A recent post on this blog from 'everyonesfacts' stated the following (excerpted and edited only for spelling and format), in response to a previous blogpost titled "Johnny MUST go to school".

------------------begin post by 'everyonesfacts'-------------------------------- 
Public schools have over time educated more and more of our populace. The U.S. has gone from graduation rates of about less than 50% from 8th to 9th grade at the end of WWII to 70% of 12th graders today. It could do better, but the improvement is clear.

Surely the education of the black minority has improved since 1945 or 1954 and there is a new focus on why they are not doing as well as other groups - the achievement gap - the difference other than family background is that a student in an urban school doesn't have as good a teacher. The schools could do better, but the improvement is clear.

I recommend the recommendations of College Board's Teachers and the Uncertain American Future as the best remedy for public education's current state.
see link .
------------------end post by 'everyonesfacts'------------------------------------

Dear 'everyonesfacts',

It would seem that you are a teacher - and one who feels quite passionately about education. Quite possibly, you are a parent too, which can only INCREASE your commitment to education. I am a parent of two kids, so I TOO have a very direct stake in the quality of education that we have in our country.

I have also done some math & science teaching, mostly on a voluntary basis - I have a fairly lucrative non-teaching 'regular' job. Being a degreed engineer with an interest in Math, Science and Computers, I have also run MathCamps & computer classes for middle-school kids. I'm sure that I don't have your level of experience or commitment in the field of education, but I have had some exposure to the 'system'.

I have read the report (at the link that you provided) .
Note to readers: whether you agree or disagree with my point-of-view, please click on the link and read the report; it is quite an eye-opener.

While the report is well-intentioned, in my opinion, it panders to the orthodoxy of the status-quo.

There is a reason why teachers are not paid enough in the US. It is that they are treated as a commodity - a replaceable, interchangeable stream of warm bodies, paid by their yrs of service, but not by their ability. The fact that teachers are unionized only ensures the treatment of teachers as a commodity!

Yes, one easy 'fix' is a salary hike. A 20% hike across-the-board sounds fine; I would be the 1st to say that it is well-deserved. The result will be a modest increase in recruitment and a momentary increase in motivation.

But the modest improvement that it might accomplish is dwarfed by the magnitude of the current failure - the very definition of a 'band-aid' solution. It is time for us to have a strategy that converts teachers from assembly line 'commodities' to the professionals that they are. It is time to catalyze change in our schools - from altars of mediocrity to high-quality institutions that America is capable of creating. Such a change will NOT come from band-aid solutions.

We have to question the fundamental decisions that led to the existing shabbiness and grime. We have to fix the motivations and incentives that apply throughout the system.

If we can suspend our status-quo thinking for a moment, let's think about how teachers, schools and parents COULD (and SHOULD) think, instead of how they operate within the existing system.

TEACHERS [highly motivated, since it is their careers at stake; and most of them love their profession]
All educators should be asking themselves
* "Why aren't we TREATED like professionals"?
* "Why aren't we ACTING like professionals"?
* "Do unions help us"?
* "Are we doing the best that we can for our customers (parents and kids)?"

Note: since teachers ARE professionals, this type of thinking is easy for them. It wouldn't be surprising if many of them have already thought this through. Unfortunately, many who think along these lines, typically leave the profession (under the current system).

SCHOOLS [lacking the motivation, it isn't so easy to get them to think outside their existing, comfort-zone]
* "Are we SO entrenched in the status-quo that we don't want improvement?"
* "Do we exist because of the needs of our customers?"

Note: Although I seem to bash "schools", I actually respect school administrators - they too are hard-working professionals who would like to see their schools as producers of high-quality output. However, that (quality) is hard to define by the providers, unless they look OUTSIDE. For example, in the pvt sector, companies look at their customer's needs and work hard to achieve them. In our schools, the 'needs' are defined by the providers to suit their whims (or the rhetoric of political bureaucrats) - so, soft-soap goals are set e.g. diversity.

Excuse me, school administrators, but have you asked your customers (parents) what THEIR needs are? Most will tell you that they want a rigorous curriculum grounded in the basics, not the touchy-feely stuff that come from someone's political agenda!

PARENTS [highly motivated, since they are the consumers (and customers) in this scenario]
* "Are we getting a good value for our education expense?"
* "Would we accept mediocre quality in any other area (food, healthcare, utilities, products)?"

In the current system, schools are neither motivated nor free to compete for teachers.

Imagine a scenario in which teachers are sought after - like doctors, lawyers, engineers. Administrators try to recruit them to THEIR schools, in the hope of creating all-star teams that parents (customers) insist on buying from.

Sounds like a dream?

But that is exactly how the market is for engineering professionals (I can speak from experience). It's not that different for Doctors, Lawyers, Nurses, Technicians and other well-trained professionals. What is the difference between these professionals and a teacher? Not much, in terms of education and training. The ONLY difference is in the market that professionals and teachers operate.

