.
chemman on February 9, 2010 at 5:30 PM
I admit I don’t know how the cattle markets work, but agricultural co-ops have an antitrust exemption under the Capper-Volstead Act. Baseball, insurance, and labor all have exemptions too. It’s not illegal when agricultural co-ops do things in restraint of trade, so the problem is not a lack of enforcement – the problem is that it’s a bad law (imo).
Proud Rino on February 9, 2010 at 5:32 PM
And honestly, why would large meat packing companies not want COOL (Country Of Origin Labeling)?
Why have they been stonewalling it & fighting it?
Congress passed COOL & it’s still stalled & castrated into something worthless.
Packers & related industries have done this.
Why is it I am forced to pay $1/ head of cattle sold in the US to a slush fund (Beef Checkoff) that advertises & promotes Beef & not US Beef?
Mushroom producers (& some others) had a similar checkoff rules some years ago as unconstitutional.
Why is the beef checkoff any different?
Special interests are lining their pockets & getting unfair advantages-period.
I will let you know a secret in agriculture-being bigger is not more efficient. We were bigger & you hit a tipping off point where you actually become less profitable at a certain level (in regards to animals).
There is a point when being big helps-& then it is actually detrimental to the production of your product.
Bcs raising animals en masse is not like a mechanized assembly line.
More can actually mean less.
Badger40 on February 9, 2010 at 5:32 PM
Well, I’m sure that private schools that operate for profit will be more concerned with the education the kids get as opposed to being more concerned with efficiency.
Proud Rino on February 9, 2010 at 5:33 PM
Train companies up here in the northern plains have a monopoly on grain cars.
It doesn’t cost them more to do business with grain farmers up here bcs we are farther north.
They are manipulating prices bcs they can.
And if you don’t like their business practices, there is NO ONE else you can go to to ship your grain.
You are captive.
The ‘lack of enforcement’ here is the govt’s lack of attention to investigate our complaints.
They have to be hammered to death to investigate something.
That is a problem.
It is the same problem that allows the packers to investigate THEMSELVES for E-coli contamination, but not let the small butcher do it (who buys his slaughtered product from the PACKER-where the contamination ORIGINATES).
And the govt will not even allow a business, like Creekstone Farms, test their cattle for BSE bcs Japanese customers want what they percieve to be safer beef.
This is at the behest of the packing industry.
They mix their product from all over the world & testing like that would be very expensive, but you’d be surprised at how many countries would like that done.
There we have an opportunity to get a premium on our beef & the govt, at the request of the packing industry, will not let us test above & beyond for BSE.
It is CORRUPT.
Badger40 on February 9, 2010 at 5:37 PM
I think I disagree. I buy local beef, chicken, etc but I pay out the nose for it (my wife makes me).
Anyway, people that buy the stuff from Kroger pay a heck of a lot less than I do, because big companies have economies of scale.
Proud Rino on February 9, 2010 at 5:37 PM
The bureaucracy is MUCH MUCH smaller since there are a lot less government employees. The government need only provide for a bureaucracy that allows all parents to register their kids for the scholarship, verification the kid really exists, distrubtion of funds to the families, and probably some collection of standard exam testing so parents can see how the kids at the schools are doing to make a better informed decision.
Whay do you keep saying private schools cost more than public schools. Minus elite private schools like those in the NorthEast, most private schools cost less.
If there are enough schools today for the kids, there are enough schools to handle this plan if it ever happened. And once it wass stable, many schools would open up. Some would be thre traditional go for 7 hours type. SOme maybe hybrids of homeschooling and expert guidance.
You won’t have to subsidize any school. ONce a private entity knows that parents to not have to pay twice for a private school, that they have scholarships available to them, schools will be built. Again, you have to get out of the mindset that all schools would look like the traditional school. Why cannot a Sylvan Learning center work with parents to educate kids?
Regarding religious schools and the constitution, I do not think our federal constitution (A) meant for us to have a country free from religion and (B) applies to the state unless stated explicity (i.e., I think incorporation was major screw up by the justices at the time).
This is not like medicare. In a health care environment my plan would be like providing money to seniors and have them buy insurance from a private company. The amount of money available to the seniors would be based on that the amount of money collected in Medicare taxes from the previous year with some allowance to economic situation of the recipient.
