Government Ain't Us

Don,

Are you so strapped for material you are having to reply to comments in other blogs??

WHY NOT JUST USE THE COMMENTS FUNCTION AT THE OTHER BLOG???

Tom,

Thanks! though I regret using it needlessly, I was kind of proud of it in a demented way :-)

"(It's an outstanding site, by the way.)"

Well, it's fascinating.

I knoe Gump and Dennis have alrealdy made up, but the "much like a chimp flinging dung" was the best line I've read in weeks!

We were attending a small town flea market near my brother's home. When I asked about some children's books and toys, the seller began a conversation about a local private daycare center where her daughter has worked. 'They've may be closing,' she said, a fact which had affected her daughter's job.

Why? I asked. 'Families don't have the money for daycare as they used to.' Why? Her answer: 'They're going to the boat instead.'


Translated that means some lesser income families may be more interested in riverboat gambling (legal in his state) than in paying for their children.

Gump, In addition let me extend my apology. After reading your explaination, it occured to me that if you thought I was on a High School debate team, then you were actually providing encouragement. Naturally, I saw it through the lens of a 35 year old who has become hardened by sarcasm. Your response to my comeback was a class act, and I am sorry for having thought any less of you.

Gump- Right on, Appology accepted.

For the record, Dennis, my comment's intent was not to hurl an insult at you (although I understand why it was interpreted in that fashion). In fact, I agree with the thrust of your comment regarding people who come into forums such as these and level slurs and ad hominiems at the members. I, like you, want to contribute to civil, public discourse, and would never want to see a discussion about economic ideas turned into name calling and attacks. As to the real interpretation of my comment, just chalk it to the unseen.

I generally agree with Tom's assessment of Brad. He doesn't let unpleasant facts get in the way of concluding that the government doesn't interfere enough in the economy.

Gump, when I say "debate" I am not referring to an action taken by my debate team, which I left behind in 1989 by the way, I am referring to an open & free exchange of ideas. Apparently, you are not too familiar with this notion, as you threw out an insult, much like a chimp flinging dung, leaving no meaningful addition to this forum, only a stain on the wall. Oh well, Mamma always said stupid is as stupid does.

Going back to the conversation at hand, I believe it is also widely not understood that gov't subsidization artifically inflates the price of education. By taking price away from the consumer, the incentive to participate or not participate in a service based on price is no longer available as a "market messenger" if you will. People rarely care what the true cost of education is if they never have to directly pay that cost. So gov't funded education becomes as wasteful & inefficent as any other bloated beauracracy. The cost of education should regulate to the proper level if the consumer were to directly bear the full price of education. Not to mention the benefit of improved performance of the educational system that should occur when each consumer votes with their dollar for the best education they can afford.

As for the families who may not be able to afford the full price of the education, as I said above, private charity has a long track record of being there for the disadvantaged. They do it more efficiently than the gov't, both in terms of money and timing, it is more personal & better appreciated by the recipient. Like the original post said, government ain't us!

As to priorities, it should also be pointed out that money is fungible. When someone willfully chooses to spend money on say... cable television... and then claims to need a government subsidy to pay for some other necessity in their life, what they are really saying is: the government should pay for my cable tv. This is true almost across the board.

When someone says: I need housing subsidies because housing is so expensive here in the city what they are really saying is: I'd rather live in the city than live somewhere I *can* afford housing, and you should subsidize the luxury of my choice of locations.

I remember during the boom in the late 90s talking to folks in NJ who swore there were no jobs. When I pointed out that I knew folks in Indiana who were having to idle factory shifts for lack of workers, the retorted that they didn't want to live in Indiana. While I can sympathize with that, I get a little snicky when their choice not to live in Indiana means I have to pay to support them in NJ.

Even private university tuition is subsidized through federal grants and loans. My biggest concern is that this will delay the adoption of more effective methods of education. I have my doubts that the "University" concept is the final word.

>Increasing taxes to increase government spending on education doesn't cause the people getting the education to pay more (as you've shown), but forcing the rest to pay a larger portion of the bill should actually lower the cost of education to those taking advantage of it.

You make some good points, but there is a lot of waste and so it isn't a sure thing that you would see reduced costs, once everything is calculated. Public elementary schools spend more per child than private ones, and the average tax paid by parents would be better spent at private schools - hence the voucher program idea.