Here are my responses to some of your specific points:

It is true that public schools have educated a vast percentage of our populace and graduation rates are at 70%. But that just means that we have pushed more kids through a faltering system. My thinking is that in a country which strives for the best, the performance results (including the achievement gap) should give us considerable pause.

Have you thought about why there should even BE an 'achievement gap' after all these decades? Your point is correct - urban schools don't have the best teachers. How do we fix that?

Could the principal of an urban school offer a higher salary to attract better teachers? No, that is not allowed. Union terms forbid such 'discrimination'. So, the rules that were ostensibly designed to protect teachers actually hurt our schools! Also the urban school principal wouldn't have enough money to recruit better teachers, under the current system anyway! One of the unintended effects of the property-tax supported school districts is to CREATE boundaries that have led to segregation.

Would a 20% across-the-board salary increase result in better teachers at urban schools? No, teachers would still prefer to avoid the 'difficult' schools.

Kids who live in urban areas don't have a choice but to go to schools within reach (exceptions being for charter schools etc). How do we fix that?

If schools had to compete for parents (customers), would that give the schools a reason to enforce higher standards? That is the premise behind "school vouchers", and that solution is a step in the right direction.

THERE IS ONLY ONE SYSTEM IN THE WORLD THAT HAS A PROVEN TRACK RECORD FOR DELIVERING "HIGH QUALITY" OUTPUT FROM A "NORMAL" WORKFORCE.

Engineers, Technicians, Doctors, Nurses - all benefit from a free-enterprise system in their respective professions. Many of them deliberately AVOID the few public-sector opportunities that exist for them, and 'take their chances' in the private sector. With K-12 education, we have deliberately created the opposite scenario - a mammoth public sector, and a stunted private sector. WHAT WERE WE THINKING? It is time to admit that we made a mistake that must be rectified.

A visitor from a foreign country would be justified in making the following observation: "Free-enterprise institutions work well in America, delivering good quality at prices that are affordable to everyone. Americans must love their food and entertainment, because they have made sure that those areas benefit from this uniquely American thing called free enterprise.

"It would also appear that the quality of education is unimportant to Americans, as long as there is access to it.  Why else would they have utilized a worn-out, broken down system to educate their kids? Americans also seem to consider teachers to be inferior professionals . Somehow, Americans think that they are not really qualified. They NEED a Union, they need to be cocooned from the marketplace."

I disagree vehemently with any notion that teachers are 'weak', either intellectually or morally. I've met many, many teachers who have the intellectual and moral strength to succeed in ANY profession. They choose to be teachers, because it is THEIR LIFE. But, any success they have comes IN SPITE of the system - not because of it. They will continue to be the best teachers in a free-enterprise system of education. In fact, they will be 'recruited' by many schools, bidding desperately to get the best staff on their teams.

The current system is designed to attract mediocre people into the teaching profession. The exceptions to that rule are a few really good, motivated, talented people who burn out after a decade and (if they're lucky) get recruited by the few private schools that manage to survive in the swamp created by Public Education.

We love to think that our system attracts thousands of Jaime Escalantes a la "Stand and Deliver". But that is not what really exists in our schools. We're all impressed by the movies that show a heart-of-gold teacher with the forbearance of Mother Theresa and/or Gandhi, the intellect of Edison or Mme Curie and the street cred and toughness of Morgan Freeman. The fact that some teachers exist who embody all those attributes is wonderful - but in a macro sense, a system that is designed to work only when run by supermen and superwomen is destined to fail.

Observe that the private sector produces SUPER quality (forced by competition) while being run by seemingly NORMAL individuals. Similarly, a private sector education system would also produce high quality output (well educated kids) while harnessing the productive abilities of teachers and administrators.

If we don't switch to free-enterprise education, we are dooming future generations of students to mediocrity. We will also lose many potentially wonderful teachers.

Sorry about the provocative title. 

This is just a follow-up to my previous post on WEIRD science (aka Global Warming). If you are disappointed, please accept a full refund of the price of admission, and go back to whatever it was that you were doing.

The Environment (which has now replaced the Flag, Motherhood and Apple Pie in its significance to many Americans) is ONE area in which few people (Right or Left) can disagree that some intervention is required.

However, it is precisely in the TYPE of intervention (translated: control) that the Leftist ideology rears its ugly head.

Apologies in advance, much of the rant that follows is not DIRECTLY related to the Environment, Global Warming or the Kyoto Accord. Those who manage to stay awake until the end will see the connection.

Still with me? OK, here goes!

Many of our societal problems have come from the institutions that we have created to limit the 'negatives' associated with capitalism. Most of those problems are actually worse than the ills that they were supposed to cure.

To elaborate my point, consider the analogy of our economy as a powerful system that is driven by individuals in their 'pursuit of happiness'. The prosperity of our country is one of the many POSITIVE outputs of this system. Environmental damage (and any other supposed 'problem' caused by unbridled capitalism) are relatively small but NEGATIVE by-products.