WashJeff on February 9, 2010 at 5:43 PM
The private schools in the area I live in do a more effective and efficient job that the local public schools. But I am only speaking for the area I live in.
chemman on February 9, 2010 at 5:45 PM
That’s true in most areas, because they’re generally pretty small and they’re very well-funded. If you tried to “privatize” public schools (but still have compulsory education for 100 million kids or so!), I’m guessing they would become much less effective, and if the schools became massively subsidized with all the problems that come along with government subsidies, they’d become much less efficient as well.
Proud Rino on February 9, 2010 at 5:48 PM
And what you fail to see is that the premise of the argument itself is flawed.
During the time prior to a one-size-fits-all style of compulsory education, the free market provided a patchwork quilt of various overlapping educational experiences, many of which were ad hoc, some of which arose through civic or community participation. Such an education might have been acquired through a combination of home-schooling, church attendance and trade apprenticeship.
Rightly or wrongly, it was arrived at organically as the sum total of the best set of individual voluntary transactions that benefitted the participants most directly. It is even arguable that, outside of professions such as law or medicine, this education maximized the effectiveness of education per dollar or unit of time spent, certainly more so than anything our poor captive children are getting today in public schools-cum-warehouses.
On the other hand, from the perspective of some bureaucrat who defines the success function in advance as some arbitrary set of specific educational transactions, comprising not only the “what” but also the “how” of education, then by definition everything you posit has to be true, because the bureaucrat defining the criteria has done so in a way that guarantees those criteria are unfulfilled by the free market. Being a universal enterprise, one of those criteria has to be measurability, a criterion an organic system has no need for. So now, kids have to be forced through a particular set of tasks, just to be sure we know they learned something, just so that we can measure how *we* are doing at “educating” them — never mind what a given kid actually needs. A patchwork quilt of skills by contrast is very difficult to measure, so it has to be thrown out, regardless of whether or not it’s actually better for the kid. And by that logic, everything you posit is a foregone conclusion, and no further introspection is required.
This style of argumentation, though disingenuous, is rather common within the pantheon of social justice, where it is repeated ad infinitum. It’s what we see today from the Obamacare-pushers, for instance: The free market had plenty of time to develop healthcare for all people and they couldn’t do it, so government mandated it.
Lather, rinse, repeat.
RD on February 9, 2010 at 5:52 PM
From my personal experience, they are concerned with quality, mostly aided by the presence of state-wide standardized exams. School ranks low on standardized exams? Demand for places at that school drops, and thus they have to drop their price or improve their product.
People aren’t mindless consumers as presumed by the government — they actually ARE capable of evaluating the quality of education their kids are getting, if they’re interested in paying attention. That’s the nice thing about having them see their school bill explicitly, rather than burying it in other taxes: If they have a choice to pay those fees or not, and they choose to pay them, then they have an incentive to watch for quality. If, on the other hand, all they care about education is that their kids are out of their sight for 6 hours, then they can shop for the cheapest baby-sitting service out there, education-be-damned.
mr.blacksheep on February 9, 2010 at 5:57 PM
Brevity is a wonderful thing, champ.
http://nces.ed.gov/naal/lit_history.asp
Your argument appears to be that you want to make education something that cannot be measured or quantified, and, having stipulated that you can’t possibly measure it, you then claim that the free market was successful in educating people.
L.
O.
L.
Proud Rino on February 9, 2010 at 6:00 PM
Please?
RD on February 9, 2010 at 6:00 PM
100% true, totally accurate. But what happens if you privatize all schools, but mandate compulsory education? Do the kids who can’t afford to pay on their own get to choose their schools too, or do they have to go to the closest one? Haven’t parents who choose to make the expense on their own earned the right to pick a better school more than parents who don’t, or can’t? Isn’t that the whole point of private school in the first place?
Proud Rino on February 9, 2010 at 6:07 PM
Nah, I don’t really care what you think.
Proud Rino on February 9, 2010 at 6:08 PM
Well, I’m not completely sure that there would be “free” education if you had only private schools. Maybe for parents who either by poor planning or ex-post misfortune ended up with kids they can’t afford to educate, there could be charitable contributions to their education.
Certain (probably most) private schools in Australia would waive some or all of their fees for a period of time if parents fell on financial hardship. I don’t recall hearing a case (although I’m sure somebody could find one) of a kid being kicked out of school if the parents were genuinely unable to pay the fees. We found that the administrators were always easy to work with, and anxious to help out with problems that came up.
