Did You Know...

[Jamougha]

pvn,

the US government was involved in education prior to the establishment of the public school system, through an unfunded mandate.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
pvn,

the US government was involved in education prior to the establishment of the public school system, through an unfunded mandate.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, rephrase.

As the amount of government involvment has increased, do you think the results have improved or worsened?

[xorbie]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

That 1-2% inflation is perfectly natural phenomenon, and a sign of a growing, healthy economy?

[/ QUOTE ]

Curious why people disagree with this. There seem to be numerous benefits to a small amount of inflation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure. Benefits TO WHOM, though?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd like to see you answer this, actually.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

That we need the government to provide education because of its positive externalities?


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think there's enough empirical evidence to determine this either way, but you can certainly make a case that it's true.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, because before government got involved, nobody was educated.

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[xorbie]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, because before government got involved, nobody was educated.

[/ QUOTE ]

certainly there were far fewer educated.

[/ QUOTE ]

O RLY?

For bonus points, how well-educated do you think the students coming out of those private schools were compared to the kids coming out of today's public schools?

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. So eager to jump to conclusions, that apparently a second hand reference to an uncited, decontextualized second hand reference is enough to emphatically destruct an argument. Touche nate dog. Touche.

edit: One example about one location at one time in history. Consider me floored.

[Jamougha]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
pvn,

the US government was involved in education prior to the establishment of the public school system, through an unfunded mandate.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, rephrase.

As the amount of government involvment has increased, do you think the results have improved or worsened?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well intuitively I would expect that education in the USA in the 21st century would be vastly superior to in the 19th century. After all the USA was then what we would now describe as a developing nation. And cheap books weren't available until the mid-19th.

Noodling around the net almost all of the resources on historical education/literacy seem to be on paper only unfortunately, so I can't confirm this intuition directly.

I guess the critical period to study would be 1837-1900, when most states instituted compulsory primary education. At the time, they were able to compare directly the states with and without mandatory public schools. If the states without public schools had better education then it seems odd that the scheme spread so far and so fast?

[Jamougha]

Anyone want to tackle the inflation question? Not looking for a big argument, just want to understand the logic.

[ianlippert]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

That we need the government to provide education because of its positive externalities?


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think there's enough empirical evidence to determine this either way, but you can certainly make a case that it's true.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont get this one at all. There are positive externalities to many things, doesnt mean they should be subsidized. What about the positive externalities of business and jobs, arguably I'm going to benefit more if people in my society have more money not if they know a bunch of useless history that they learnt from the government. What about the negative externalities of schools teaching people retarded economic lessons?

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]
Anyone want to tackle the inflation question? Not looking for a big argument, just want to understand the logic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Problem with inflation

1. It's a regressive tax. Governments spend the new money first, then the companies they spend the money on, by the time it works it's way down to poor people it's lost it's value along with all the other money they had.

2. It causes risky investments that wouldn't otherwise occur. When your money is losing value you have to make more risky investments to keep your wealth at a steady level. The craziness and bubbles of the stock market, the sub prime problem all follow from high inflation.

3. It screws workers. Businesses can adjust prices more often than workers can negotiate salary changes so they get the benefits of inflation and the workers are left to pay the price.

4. It creates uncertainty. When the government is no longer saying how much money they're printing long term planning for any business becomes more about guesswork as another unknown variable is introduced into the mix.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, because before government got involved, nobody was educated.

[/ QUOTE ]

certainly there were far fewer educated.

[/ QUOTE ]

O RLY?

For bonus points, how well-educated do you think the students coming out of those private schools were compared to the kids coming out of today's public schools?

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's a hint

[/ QUOTE ]

By your hint, I take it you think that rote memorization is a key factor in determine someone's level of education...

[Jamougha]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

That we need the government to provide education because of its positive externalities?


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think there's enough empirical evidence to determine this either way, but you can certainly make a case that it's true.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont get this one at all. There are positive externalities to many things, doesnt mean they should be subsidized. What about the positive externalities of business and jobs, arguably I'm going to benefit more if people in my society have more money not if they know a bunch of useless history that they learnt from the government. What about the negative externalities of schools teaching people retarded economic lessons?

[/ QUOTE ]

Post-industries societies need almost the entire workforce to be numerate and literate to achieve their full economic potential. So far, I'm not aware of any country that has reached a 95%+ literacy level without having government-mandated education. People may claim that, in theory, the market will provide. In practise this has never been observed. If the choice is between living in a society with 25% literacy and no government, and a society with public schooling funded by taxation, no-one reasonable would choose the former.

OTOH someone might argue that those countries with low literacy are mainly pre-industrial and that things would work differently if the US were to convert to a solely private education system. It's speculation but it may be correct.