The beauty of capitalism is that there are self-corrections built into it. Most of the NEGATIVES, feed back into the system (w/out Govt intervention) and impose a correction that very quickly reduces/eliminates the problem. For example, interest rates rise quickly to prevent an increase in speculative investments if there is an over-bought sentiment in the markets.

In the case of Environmental damage, it takes years, decades or centuries for the effects to be fed back. So, this is an area in which intervention seems necessary. 

After all, my right to swing my arms freely ends at the bridge of your nose. Likewise, my 'right' to spew toxins into the air ends (literally) at your nose! Note: please refrain from any scatological thought processes at this point.

Most of the institutions that are supposed to monitor and/or control those NEGATIVES fail because of the power given to a group that doesn't directly benefit from a POSITIVE output. We created the Dept of Education to monitor, control and even run our schools - but they don't benefit from a positive outcome! They get MORE money when more schools fail.

In some ways, environmental problems are similar to the educational problems (disparities) that were used to justify the Govt takeover of education. Why? Both are long-term problems - not with relatively short cycle times like economic swings. In education, as with the environment, it takes a few decades before we can collect data and detect a problem. So, it is particularly important to have the right incentives at work.

So, can anyone suggest a method that allows us to monitor and control environmental pollution - without giving power to a group that doesn't benefit directly from the POSITIVE output of our economy?

Clearly the Kyoto accord (and other millstones) don't meet the above criteria. None of that "one-world über alles" stuff ever works any way, so our methods have to be uniquely American to succeed.
 
I have one somewhat imperfect suggestion: each industry voluntarily creates different 'classes' of pollution levels. These classes can change, as technology improves; a non-Govt impartial industry group (funded by companies who voluntarily submit to compliance testing) sets these classes. Companies are graded into classes, six-sigma style, based on their performance against their competitors. The system could be used to compare the products of a company, it's processes, or both.

Class0: best in class
Class1: almost the best
: : : : : : : : : : : :
Class10: awful, filthy, polar-bear-drowning, murderous swine

Class0 companies are exempt from any taxes on their profits. Class10 (or worse) companies pay 100%, an average company pays 50% and .. well, you get the picture! Good companies can use their 'rating' as bragging rights against their competitors. Green-keen individuals can (voluntarily) choose to buy products from Greener companies - if the tradeoff means that prices are higher, well, that's their choice.

Any comments? Suggestions? Noxious fumes?

In our befuddled state, it matters little whether Global Warming is 'real' science or 'junk' science.

I propose that we file Global Warming under the category of "Weird Science". When politics and science intersect, we enter the realm of "weird science". And no, although I'm a big fan of what's-her-name, I'm not referring to the popular '80s teen-flick that bore the same name.

For all the learned and scientific thrust-and-parry on the subject, once Global Warming has been politicized the 'science' has already been taken out of the equation. At best, we can call it 'consensus science', and that should be enough to prove it's weirdness.

Isn't it funny that all Leftists think that American affluence is responsible for drowning all those cuddly polar bears (insert ominous music here). And Right-ists (is that a word?) think that the markets should determine our course of action on environmental matters.

As a self-identified "laissez faire capitalist", I have trouble with the reliance on 'the market' to provide guidance on environmental issues. No doubt, the market (in the form of specialized companies) will provide the solutions - but I worry about the efficacy of market mechanisms in implementing self-regulation to prevent long-term environmental problems.  I invite thoughtful comments from anyone who can show how the markets can self-regulate in this area. After all, if a clean environment is a scarce commodity, then there must be an economic theory that can rationalize the best allocation of this scarce resource.

Having said that, it is true that "the environment" is one of those feel-good issues. After all no one can be AGAINST the environment! 

To digress briefly, 'feel good' is the reason why ANTI-WAR rallies are popular. Although some wars are necessary, no sane person can be consistently PRO-WAR. So, anti-war rallies feel good, and are a great place to pick up young, attractive, feeble-minded dates. There's probably no better venue to find people, who need people! Ahh, that sense of purpose that comes from marching together in matching tie-dyed t-shirts, while saving the world.

Oy, the humanity, the love, the warmth, the witty, rhyming slogans. So conducive to meeting idealistic, attractive, empty-headed people of the opposite (or same) gender ..

In the strange world of "Weird Science", the Leftists have a winning issue with the environment in general, and Global Warming in particular. Even laissez faire capitalists recognize the real problems of environmental pollution. Therefore, Leftists can bleat ad nauseum in favor of crippling 'reform' a la Kyoto, claiming for themselves the moral high ground. In the "Weird" world, that's all that matters. And that's how political careers are made (or revived, a la AlGore).

It should be noted that although I'm unsure about the ability of 'the market' as a force for limiting environmental damage, I am DECIDEDLY AGAINST crippling regulations such as those called for under the Kyoto protocol.

Realistic Leftists (is that an oxymoron?) are aware that they can pass crippling laws, secure in the knowledge that by the time the Global Warming debate is settled, they would already be grazing with their beloved Arctic moose in the sky.

And, if they are unsuccessful in passing those draconian laws, they can blame it on the Right and garner some more votes during the election cycles. So, as an issue, it is win-win for the Leftists. Hooray!