That being said, kids without money may have trouble getting into a private school unless they were able to demonstrate some kind of merit that would catch the interest of a benefactor or beneficent headmaster. Remember, accepting an excellent, but penniless, student who would excel on the standardized exams is generally a worthwhile investment, because schools that perform better on the standardized exams have greater demand, and are thus able to put their prices up. Most schools were run by the churches, so there was considerable charity about.
For those who are unable or unwilling to attempt to demonstrate any kind of merit, there’s always the lowest common denominator — public school — which is probably entirely suitable for that category of student.
mr.blacksheep on February 9, 2010 at 6:19 PM
You’re making a different argument, then. The argument here is, “Let’s completely ‘privatize’ (although that’s impossible) schools, but let’s keep compulsory education.” I’m saying, I think that’s a really stupid idea for the reasons I’ve outlined.
Proud Rino on February 9, 2010 at 6:23 PM
No it doesn’t; my argument appears to be:
(1) You condone experts making pronouncements based on the formula
I define “good” or “acceptable” to be X; the current free-market situation is not X; therefore I am justified in declaring a government takeover and then proclaiming it successful in retrospect merely because it meets X, not because it is necessarily better than what came before.
(2) You (and many others) are perfectly fine with experts making tendentious judgments that may not fit the real facts, as long as it empowers your objectives;
(3) This line of reasoning fits a pattern being applied to all areas of social justice, including healthcare.
And I’ll add another:
(4) This line of argument (e.g., “Your ancestors in the free market had 140 years to do X, they failed, and therefore the gov’t had to take over X”) is a modern ex post facto canard derived from leftist thought, and not the original justification for many of our civic institutions.
RD on February 9, 2010 at 6:28 PM
I have long been a proponent of ‘publicly funded, privately operated’ education. I do believe that we as citizens have an obligation to educate all our children, but that does not mean that we have to operate the schools; just to pay for them.
johnsteele on February 9, 2010 at 6:34 PM
I think you may be reading more into what I said than . Could schools be completely privatized? I think probably so, although there may be some social cost in that there would be people who are left out.
Probably better would be to have some sort of tax dollars that follow the kid — either supplementing private school tuition or completely paying public school tuition.
mr.blacksheep on February 9, 2010 at 6:44 PM
Crap. Hit the wrong button.
First bit s/b “I think you may be reading more into what I said than what I intended.
mr.blacksheep on February 9, 2010 at 6:45 PM
Peter, I worked for IBM during the relevant time frame. It’s complicated, but the short version is that because of IBM’s requirement for a second source there are exactly 3 companies that can fab X86 processors for sale in the US: Intel (obviously), AMD (IBM required permanent cross licensing before agreeing to use Intel chips), and IBM. That’s why Cyrix and NexGen both built their processors on IBM fabs and why there was real doubt that who would be allowed to keep building X86 chips after AMD spun off Global Foundries.
So the present situation is a monopoly enabled by the government enforcement of patents and set in place by a IBM business decisions at a time when it had a monopoly on computing long, long ago.
nerdbert on February 9, 2010 at 7:01 PM
I was having exactly this conversation today at school with another teacher. They’re so programed to be good socialists that it’s hard to see the other side.
Mojave Mark on February 9, 2010 at 7:07 PM
Sorry if I’m being redundant – I don’t have time to read all of the comments, although I did skim through…
The solution to the problem is to attach the educational dollars to the child and let the parents decide which venue best fits their values, lifestyle, and educational goals for their children. No direct funding of schools by the State, instead schools would be funded by the number of children whose parents choose to send them there. This would force public schools to compete with private schools for voucher dollars in order to stay in business.
I attended both public and private schools growing up – the private school (Church of Christ) was far, far superior to the public school. So much so that I totally skated my senior year in the public school. I cannot stress how much better the education was.
If we want a well-educated populace (an absolute imperative if we want to retain our Democratic Republic) we need to look at solutions that actually work, rather than a governmental indoctrination system. Private schools do more with less. Fewer bureaucrats, less money, and a better education. Yes, there are some bad apples…but there are many more in the public system and if parents could vote with their feet the bad apples would eventually rot away.
For the record, I live in Texas and our schools in the area where I live are very, very good overall. I’ve been happy with the education my two older children have received, but I am not going to send my youngest to the elementary school we’re districted for.
ElvenPhoenix on February 9, 2010 at 7:16 PM
Pick a formula. Pick an objective measure of education, and then let’s compare how the unfettered free market does as opposed to a country with a public school system. Let’s see which works better.
