you seem to have deep misapprehensions about markets and the ability to plan. you're arguing by straw man, made up facts, and a pretense that your subjective ideas can be somehow objectively known and implemented as some sort of "well meaning adjustment to markets" but it cannot. you keep making this mistake because you do not understand what markets are.
you speak of "putting the highest quality people into the workforce" but you could not possibly know what that term means. no one can. it takes a market to tell you. do we need another poet or another plumber? it takes a market to tell you. this is the magic of prices. prices guide asset allocation and are a complex web of economic signals that cannot be replaced or predicted without a market. there is no "we just know how to create happiness" nor any "aggregate happy function" you can maximize. it's just subjective central planning pretending to be facts.
utilitarian based top down planning is and literally must always be a sham.
prices cannot be genuinely created and tied to personal utility without free market choice because that is the only guarantee of pareto optimality. no one trades in a free market unless it makes them better off. but as soon as you start coercing people, you break this.
did the $5 you took generate more than $5 of value? there is no way to know. was that park worth the tax money used to build it? there is no way to know.
this is why non-consensual systems not only never wind up at efficiency and production maximization or welfare frontiers, but free markets inevitably do. they aggregate positive sum choices and prevent choices that make people worse off. when you start speaking of changing that, you're literally making the claim that "i'm going to make them do something they did not want to do anyway for their own good." could there be a doctrine with a worse track record?
the pretense that you can make some arbitrary claim about "chicgo should have 81 chinese restaurants, not 90" and be more right than a consumer sovereignty driven market is absurd. you would be making a wild, subjective guess. how would you even try to validate your claim?
you keep making arguments that amount to "if we just knew the output of a market we could jump right to it and not waste time on competition. but competition is the only way to get that output. the rest is utopian fairy tales.
and if you think $300k a year is not enough money to educate 20 kids, then sorry, but you're just deeply unserious. and if you think current schools provide better adaptation to learning styles and child preference and need than a market would, you're engaging in fabulism. they are failing miserably at this with a "one size fits nearly no one" model that has not evolved in a century apart from steadily dropping rigor.
this is not a money problem. the US spends more per pupil than just about anyone. its an avalanche of money and education is about to become a technology product with AI and get REALLY cheap, effective, and customized. the days of the US massively overpaying for terrible results are going to end. this is an easy problem to solve once you introduce choice instead of monopoly. you're literally arguing for soviet cars over those of the west.
You're misunderstanding. Whatever the market's labor needs are, we can safely assume that the right people could come from any zip code, any racial or socioeconomic background. It is therefore imperative to cultivate all people everywhere, so that talent is not trapped and wasted by hierarchical systems that obstruct its development. This need is fundamentally at odds with a market orientation, which prioritizes the most efficient and cost-effective opportunities and neglects "riskier" investments.
These "risky investments" are living, breathing children, and our future leaders and innovators. It's not top-down planning, it's just making sure that everyone gets a quality education regardless of their geography or ability to pay.
I'm not talking about the government building restaurants, and I never would. That market is clearly best served by private enterprise. But a single entity can determine the number of cell towers to adequately serve a given population, and build accordingly. Hell, you can even get private contractors to plan and build. You should. But infrastructure is expensive, it takes up a lot of land, and if private interests own the infrastructure that advantage can be used to exert monopoly /oligopoly power. It happens all the time. Therefore, public investment for infrastructure makes a lot of sense, just like it does in education.
The fact that you think AI can teach tells me you don't know much about education, that you've probably never talked to an actual student in a very long time. It's this relentless impulse to cut costs that does not figure well into education. Children are not products.
I've said many times that the current education model is bloated and broken. I'm not here to dispute that. I'm simply saying it cannot be replaced with market-based education, that there is a role for public schools, and that we should try to overhaul and fix them instead of eliminating them. Your clarion call against the entire institution of public education is what earned the label "dangerous."
you seem to have deep misapprehensions about markets and the ability to plan. you're arguing by straw man, made up facts, and a pretense that your subjective ideas can be somehow objectively known and implemented as some sort of "well meaning adjustment to markets" but it cannot. you keep making this mistake because you do not understand what markets are.
you speak of "putting the highest quality people into the workforce" but you could not possibly know what that term means. no one can. it takes a market to tell you. do we need another poet or another plumber? it takes a market to tell you. this is the magic of prices. prices guide asset allocation and are a complex web of economic signals that cannot be replaced or predicted without a market. there is no "we just know how to create happiness" nor any "aggregate happy function" you can maximize. it's just subjective central planning pretending to be facts.
utilitarian based top down planning is and literally must always be a sham.
prices cannot be genuinely created and tied to personal utility without free market choice because that is the only guarantee of pareto optimality. no one trades in a free market unless it makes them better off. but as soon as you start coercing people, you break this.
did the $5 you took generate more than $5 of value? there is no way to know. was that park worth the tax money used to build it? there is no way to know.
this is why non-consensual systems not only never wind up at efficiency and production maximization or welfare frontiers, but free markets inevitably do. they aggregate positive sum choices and prevent choices that make people worse off. when you start speaking of changing that, you're literally making the claim that "i'm going to make them do something they did not want to do anyway for their own good." could there be a doctrine with a worse track record?
the pretense that you can make some arbitrary claim about "chicgo should have 81 chinese restaurants, not 90" and be more right than a consumer sovereignty driven market is absurd. you would be making a wild, subjective guess. how would you even try to validate your claim?
you keep making arguments that amount to "if we just knew the output of a market we could jump right to it and not waste time on competition. but competition is the only way to get that output. the rest is utopian fairy tales.
and if you think $300k a year is not enough money to educate 20 kids, then sorry, but you're just deeply unserious. and if you think current schools provide better adaptation to learning styles and child preference and need than a market would, you're engaging in fabulism. they are failing miserably at this with a "one size fits nearly no one" model that has not evolved in a century apart from steadily dropping rigor.
this is not a money problem. the US spends more per pupil than just about anyone. its an avalanche of money and education is about to become a technology product with AI and get REALLY cheap, effective, and customized. the days of the US massively overpaying for terrible results are going to end. this is an easy problem to solve once you introduce choice instead of monopoly. you're literally arguing for soviet cars over those of the west.
You're misunderstanding. Whatever the market's labor needs are, we can safely assume that the right people could come from any zip code, any racial or socioeconomic background. It is therefore imperative to cultivate all people everywhere, so that talent is not trapped and wasted by hierarchical systems that obstruct its development. This need is fundamentally at odds with a market orientation, which prioritizes the most efficient and cost-effective opportunities and neglects "riskier" investments.
These "risky investments" are living, breathing children, and our future leaders and innovators. It's not top-down planning, it's just making sure that everyone gets a quality education regardless of their geography or ability to pay.
I'm not talking about the government building restaurants, and I never would. That market is clearly best served by private enterprise. But a single entity can determine the number of cell towers to adequately serve a given population, and build accordingly. Hell, you can even get private contractors to plan and build. You should. But infrastructure is expensive, it takes up a lot of land, and if private interests own the infrastructure that advantage can be used to exert monopoly /oligopoly power. It happens all the time. Therefore, public investment for infrastructure makes a lot of sense, just like it does in education.
The fact that you think AI can teach tells me you don't know much about education, that you've probably never talked to an actual student in a very long time. It's this relentless impulse to cut costs that does not figure well into education. Children are not products.
I've said many times that the current education model is bloated and broken. I'm not here to dispute that. I'm simply saying it cannot be replaced with market-based education, that there is a role for public schools, and that we should try to overhaul and fix them instead of eliminating them. Your clarion call against the entire institution of public education is what earned the label "dangerous."