Quoting 'drivebyposting', a thoughtful visitor to this blog:
"More than one conservative lawyer has argued that conservatives need to be very careful about declaring life at conception has full rights.

Because if so, liberals will take that to mean things I don't think anyone wants to ponder.

For example, fetal alcohol syndrome is well known and understood. Women should not drink during pregnancy. If the baby's rights trump the mother's rights then where does the line end, and more importantly, WHY? You have to make the compelling case. The lesson here is that conservatives when arguing for laws banning abortion because the baby is a full human with full human rights have to grapple with the legality of the mother's lifestyle during pregnancy damaging the baby.

This argument has already come up. A women tried to give herself an abortion by using a gun on her baby. She shot herself and killed the baby. Did she commit murder? If not, why is what she did any different than if someone else pulled the trigger? Ultimately it was ruled that since abortion was legal that she could not commit murder. But where do you draw the line. What if a depressed woman starts heavily drinking during a pregnancy and the baby has serious birth defects? Can the state sue the mother on behalf of the baby? If not, why not? An argument needs to be applied about a subset of full rights else the baby has full rights."

Drivebyposting has a point ..

Clearly, this is a slippery slope for pro-life conservatives who also believe in a limited Govt that does not intrude into people's lives.

If a fetus has full rights from the point of conception, then do child-endangerment laws apply to the fetus in the event that a pregnant mother drinks heavily? Should there be laws preventing the sale of alcohol to pregnant women? Otherwise, isn't it the same as serving alcohol to a minor?

Or, to avoid the slippery slope, should we say that a fetus has the same rights as that of a minor child. Unless the state can prove negligence or endangerment, it is left to the discretion of the individual? But does that too give too much power to the state?

I invite comments from those who can address this point based on legal rationale or thoughtful moral justification rather than emotion or religious fervor.

It is a common misconception that without child labor laws there would be widespread exploitation of children.

The historical reality is that it is ECONOMIC conditions that determine whether parents will permit their children to work to augment the family income. The evidence for this is the fact that Child labor is high in poor countries irrespective of whether they have Child Labor laws.

Another misconception is that the Industrial Age (and the advent of Capitalism) led to an increase in Child labor. This point is often made by those who view pre-Industrial Victorian England through rose-colored glasses.

Quoting Wikipedia:
"claims of increased misery...[are] based on ignorance of how squalid life actually had been earlier. Before children began earning money working in factories, they had been sent to live in parish poorhouses, apprenticed as unpaid household servants, rented out for backbreaking agricultural labor, or became beggars, vagrants, thieves, and prostitutes (Nutten). The precapitalist "good old days" simply never existed"[7]
"The pre-factory age was not a time of happy, contented kids. From 1730 to 1740, 75 percent of children in England died before age five. From 1810 to 1829, supposedly the evil age of the factory, infant mortality fell to 32 percent and would continue to drop. Capitalism and the industrial revolution gave youngsters a chance to survive. "[8]
Laws were passed to prohibit child labor in the industrialized countries; however it is unclear whether this legislation is the principal cause of the decline in levels of juvenile employment.[9] Research by Clark Nardinelli suggests that child labor was already decreasing in the United States and Western Europe prior to the passage of legislation, due to an increasing demand for educated and literate adults brought about by an increasing technological sophistication of industry. The demand for educated workers also provided an incentive for children to stay in school to meet the new demands of industry.

My point is not that we shouldn't have Child Labor laws - they are necessary to protect children who are otherwise vulnerable to exploitation.

My point is that Leftists who have a 'feel good' law to solve every social problem would be well advised to understand the positive effects of a healthy economy. Most 'feel good' laws create an additional burden on the economy - e.g. the recent increase in the minimum wage. Such laws often harm those that they were supposed to benefit.

In the Wonderland of Washington DC, political rhetoric trumps common sense.

Should every parent be required by law to send their children to school?

Anyone who answers "yes" to that question must accept the premise that Education is a right - it would then follow that it is acceptable to use tax revenues to pay for schools.

My response:
Parents should NOT be required to send their children to school. That is in the same vein that parents cannot be REQUIRED to feed their children nutritious food. With the exception of child endangerment, all these decisions should be left to the discretion (and pocketbook) of the parent. Those who regard education as a value, will send their children to the best schools that they can afford.

Is it worthwhile to consider the application of the Medicare/Medicaid model to education?

In this model, the Govt is a provider of insurance for the elderly or the indigent. Govt insurance is accepted by mostly private medical providers.

In my opinion, this would be a somewhat better system than having the Govt actually own & operate schools - which has been a complete disaster. In some ways, providing school vouchers (for those below the poverty line) that are accepted at private schools would be analogous to the Medicare/Medicaid model. At least there would be a competitive market model for private education system. If our K-12 education were to function at least as well as the Medicare/Medicaid model in healthcare, we would be better off as a country!