First, you have no evidence of that, and second, you don’t know my objectives. I don’t have a dog in this fight. See, the nice thing about not being wedded to a particular ideology is that you can evaluate things on a strictly utilitarian level. I care about outcomes. You prove that a totally free market education is better, and I’m on your side.
That’s not a line of reasoning, that’s someone using misleading data to prove a point. It applies to every political argument not just ones involving “social justice.”
It’s not a canard, most people presumably wanted public schools, and they weren’t getting them, so they elected public officials who would get them public schools. Who cares if it’s the original justification for our civic institutions? People wanted something, and the free market failed in getting them that thing. Pretty straightforward.
Proud Rino on February 9, 2010 at 7:21 PM
Voucher schools receive less money per child in OH then the public school system. Constellation Schools have exceeded the necessary 19 points required to stay in business. They have a higher school attendance, higher parent participation, better salaries, better teachers and no more then 20 children per classroom. They stress science, math and reading and are far superior to the public school system. The State wanted to end the voucher program but backed down when buses full of parents and teachers went to Columbus for the hearings. Most of the levies which are for public schools do not benefit the kids but pay for union teachers benefits (that is the biggest problem in the public schools)
elclynn on February 9, 2010 at 7:37 PM
I disagree. Tuition at public schools is generally an order of magnitude more affordable than tuition at private schools. The price problem is not caused by government operating colleges and universities (tho I do agree they should get out of the business), but by government meddling in the student loan market. If government did not back student loans, and therefore students were forced to either apply for grants and scholarships, and/or work their way through school, the cost of attending college would drop exponentially. It’s a simple case of supply and demand.
The campaign to make college more accessible, coupled with a lower admissions standards at the schools themselves (cuz let’s face it, these schools are in business to make money, and more students = more $$$), has produced a glut of college graduates competing for fewer and fewer jobs, which in turn depresses wages. We’ve created an education bubble much the same way we’ve created a housing bubble. Not everyone is meant to go to college, just as not everyone is meant to own a home. If you want these things, then you need to work hard to earn them. By ostensibly leveling the playing field, government drives up the cost of these goods and services for everyone.
NoLeftTurn on February 9, 2010 at 7:38 PM
I think the scarcity of private schools prior to the 20th century was due more to the fact that education was not particularly valued in an agrarian society. Obviously there were some private schools; many of them still exist. I’m sure if some enterprising soul had seen a need for and desire for more private schools, he/she would have responded to that. But most Americans were only going to work on the family farm (or later on, in the factory) and book learnin’ just wasn’t considered a productive use of time. Not when there is hay to bail and widgets to forge.
NoLeftTurn on February 9, 2010 at 7:50 PM
So if we got rid of public schools, would private schools be forced to take in students they would normally never accept? How could we assure that every student was able to get into a school? Keep in mind that one of the reasons private schools outperform public ones is that they get to choose who will attend their school; if someone doesn’t measure up, they can counsel them out of the school so their score averages stay high. Unless they are a school that specializes in special needs students or troublemakers, they won’t want to take in a lot of the people that public schools are required to take. I’m not a fan of public schools or anything; I personally was homeschooled until college, and am currently a 3rd grade teacher at a Christian school overseas. I’m interested in voucher programs and things like that, I just don’t know if the idea of getting rid of public schools entirely would work.
tikvah on February 9, 2010 at 8:34 PM
But there was. Each state had elected representatives who passed laws mandating public education, and public schools came along with them. State started mandating public education early on, and it took a long time to spread. For what most of the public apparently wanted, the free market didn’t work.
I’m not sure it’s a productive use of time today for most kids. But there absolutely was a market for it, and it was not satisfied by the free market.
Proud Rino on February 9, 2010 at 8:39 PM
What a load of bunk. The US had one of the most literate societies in the western world before the 20th century.
AshleyTKing on February 9, 2010 at 10:25 PM
That’s not surprising, as many states embraced public schooling starting in the 1840s, and public school was available (albeit not compulsory) to all children by the end of the 19th century.
And the United States started getting a lot *more* literate with more access to schools. That’s not a load of bunk, there’s a very clear correlation.
I don’t know what other societies in the western world had in terms of education at this time, and you didn’t provide any statistics or any evidence whatsoever that there wasn’t any kind of correlation or that a lack of public schools didn’t have any impact on literacy rates.
And *my* comments are a load of bunk. LOL, Ashley. LOL.
