I’m sure Joe Biden’s acceptance speech was worded carefully:
Barack Obama knows that any country that out teaches us today will
out-compete us tomorrow. He’ll invest in the next generation of
teachers.
Yes, if he has the chance, Obama will invest in the next generation of teachers. I’d rather invest in students. Novel idea, isn’t it?
Podcast RSS Feed
Full EconTalk Text
{ 6 comments }
He better be careful about how much the government redistributes to teachers. He could end up creating a huge amount of dead-weight loss. The teachers could receive windfall profits, which would obviously have to be taxed. And based on Coase's theorem we have just created DWL.
If Obama's history with the Chicago Annenberg Challenge is any guide, they'll choose the Educationists, not teachers.
Does this mean you wouldn't mind taxes that are spent on education if they subsidized consumers instead of producers? What about other industries? Subsidized health care for instance? In any case, these are both more worthy than agriculture subsidies in my opinion.
Education is an infrastructure. If the state must fund it, why not fund the consumption of it…
Educational accounts, beginning at 16 years old, $x,000 per student based on class rank, minus .005 percent of parental income. Added money for military and other service. (NO restrictions or differentials on attending out-of-state schools. Let each state compete.)
why invest in students if they can't vote?
No,no, no The other Eric, you're all wrong.
Educational accounts, beginning at 14 years old, $Y,000 per student based on racial preferences, minus .05 percent of household income. No added money. (Restrictions on attending out-of-state schools to prevent a monopoly.)
There are an infinite variety of plans that we could fabricate to deal with this. Why not just get rid of all the plans and let people choose for themselves?
{ 1 trackback }