After all, the Govt got into the business of education in order to ensure an equality of opportunity for poor children. Unfortunately, despite the laudable sentiments, the worst possible model was chosen, mandating Govt to own and operate schools! Needless to say, the poor children are not getting the best possible education - and neither is anyone else who sends their kids to public schools. So, the Govt accomplished the 'equalization' of opportunity for poor kids - by reducing the quality for everyone.

That said, I think that school vouchers are at best, a half-measure, and would inevitably be prone to similar problems as Medicare/Medicaid. Higher costs and lower quality invariably follow any kind of entitlement (see my blogpost titled "Of Tortillas .. and men").

In my previous post I discussed a common mis-statement by Leftists and liberals that "Brown vs the Board" established education as a 'right'.

But if education is not a right, does that mean that it isn't important - of course not!

Education is a VALUE, something that all well-intentioned Americans realize is extremely important.

Leftists often interchange 'rights' with 'values' - an honest mistake, but one that should be examined.

A 'value' is that which we seek to gain or retain. To those who value it, Education is a 'value'. Education has to be acquired, usually at a considerable cost.

A 'right' is a claim that cannot be taken away. Education cannot be 'claimed' without the enslavement of its providers. Similarly, neither affluence, food, shelter, transportation and medical care are rights.

I've found that if you ask the question "at whose expense?", it becomes easy to identify 'rights'. If a particular right comes at the expense of someone else, then it is probably NOT a right.

You may apply the "at whose expense?" test on all of affluence, food, shelter, transportation and medical care , and you will find that they fail. So, if you claim 'medical care' as a right, ask the question - and you will see that if you claim medical care as a 'right' you are effectively enslaving doctors, nurses, hospital administrators, insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies and others.

So, education is a VALUE and not a RIGHT. Despite the euphemistic rhetoric of 'free public education' we are all paying for it now via taxes.

Education is (and has always been) a VALUE in America. There has always been a considerable cost to attaining this value, a cost that parents are always prepared to pay.

BTW, the 'values vs. rights' discussion is more important than the semantic differences implied.

That is because many Leftists BEGIN with a false premise, e.g. 'education (or health care) is a right'. Armed with that erroneous position, they set national policy and create Govt funded bureaucracies to administer those flawed policies.

I am vehemently opposed to public funding of education. I oppose it on moral grounds (the enslavement argument) as well on pragmatic grounds (it doesn't work).

Education, like most other things that have value, is a scarce commodity. Central planning, the panacea of Statists, has been the worst solution to just about every problem. So, by choosing a 'central planning' solution to education, we are giving tacit approval to the placement of education at a very low priority.

Q) How much importance do I give education?
A) So much that I want to see it done well - and therefore seek to privatize it.

"Brown vs the Board" was indeed a landmark case.

There are many myths surrounding that case. One of those myths is that this case established education as a RIGHT.

Here's what the case DID accomplish:

* it dismantled the legal basis for racial segregation in schools and other public facilities.

* By declaring that the discriminatory nature of racial segregation ... "violates the 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees all citizens equal protection of the laws," Brown v. Board of Education laid the foundation for shaping future national and international policies regarding human rights.

* It reaffirmed the sovereign power of the people of the United States in the protection of their natural rights from arbitrary limits and restrictions imposed by state and local governments. These rights are recognized in the Declaration of Independence and guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

BTW, in the interest of intellectual honesty, I must confess that I am not an expert in constitutional law. I found the above points after a quick Google search led me to: http://brownvboard.org/summary/ from which I 'borrowed' freely!

Nowhere in this case was the "right to Education" mentioned.

The only 'right' that is mentioned is the 'right of equal protection'.

The Soviet Union had some significant accomplishments, including putting the first man in space.

The Soviets also had pretty good universities, particularly in the pure sciences.

Do these achievements cast Socialism (or its older brother, Communism) in a different light?

The stated goals of the Soviets were to have a self-sufficient system which produced an abundance of products and services for the Comrade Proletariat Toilers - instead of an accumulation of wealth in the hands of the bourgeoisie. The reality: famine in the Ukraine, breadlines in Moscow, empty grocery stores, chronic shortages everywhere.

Their (limited) early success in the Space Program came at the cost of a massive mis-allocation of resources. Central planners in Moscow literally gave the shirt off their citizens' backs to make that achievement possible. It is fitting therefore that in 1961, the same year that Yuri Gagarin became the first man in space, the Soviets also built a wall in Berlin to keep capitalist W. Germans from escaping to the E. German paradise.

What about the vaunted halls of academia that one hears about in Socialist countries?

Well, in a sort of back-handed way, the lack of private enterprise actually helped make their Universities better .. and this applies to countries like China, India etc.

How, you ask?

Due to the lack of opportunities, the top tier of every graduating class went into relatively well paid teaching jobs at Govt-run universities. So, their best minds, lacking other productive avenues available to their counterparts in Capitalist-oriented countries, went into teaching (or into very few, select, Govt-paid projects such as their Space, Nuclear or Defense Programs).

Iterate that concept over a few generations, and you have universities with brilliant professors, that produce good students with few productive avenues after graduation.