Proud Rino on February 9, 2010 at 11:24 PM
In my vision of no public schools would imply that no money is used to subsidize schools directly. All money would go from the kid to the school. So if the state wants to provide for a troubled kid school, they will have to do so on that budget. If a town or city wants to do the same, they can fund the school on the tuition, additional taxes on town\city residents, and\or charity.
In Chicago there are charter schools that cater to at risk boys (here is one). You say you teach at a Christain school, so you are well aware that are a lot of really good people in this world. There are always those that want to help the at risk, the in need, and those that have special educational needs. The example Chicago charter shows just one example, I would guess there are many more out there. I for one do not fear this method of education, good people and organizations will and do step up to the plate.
WashJeff on February 9, 2010 at 11:32 PM
Correlation yes. Causation?
WashJeff on February 9, 2010 at 11:33 PM
No, of course not, why would there be a correlation between schools and literacy rates, Jeff? That’s just liberal propaganda.
Proud Rino on February 9, 2010 at 11:48 PM
Your claim is because there where more public schools. I would say that the cause for the increase in literacy rates is the society was going from an agrarian society to industrialized one. Children were needed less to tend to the farm and provide other labor; thus, there was more time to spend on educating kids than every before.
I do not know if public schools at the turn of the century (19th to 20th) were funded in the way they are today, but there existence at this time does not fully explain the rise in literacy.
This is also the era in the rise of progressivism. Many people at the time started to subscribe that government could be used to make society perfect or more perfect. So it would not surprise that in this era many people would want the government to create expansive public systems.
WashJeff on February 10, 2010 at 12:04 AM
Parents who are more discerning as to where their kids go to school (or home school) are the ones who care the most about their children’s education and therefore demand the most from their children. The same can be said of parents who want their kids in advanced programs in the public schools (whether their children are actually capable or not-but that’s a different matter). These types of parents could send their kids to the worst inner city schools and their kids would still succeed.
You could privatize all of education, but unless you weed out the troublemakers, drug dealers, ESE types and so on you’re right back to where you started. Teachers spend 90% of their time on the 10% of those who are the problem children…and some of those are in the advanced programs.
Now, a private school can choose who they let in and don’t, and who stays. In order to be competitive they will keep out the knuckleheads to make themselves look better. Then you’ll have (like now) private schools that specialize in taking on the losers who won’t be acceptable anywhere else.
In public education they already do this through charter and magnet schools…what’s left over are the lower-functioning children in certain schools thus awful test scores, discipline problems, and high drop out rates (of course, my kid would never be in any of those schools!).
I taught for years in a private school. It is very expensive. They charge for everything they can think of because…guess what…it’s a BUSINESS. So, I suppose that many parents would expect their kids’ private school education to be subsidized, of course, because most could not afford $8000 and up for tuition alone. In order to entice entrepreneurs to set up their own schools, it would have to be profitable, and current school taxes/moneys just won’t do it.
With thousands of suddenly private schools run by different companies, what standards would they have? Whatever they decide to have. If the state or the federal government sets up the standards the same types complaining now will be complaining then about “government interference”.
How many companies would actually control them? Maybe you want your kid educated by some Enron or GE, but I sure don’t. Would a monopoly of some kind be OK simply because it’s in the hands of private business, or is it just the public monopoly that’s bad? If so, I’m confused.
If the school goes out of business half way during the school year, what do you do then? What if it’s the only school within a reasonable distance from your home? What if you aren’t happy with any of the local schools-send your kid to boarding school? How would your kid get to school-could they afford to maintain buses? How much will lunch be since it’s no longer subsidized? Uniforms? Think they won’t pack as many kids in a room as possible to keep from hiring more teachers and hold down costs? Some schools require the kids to buy their own lap tops. How would you like an extra bill for that educational software you have to buy (it’s licensed you know)?
Since it’s a business and you whine and complain, they’ll just tell you that you can take your business elsewhere…no school board to vent your frustrations on (hmmm, I like that part).
Don’t think that these schools would cut out sports, music, art and other programs simply because they aren’t cost-effective? Think again. They’d go way faster than in public schools that fight to hang on to them.
Think that the more expensive schools won’t hire the more qualified, experienced teachers leaving the others with the leftovers? Or do we expect to level the playing field and spread the wealth and make sure that all schools in the private arena have great teachers (you know, teachers that teach your kids exactly what you want, how you want, are convinced that your kid is the smartest kid evah, and will never tell you your kid was bad or lazy?). In private school your kid will always be a starter on the team.