EVery child goes to school - not every person goes to college, so it may differ for this reason. However, in order to do the calculation you must keep in mind:

1. Reduced productivity due to higher taxes on all affected, which would otherwise reduce tuition by some margin.

2. Taxes paid by those taking advantage of the public education, which could otherwise be spent toward private education.

3. Lower flow of money into religious, charity, scholarship and private education funds, increasing the price of private tuition, due to higher taxes.

-- And probably some other effects. If you could see all of the unintended consequences of the taxation you would know whether public tuition is actually lower than private tuition would be if there were no tax; instead we compare public tuition to today's private tuition, which is unfair.

"How would it reduce the burden?"

I'm on your side in this argument. I've never really understood how spending money through the government reduces the overall money we have to spend. However, in this specific case, the reduced burden would (in theory) come from the people paying taxes for education who aren't taking advantage of it, such as those out of college without kids, people toward the end of their careers who are no longer supporting children, and people who aren't going to college are all. Increasing taxes to increase government spending on education doesn't cause the people getting the education to pay more (as you've shown), but forcing the rest to pay a larger portion of the bill should actually lower the cost of education to those taking advantage of it.

Would people realize they're getting ripped off if they don't take advantage of public education? I don't know. Would people just see lower tuition at public universities and take advantage of it? It seems like that's happening. Is it right to run an educational system this way? I have my doubts.

"(It's an outstanding site, by the way.)"

I hope you're only being polite, or extending a blogger's professional courtesy. Brad's site is purely political with generally poor economic analysis. Brad at times has some great insight to an issue, but usually is almost as unhinged as Krugman. He more than willing to disregard logic or accepted economic theory if it does not jibe with his generally socialistic views.

>However, if the government spent more on education, reducing the burden on them, these people might then elect to pay for an education, since it is now available at an acceptable price.

How would it educe the burden? For government to pay for something they must tax; then they take the money and use it wastefully (for lack of incentives, competition etc found in private spending) on public schools; then parents are forced to take "free" and poor education or spend money for private school, which won't be cheaper and will now constitute the second time they have paid for education (the first being through taxes).

So, in truth, the more government spends, the less the private person will elect to spend, as many will be forces to use the publicly funded institution. If you reduce taxes for them, they may spend it privately.

If government spends on daycare, to free up resources for the, mother to work to afford private school, etc. it is no different. Reduce taxes and the mother will be richer as well and more likely to work for the higher pay.

Its simply a matter of who you ant to spend the money - government or individuals.

John Dewey hits on an important point: priorities.

As has been mentioned here, and elsewhere, there is a difference between absolute and relative poverty. Is the goal of government programs to help the former or latter?

If the former, then there is a legitimate moral reason, and very targeted programs can and do help.

If the latter, all talk is grandstanding, and programs warp education and the education market in ways that hurt more than they help. People not in absolute poverty can choose for themselves how much to spend on human capital investments like education.

The same could be said for other industries.

"But there are also those out there that cannot afford to pay for higher education or job training, or that at least choose to spend their money elsewhere."

Job training is available for everyone in this nation. For the truly poor, numerous state and federal programs are available. For the other 98% of households, paying for it is simply a matter of priorities. Many of my generation simultaneously worked and attended state colleges and technical schools. I'd bet that many still do today.

It's so amazing, I think you should tell your parents about it.

Of course this goes beyond education. I have had so many debates with liberal friends (mostly friends, anyway) where they say "we" or "America" are/is not investing in... Genetic research, AIDS cures, the children, health care, cancer, on & on & on.

When confronted with the info that yes "we" are, they are confounded by the idea that private interests are providing the bulk of the funding either in pursuit of profit, or out of charity. It's amazing!

The "we" they're talking about is "those rich people who have all the money". You're looking at envy, pure and simple.

I think these people might argue that when they say "we don't spend money on education," what they really mean is that "we don't spend enough money on education." Certainly, there are people out there that will pay for an education regardless of whether the government is spending any money on it or not.

But there are also those out there that cannot afford to pay for higher education or job training, or that at least choose to spend their money elsewhere. However, if the government spent more on education, reducing the burden on them, these people might then elect to pay for an education, since it is now available at an acceptable price. Therefore, when the government "we" spends more on education, so does the people "we."

Of course, whether things would actually work out this way or whether government spending on education is beneficial is another matter.

Perry would have you go a bit further: "the state is not your friend"

http://www.google.com/search?hs=SXz&hl=en&a...>

I do get annoyed by this. When folks at my office in MA comment about the lack of preschool education in NH, they don't even blink when I point that they pay for private preschool.