So, not only do Socialist/Communist systems mis-allocate materials, they do the same (or worse) with their human resources!

They did well in a few 'Govt select' professions such as Rocket Scientists, Nuclear Engineers and Professors.

What they lost were generations of Inventors, Doctors, Engineers, Businessmen, Dentists, Technicians, Mechanics, Assemblers, Farmers, Truckdrivers, .. , and yes, lawyers!

What's the lesson here? When we increase the size and scope of our Govt, we increase our PUBLIC sector at the expense of our PRIVATE sector. In addition to the higher taxation that acts as a millstone around the productive sectors of our economy, it also leads to the severe mis-allocation of people.

In the PRIVATE sector, a failed entity (e.g. a corporation that suffers sustained losses) dies a natural death.

However, it is very difficult to shrink failed PUBLIC sector programs that are already in existence. Usually that is because of a false sense of entitlement that invariably sets in after generations of dependence. There is a hoping-against-hope mentality that persists as programs that are known to be broken receive more funding every year (e.g. Public Education). After a few generations, even rational, well-meaning people think that it is impossible to consider any alternatives to those programs.

How many times have we heard "If the Govt didn't provide K-12 education, our children would not be well-educated"? Strangely, this question is asked by people who KNOW that our children are not receiving a satisfactory education in our K-12 system.

Let's keep all these facts in mind during the upcoming debates on Universal Health Care.

An recent article in the Washington Post caught my eye.

Here is the short version (click here to read the WaPo article):

* Ethanol is made from corn
* Mexico (and other countries) convert to Ethanol as a fuel, mostly due to well-intentioned mandates from various green-keen Govts. It is useful to note that Mexico is an oil-exporting country.
* As a result of the increased demand, the global price of corn goes up
* Since corn tortillas are made from .. uh .. corn, the price of tortillas is going through the roof
* Tortilla manufacturers, long beloved by the populace, are now becoming targets of hatred
* Within one year, Mexico has gone from being an exporter of corn to an importer
* Mexico, being a socialist country, deems tortillas to be an indispensable product
* The Govt of Mexico embarks on a plan to CAP the price of tortillas

Guess what the 'well-intentioned' policy of the Govt of Mexico will do to Tortilla mfrs and to their employees?

If the price of their product is capped by Govt fiat, and the price of their main raw material (corn) goes up, their profit margins will shrink. Some mfrs may also go out of business. Many of those who were previously employed by Tortilla mfrs will be unemployed. Since there are 65,000 - 200,000 Tortilla mfrs in Mexico, the impact could be significant.

With the price of tortillas capped, consumers will be immune to the effects of the shortage. So, the demand will remain high, which ensures that the price of corn remains high. Without adequate incentives to produce more tortillas at their low profit margins, the demand will outstrip supply - causing shortages. By next year, we will probably see people in the streets, protesting the shortages that their well-intentioned Govt has caused.

> Click here for a link to the WaPo story. I'm sure that many TH readers will get a chuckle out of it.

This story is obviously indicative of the failures of central planning over a market based economy. But is there a lesson in this 'Tortilla Flat' tale for our 'central planners'? Well, how about applying a similar model to Universal Health Care:

* During the 1950s (and prior years), the US employed the 'old-fashioned' fee-for-service approach
* Prices rose moderately, but the increases did not significantly outpace inflation
* In the 1960s, the US Govt mandated the creation of Medicare to ensure that seniors didn't have to worry about paying for healthcare in their declining years. A new voter bloc was born, one that everyone would belong to eventually - so, there were few protests.
* The costs of health care went up due to the increased demand - and since there was no longer any rationing of this scarce commodity, for a significant portion of the population that was the largest consumer of health care.
* The US Govt passed laws that led to the creation of HMOs -  that capped costs, limited access etc.
* Prices continued to rise, offset only by lower quality and rationing of access
* Now (circa 2007) health care is deemed to be an indispensable right
* There is a clamor from Socialist politicos to apply the 'successful' Medicare model to all
* After the 2008 elections, Congress with an acquiescent President passes a landmark UHC law
* Circa 2015: America faces a shortage of qualified doctors. The Govt nationalizes drug companies that make 'essential' drugs, but, absent a profit motive, few new drugs are created. Private pharmaceutical & medical technology companies produce only 'luxury' or vanity products such as Viagra & Silicone breast implants that are exempt from Govt control. In addition to the black market in prescription drugs, a black market springs up for private practice physicians who are willing to skirt the law to make a living.

Not so funny anymore, eh? Sorry, that's a terrible impersonation of a Canadian 'accent'! Needless to say, our Canadian 'comrades' have been down this path before us!

Oh, and don't think that it will only be a Democrat President who signs onto the UHC law .. observe the recent actions on the part of Arnold in California.

We should all remember this when we hear people demonize insurance companies, affluent doctors, pharmaceutical companies, hospitals and other free-market agents that play an important role in making health care available. Although there are numerous examples of mistakes made by those entities, let's be aware that Govt meddling is the largest single reason for most of the problems in this industry.