Bottom line is, if your kid can’t read or write or get into college it is your fault because you never demanded much from your child. It’s because you did not do all you can to make sure your child did their homework and studied for tests. It’s because you didn’t provide a stable home environment nor did you instill in your child the value of an education. It may be because you have always held teachers in contempt (“those who can…!”) and your kids pick up on that. It could be that you failed to discipline your child but rather blamed others for their bad behavior. It could also be that your kid is simply doing the best they can and just don’t shine in academics…accept that-as long as you know they are doing their best.
Dr. ZhivBlago on February 10, 2010 at 12:19 AM
Wait…They let kids become fellows at CATO?
TheBlueSite on February 10, 2010 at 1:31 AM
Thanks for your response, WashJeff. I’d have written earlier, but I’ve been teaching all day, and you’re now asleep no doubt, but I’ll write anyway.
I know lots of people would step up to the plate and start new schools. I guess my main point is: what happens if a family can’t find a school near them willing to take their child? Maybe he’s not a special needs or troubled kid, maybe just below average and a private school wouldn’t normally take him, or maybe the schools are full. How would we guarantee that the child could actually get into a school somewhere near their home? At the end of the day, who could help them if a family could not find a suitable private school? Where would they turn?
Mind you, I’m not trying to be argumentative, I’m sincerely interested in the question as a citizen and educator.
tikvah on February 10, 2010 at 3:46 AM
I’m a conservative public school teacher in a suburban school district. I teach elementary school.
We have a student who is taller than me and outweighs me by probably forty pounds. His behavior is dangerous. He has been known to slug teachers and throw things at his peers. We have been instructed not to go near him when he melts down, but to call police.
His parents are clueless. It’s not their problem. It’s not the kid’s problem. It’s the school, the teachers, the principal. The kid has been shuffled from district to district. When the problems catch up to him, they move.
Fellow conservatives, I’m not opposed to private schools or vouchers. But what do you propose for a child like this? Under a voucher system, do we “force” private schools to educate him? And what of the cost? Educating him costs more than educating most children because of the resources he consumes in terms of time, etc. And he is not alone; the percentage of students entering school with severe learning, developmental, or behavioral issues is on the rise. Some private schools enroll special needs children; many do not. Do we compel them to take these students? If so, at what cost? And if not, do we eventually revert to the days of “institutions” for children?
Grace_is_sufficient on February 10, 2010 at 7:43 AM
The only reasonable response to your nonsense is to object to your attempts to redefine monopoly as being any company that has a bigger share of the market than the ones you own stock in.
MarkTheGreat on February 10, 2010 at 8:35 AM
Often in these forums people become unrealistic in their approaches, they preach absolutes when any change of this magniture is incremental.
I think what most people would want is a series of steps to transfer gov. schools, over to private.
First step would be to eliminate Federal intrusion, that would be a massive and effective first challenge. Allow the states to have more control over the school system. Introducing vouchers would then begin the process of moving kids out of public schools.
Those two items would take years to accomplish, and during that process new problems and challenges would develop (what schools to close for instance and school district layoffs). By then we would have a clearer picture of what is being faced.
The important point is that we reverse the process we are seeing created…more government control.
We need to change that, and begin a process of returning the control of our lives to a more local political nature.
We are not the type of society that allows “the least among us” to suffer…
right2bright on February 10, 2010 at 8:35 AM
Absent govt intervention, the only way to do this is by keeping your prices low. Which is a good thing.
When govt intervenes, govt usually requires everyone to raise their prices so that everyone can earn lots of money, but the consumer loses.
MarkTheGreat on February 10, 2010 at 8:36 AM
Is there any subject on which you are not totally ignorant?
You are aware that literacy in the US was pretty close to 100% in 1789?
MarkTheGreat on February 10, 2010 at 8:39 AM
The ones who refuse to learn.
MarkTheGreat on February 10, 2010 at 8:39 AM
Not only is your reading comprehension near non-existant. Your ability to write a coherent sentence is absent as well.
With full vouchers, the difference between public and private schools disappears. There are no public schools as we now understand the concept. All schools are private, but paid for by the govt.
MarkTheGreat on February 10, 2010 at 8:42 AM
Wow, a whole 8 minutes to respond.
How freaking generous you are.
MarkTheGreat on February 10, 2010 at 8:43 AM
Badger40 on February 9, 2010 at 4:53 PM
Once again, you admit that the problem is govt screwing over the small producer, and your solution is to give govt more power.
