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'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."