I do not question the patriotism of those who seek to end this war. After all, war is NOT the natural state of a free, productive people. Despite the Dr. Strangelovian caricature of Americans in some movies and cartoons, we are not a belligerent lot! We spend most of our time working hard, creating a wealth of products & services for ourselves - and for a sometimes ungrateful world.

In SHARP contrast to other ideologies, capitalism does not rely on conquest for its growth. Think about that, and you will grasp the nature of this fight.

Our past enemy, the Soviet Union, required a constant succession of conquests. Militant Islam also seeks to conquer (restore, by their way of thinking) an empire. Going back somewhat in history, feudal systems also grew only by conquest. Note that all of these ideologies are bankrupt in their ability to foster productive economies; their parasitic nature demands a periodic supply of new victims - hence their need for conquest and subjugation.

Capitalism grows by trade, which involves mutual consent of both parties. No sacrificial victims are required!

As tempting as it is to be 'for peace' (and who isn't?) there is a reality that must be confronted. Even if we concede that the US has made many mistakes in this conflict, we STAND ALONE in this fight, against an enemy who uses our desire for peace against us.

In the past, America was a giant, unified in its purpose and with unmatched intellect.

Unfortunately, that time has long gone!

America today finds itself:

* disunited and divided

* lacking moral clarity

Political dissent, always a welcome commodity in America's freewheeling debates, has sunk to the level of treason.

The 'opposition', once meant to provide a differing viewpoint - or, even to play devil's advocate - now seeks political gain from America's missteps.

ON THE PLUS SIDE: We're lucky that our current enemies are mired in the mystical muck of the 7th century! It is telling that we are unable to muster a united front against these cave dwellers. If they had HALF A BRAIN, we would be in real trouble ..

ON THE OTHER HAND: The current enemy - while intellectually and morally bankrupt - has time (and demographics) on its side.

If you have doubts about the long-term danger of militant Islam, or if you want to educate yourself about the demographics - read the book titled: America Alone - by Mark Steyn.

If you don't have the time (or the inclination) to read a book on the subject, at the very least read an article that Steyn wrote in the Wall Street Journal - Opinion Journal; his article lays out the main thesis, which is presented in more detail in the book:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007760
Please click on the above link for this 'must read' article.

 Socialism and Communism have a seductive appeal, since they are the political embodiment of altruistic (selfless) ideological principles. In those systems each person works for the common good and the State looks after every one! What could possibly be wrong with that?

After all, Judeo-Christian belief systems (and almost all religions) view altruism as a virtue.

So, if Religion is good, a system that is based on altruism must also be good. How can Religious people remain consistent and object to a selfless economic system?

Observe that you will often hear well-meaning people say that "Communism is good as an ideal, but it just wasn't properly implemented in Soviet Russia".

And this is exactly why socialism finds a fertile soil in Religious countries. It isn't surprising that America has a large percentage of socialists - we usually call them liberals.

Religious Conservatives have to use the "but, it doesn't work" argument against socialism. And, they're right! Socialism DOESN'T work.

But that is a weaker argument based on pragmatism - and it lacks moral conviction.

So, some religious conservatives (who can't shake off the intuitive feeling that their argument is without moral strength) attempt to say that they are FOR altruism, but they are for Capitalism (not socialism) because it's success provides benefits to their fellow man.

That's when they have to come up with pretzel-like contortions like "Compassionate Conservatism".

A liberal might say the following (imagine these words from a moist-eyed Bill Clinton, upper lip fully a-quiver during a SOTU speech):

"Our Govt funded public schools are meant to provide a great education for all poor Americans - and we must not rest until every poor child is college educated.

[Bipartisan rumble of applause; after all, who can disagree with such laudable sentiments?]

"Yes, sadly (deep sigh, wiping a tear), the system isn't working despite the selfless service of our teachers. Teachers like Ms. Marsha McLiberal [points to a photogenic teacher, seated next to Hillary]

[More bipartisan applause, because everyone applauds the 'selfless' sacrifice of public school teachers]

"My fellow Americans, I call upon this generous and caring nation to sacrifice until we can achieve this worthy goal."

[Tumultuous applause; after all don't we ALL agree that we should be generous, caring and willing to sacrifice?]

Once we agree to this kind of humbug in principle, we are fighting a losing battle on 'methods' rather than principle.

The principle that we should follow is that no political system should require enslavement or human sacrifice!

No, I'm not referring to the kind of human sacrifice that ends up with shrunken heads, or missionaries in a cannibal's cooking pot. I'm talking about the enslavement of one person for the benefit of another. So, when we are told to sacrifice for the sake of "public education", or "universal health care", we should be able to reject it on MORAL grounds AS WELL AS pragmatic grounds.

When a politician calls for higher taxes to fund one of those 'feel-good' programs, s/he is promoting a coercive confiscation of our money. Since money is obtained from work, such coercive taxation is synonymous with enslavement.