This makes no sense to me. Do you honestly believe, that if you give the govt more power. That this time the govt will use that power to go after the people who pay the biggest bribes?
Govt will always become corrupt. There is no power on earth that can prevent that. The only solution is to ensure that govt has as little power as possible.
MarkTheGreat on February 10, 2010 at 8:45 AM
Badger40 on February 9, 2010 at 5:14 PM
Translation. You see people doing stuff you don’t like. You aren’t able to convince enough people that the stuff going on is wrong.
So your solution is to have govt pass a law outlawing the behaviors that you don’t like.
I don’t see how you get off calling yourself a conservative.
MarkTheGreat on February 10, 2010 at 8:48 AM
You admit that govt is not capable of acting as our referee, but you want to give it more rules to ignore?
MarkTheGreat on February 10, 2010 at 8:49 AM
And your definition is too absolute.
In science you have a vacuum, but there is varying degrees of vacuum…all the way to an “absolute”.
A true monopoly can never exist, just like a perfect vacuum can’t exist.
However, in the common vernacular monopolies have existed without government intervention. And almost always with mixed results…what happens is a powerful monopoly is that they actually begin to control a segment of the gov.
So the statement of “without gov. intervention” is a catch-22 statement.
Chicken or the egg, the monopoly is hatched, and as they begin to grow in influence, they take over a segment of gov. that is needed to protect their interests. The gov. becomes part of the monopoly. But it is not because the “government” in its purist sense is allowing it, it has become corrupted because of it.
right2bright on February 10, 2010 at 8:52 AM
Of course if we don’t give govt the power to control the economy, then the effort to control a segment of the govt is wasted.
In the real world, if the govt has the ability to control the economy, that power WILL ALWAYS be controlled by the highest bidder eventually. That’s simply the way govt works.
Govt is corrupt. Politicians are corrupt. A few people go into politics because the want to make the world better. Many go into politics because it’s an easy way to get rich. How many politicians retire from office poorer than when they first ran? None, or pretty d@mn close to none.
Once conservatives come to realize that govt is not our friend, and never will be, the closer we will be to getting our country and our freedoms back.
MarkTheGreat on February 10, 2010 at 9:26 AM
How many times have the anti-trust laws been used to break up monopolies?
Zero.
How many times has the threat of using the anti-trust laws been used to extract political donations, or at the behest of contributors to hinder the contributors competitors?
Dozens.
MarkTheGreat on February 10, 2010 at 9:28 AM
I wasn’t preaching anything; I was asking questions–informed questions, since I’m inside the public school “system”. Baby steps aren’t beneficial if we don’t have a comprehensive, unblinking look at the big picture. The big picture, in 2010, includes one in every 150 children diagnosed autistic–and that’s just for starters. Hoping these huge societal issues will be settled by simply limiting federal gov’t intrusion is, in my opinion, simplistic and short-sighted. We have to know how the private sector and citizens will step up to weave a net for our most vulnerable citizens–children with disabilities.
(BTW, I think American citizens ARE the best advocates for the most vulnerable among us, not the federal gov’t. But we need a plan in place if we’re to begin dismantling the public schools.)
Grace_is_sufficient on February 10, 2010 at 9:38 AM
right2bright:
What’s the alternative? Give govt the power to ensure that no company gets “too big” and no individual gets “too rich”?
Even accounting for the communisitic nature of such a system, how do we force other countries to hobble their industries in the same manner?
MarkTheGreat on February 10, 2010 at 9:49 AM
Government is our friend, but many of the people running are not. That’s like saying the car is a fault in a hit and run.
Gov. is needed to keep the people organized. We are a country of laws. There are many benefits of government, basically order and safety.
We need them to be pro-active, and unfortunately they are re-active.
I like the knowledge that our food processing is checked…I don’t like the gov. using that as a bat to beat restaurants into submitting to ridiculous laws.
But I like the ability to track down where certain milk was processed when a problem is found.
Our gov. officials should be part time, paid very little, and absolutely have little or no contact with influence peddlers outside public meetings. If found guilty of pay-offs, I consider that the same as treason.
Limit gov. to truly serving the people.
right2bright on February 10, 2010 at 9:50 AM
I get it, but is has little to do with wealth, and more to do with abuse of power.
Anything, once it gets too large and powerful, becomes abusive.
Churchs, governments, unions, business, it doesn’t matter, it is the nature of power and people.
