Financial elites and algorithms reading gamma charts to do volume trading don't know "what is needed," either. I'm all for empowering business, in most cases. The financial sector is where I get skeptical. The global derivatives market is currently estimated as high as 1 quadrillion dollars. Is this a wise allocation of capital?
I'm also not against charter schools, I'm just against the private sector taking over education entirely. You can't make access to something like education contingent on ability to pay and zip code. If you do not invest in quality schools for all, the economy suffers unquantifiable losses of talent, innovation, and capable labor. Markets will not create quality schools in places where families are poor and value margins are low. It's a terrible way to run a "competitive" capitalist society.
You can keep going back to the argument that public schools are failing, and you're right. They are failing. But that doesn't mean markets would do better. They wouldn't.
that seems like a completely orthogonal claim. people who buy phones know what they want, what attracts them. you're what, equating "stock market" to "market for a product"? how is that germane? and what could do better? who could better allocate capital? who has even 1% of the information needed to do so? will a "market czar" decide the price at which companies can access capital or what kind of camera your new phone will have?
you keep speaking of "private sector taking over" as if this is some sort of corporate power putch. it's not. that only happens when government gets involved. when they do not, it's "customers taking over." free markets are dominated by consumer sovereignty. business must fight to provide the best product or fail.
and i don't think you read my article very well. i'm proposing that we take the $15k per student year we spend on public education and give it directly to each child. we fund kids, not systems. there is nothing more equitable than that, no issue on ability to pay.
make the schools compete to offer the best education and attract students and they will rapidly get soo good and so varied and tailored in ability to serve need that what we have today will appear unforgivable to have tolerated.
school is failing. it's trivial to do better, but it cannot be done with monopoly system dominated by public sector unions that constitute a literal educational cancer.
we could easily do better and we need to do better. it's too important to keep failing on.
the biggest winner in free markets is ALWAYS the consumer.
Financial elites and algorithms reading gamma charts to do volume trading don't know "what is needed," either. I'm all for empowering business, in most cases. The financial sector is where I get skeptical. The global derivatives market is currently estimated as high as 1 quadrillion dollars. Is this a wise allocation of capital?
I'm also not against charter schools, I'm just against the private sector taking over education entirely. You can't make access to something like education contingent on ability to pay and zip code. If you do not invest in quality schools for all, the economy suffers unquantifiable losses of talent, innovation, and capable labor. Markets will not create quality schools in places where families are poor and value margins are low. It's a terrible way to run a "competitive" capitalist society.
You can keep going back to the argument that public schools are failing, and you're right. They are failing. But that doesn't mean markets would do better. They wouldn't.
that seems like a completely orthogonal claim. people who buy phones know what they want, what attracts them. you're what, equating "stock market" to "market for a product"? how is that germane? and what could do better? who could better allocate capital? who has even 1% of the information needed to do so? will a "market czar" decide the price at which companies can access capital or what kind of camera your new phone will have?
you keep speaking of "private sector taking over" as if this is some sort of corporate power putch. it's not. that only happens when government gets involved. when they do not, it's "customers taking over." free markets are dominated by consumer sovereignty. business must fight to provide the best product or fail.
and i don't think you read my article very well. i'm proposing that we take the $15k per student year we spend on public education and give it directly to each child. we fund kids, not systems. there is nothing more equitable than that, no issue on ability to pay.
make the schools compete to offer the best education and attract students and they will rapidly get soo good and so varied and tailored in ability to serve need that what we have today will appear unforgivable to have tolerated.
school is failing. it's trivial to do better, but it cannot be done with monopoly system dominated by public sector unions that constitute a literal educational cancer.
we could easily do better and we need to do better. it's too important to keep failing on.
the biggest winner in free markets is ALWAYS the consumer.