Incidentally, this is not a argument against charity - which is a VOLUNTARY form of altruism.

A) Excise that 'feel good' gene, and replace it with the 'thinking' gene.

Apply this liberally (may be even literally) to:

* the minimum wage bill

* college loan bill

* almost any other tax-increase or entitlement

Rinse and repeat!

Jokes aside, folks - how do we bring 'reason' back into our electorate?

We have to throw out the mooching faith-healers (on both sides of the aisle) who know that we're on to the real motives behind their noble sounding, teary eyed, lip quivering, smarmy rhetoric.

The alternative is that America, a giant among countries, will succumb to a slow death by a thousand sound-bites.

==============

On the subject of college loans, some TH readers may want to look up Charles Murray's three-part article that appeared recently in the WSJ-Opinion Journal.

BTW, these are not 'feel-good' articles, but written by someone who has researched the subject at considerable length.

Part1: http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009531

Part2: http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009535

Part3: http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009541

 

What factors are responsible for the success of America? Remember, the emergence of America as a powerhouse began in the mid/late 1800s and continues to this day. If (as many conservatives do), we find the answer to the above ONLY in the word "Religion", we are deluding ourselves. After all, Religion was quite a dominant factor in Europe, Asia and other parts of the world. Why didn't their success mirror ours? That is because America was built on the premise that the individual is free and the Govt is bound. For the first time in human history, there was a system that was aligned perfectly with the motivations of real humans. Such a system doesn't require human sacrifice. It's success also doesn't rely on humans attaining some impossible (and actually immoral) altruistic standard. The right to "Pursue Happiness", when applied consistently to humans, is the philosophical basis for the economic system that goes by the name of Capitalism. On the non-economic front, our system consistently gives us individual freedom. Remember that our system simultaneously gives us the Freedom of Religion AND Freedom from Religion! Many of our laws derived from Judeo-Christian principles - but does that make America a Christian country? If that were true, then we are conveniently forgetting that similar principles also exist in other religions - some of which are also prevalent in 'failed' states. And, yes, there are quite a few fervently Christian countries that fall in the category of 'failed' states. As an example, consider the Christian countries in Europe that our Founding Fathers fled. A mathematician could write that equation as: Christianity + Feudal System = Failure That should be enough to convince us that it is not axiomatic that Christian countries are automatically successful. So, what's the point in all this? Let's give thanks to the 'good' laws that our Founding Fathers derived from Religion. But lets not forget the uniquely CONSISTENT quality of our ideology that gave (and continues to give) us immeasurable economic and social benefits. For further proof, the antithesis of Capitalism - i.e. Communism/Socialism is inconsistent with the human desire to work towards one's self-interest. If only scientists were able to excise that 'self-interest-gene' from humans, well then .. As it is in science and mathematics, so is it in ideology. Consistency rules! Hey, that would make for a nice bumper sticker ..

 A test for you FOUR LETTER conservatives and liberals. Given the mix in our country, I believe that it is useful to have a methodology that allow individuals and politicians to 'calibrate' themselves.

One interesting idea is to have a 4-letter word that spans the entire conservative-liberal spectrum, with more 'shades of gray'.

For example, people can fill out a multiple choice questionnaire that is scored against a national average. Each of the 4 letters could be from A-Z, with A-M representing liberal and N-Z representing conservative viewpoints.

Political leaders could be scored using their voting records in addition to their response to the multiple choice questionnaire.

A fifth letter could be added - that represents the PRIORITY that an individual ascribes to a particular aspect. For example, does the individual make his/her defining choice based on religious beliefs - or economics.

It will be interesting to see the actual diversity of thought in our country (even within self-styled Republican and Democrat voters and politicians) - and would be more effective than issue-specific polling.

Can you imagine if instead of the letters 'R' or 'D' next to a politicians name, if we found the letters (ABAA), and could be fairly certain about their viewpoint?
----------------------
The following is a simplified version of the above concept.

Pick one position in each of the above groups - the resultant FOUR LETTER WORD would be a way to identify your particular mix of values.

Can you imagine an election in which candidates could choose freely from the following mix (choose ONE in each category):

A)Economic right wing (laissez faire capitalism)
B)Economic center (mixed economy)
C)Economic left wing (socialism)

A)Nationalist right wing (nationalism to the point of isolationism, protectionism, preserving 'identity')
B)Nationalist center (nationalism based on self interest)
C)Nationalist left wing (internationalism, UN uber alles)

A)Religious right wing (fundamentalism)
B)Religious center (often influenced by religion, but skeptical of its value in public policy)
C)Religious left wing (atheism)

A)Social right wing ('family values', pro-life, anti-gay - usually based on religious beliefs)
B)Social center (pro-family but sympathetic to alternative lifestyles, pro-gay - but anti-gay-marriage)
C)Social left wing (pro-choice, pro-gay, pro-minority to the point of anti-majority, seek to legalize euthanasia, drugs, prostitution)

For example, I identify myself as 'ABCB'

So, what kind of FOUR LETTER WORD conservative are you?