It is about limiting POWER, I could care less about wealth, I hope Gates makes twice as much money, but I don’t want him to own every computer operating system…then they would do what they want, when they want.
I don’t want one oil company, or one party (even my own) to have complete control. Our system works best with balance.
We don’t hobble the other countries, eventually they will fail because of the corruption.
Just like, in a micro sense, our system is (was) under attack when the dems had “complete” control. Look at the damage just a few months of “monopoly” has done.
right2bright on February 10, 2010 at 10:21 AM
Relax, I was talking about the generic postings that say we should change everything now…
right2bright on February 10, 2010 at 10:22 AM
Govt is nothing more than the people who run it. Most of the people who run it are more interested in personal power than they are the health and safety of the citizens.
People are incapable of organizing without govt?
Order yes. Govt is a poor provider of safety. In fact it’s easy to show that the more govt involvement you have, the less safety you get.
By the nature of the beast. It is impossible for govt to be pro-active.
I like having food checked, however, govt is the worst way to go about doing that. Private agencies do a better job.
Once you give govt that bat, expect govt to use that bat in response to the loudest voice or the deepest pocket. It’s the nature of the beast.
You don’t need govt for that.
Once you give govt the power and authority to regulate the economy, the above wishes become impossible.
MarkTheGreat on February 10, 2010 at 10:35 AM
Abuse of power is the way govt gets things done. Seperating the two is like seperating wet from water.
The difference is, if a company gets abusive, I am free to patronize their competitors. If a govt gets abusive, I’m stuck.
Which is why it’s a very bad idea to give govt the power to regulate the economy.
The free market is self regulating. Govt on the other hand grows until the shooting starts.
The only way microsoft could ever eliminate all other operating systems would be if the govt did it for them. Which is why it’s a bad idea to give govt the power to regulate the economy.
If govt didn’t have the power to regulate the economy, the one oil company will never get total control.
Another reason why we don’t need govt to hobble our companies.
MarkTheGreat on February 10, 2010 at 10:40 AM
If the government does not prop up the monopoly via financial subsidies, then the monopoly should not be able to hold out for long providing prices below costs. While they are doing that, more people will benefit from the lower prices than suffer from them.
It is hard to think of any industry that if it temporarily disappears from a nation due to a monopoly situation cannot reappear when the monopoly stumbles, raises its prices, or is surpassed do to some innovation it does not possess.
WashJeff on February 10, 2010 at 10:47 AM
O yeah I was asleep at that time.
I fall into the camp that believes that there are no guarantees that life will be eqaully “easy” for everyone. For a very small subset of people they will have more sacrifices laid upon them then the majority. They well may have to move to a different area if their educational needs are not met. Call me a cold-hearted conservative, but I do not think my neighbor should be forced to subsidize me if life delt me lemons.
I also believe, as I stated last night, someone, some organzations will always step up to the plate to help special need kids of all types. From the restless to the kids that have not been blessed with good health.
WashJeff on February 10, 2010 at 11:07 AM
The problem is that there are people who actually believe that life is perfectable.
When govt steps in to make life easier for one, it by necessity makes life more difficult for others.
Now we have to ask, is the new balance of “dificulties” more fair or less fair, than it was before govt stepped in.
That depends on how you define fair, and who gets to make the decisions.
In most instances, govt intervention does not make life more fair. Rather it results in power flowing to those who have influence, and away from those who don’t.
MarkTheGreat on February 10, 2010 at 11:23 AM
At present, governments at all levels consume about 40% of GDP. If govt were cut back, people in general would have a lot more money to be charitable with.
MarkTheGreat on February 10, 2010 at 11:24 AM
Aha, the beauty of the ad hominem. all I can say is : I have defined monopoly situation to be one where it is almost impossible for innovations to reach the consumer because of the presence of a large company. But I do not expect you to understand that, because customer satisfaction is obviously an alien concept to you. Just talk to small and medium business owners, and they will explain it to you.
peter_griffin on February 10, 2010 at 12:00 PM
See – here is where you and I differ. Your contention is that, big government is bad, and business left to itself will work out just fine. Mine is that big government is almost as bad as big business. If big government is comprised of only power hungry people, what about big businesses? Ultimately, governments and businesses are both comprised of people like you and me, so they come with the virtues and vices inherent in human beings. When any organization grows big (government or business), it will overreach – and that will be visible to its consumers (customers or the governed).
peter_griffin on February 10, 2010 at 12:07 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »