Is This My Self-Interest Talking?

I comment very rarely on cafe hayek but I feel there are a couple of things I should say.

I am a student in Britain (in the equivalent of senior high) and what i've realised is the major problem with public education is that what you end up with is only one version of truth being taught, that is, the government's version of truth.

We have something in the UK called the 'national curriculum', whereby all schools in Britain, public and private, must teach basically the same things.

The bureaucrats who run the national exam boards have used this for their own left-wing agendas (or so it would seem). We are taught in science that it is irrefutable fact that global warming is an existential threat to mankind unless we act now, in history that the New Deal was unquestionably good for America, even in English classes we read plays by the anti-big-business Arthur Miller and articles almost entirely from the guardian (a left-wing British newspaper).

The end result is that this generation of British children thinks that global warming is as true as pythagoras' theorem, that the new deal was as good as the end of the slave trade, and that Arthur Miller was as great and as right as Shakespeare. (No offence to American playwriting, i just don't like left-wing playwrights).

Your federal system in the USA probably prevents any kind of 'national curriculum' but the more politics mixes with education, the greater the chance of that sort of thing happening. That's my reason for opposing Krugman's suggestions.

(By the way David Rotor- you say American companies rely on taxpayer-funded roads. Well in the 18th century the British government almost entirely privatised its road system and ended up with the best road system in Europe at that time). :)

Here is a link from Mark Perry about money & eduction.

http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2009/09/education-s...

Putting more money into eduction does not seem to help much?

Don,

> Why, then, can education – a service that yields enormous benefits to those who purchase it [...] thrive only as a charity case?

There is another thing that makes education different from groceries:

Parents are really very very interested in getting their kids good eduction. So not only is there no need for state interference, education can drum up all kinds of support from the neighborhood to get the right skill & competencies in house. That would make the job of being a teacher / school master even easier.

85 comments so far and not one mention of Albert Jay Nock, the one person who has anything intelligent to say about "public education." Daniel Kuehn, I recommend you read Nock - anything by Nock - but for the purposes of this particular conversation his disquisitions on public education. It is my belief that it might open your eyes (at least somewhat) to the errors of your ways!

Krugman is another Nobel Clown Prize recipient. We can safely ignore anything he has to say.

But if Krugman is correct, how is it that wide swathes of our lives work so well without such spending?

Don't worry. He's gonna fix all that.

Oh, grocery retailing, huh? People go hungry every day!

;-)

Krugman actually believes what he is saying. He is the ghost of Herbert Hoover.

Lot of talk on here about Krugman but little about the proposal.

My first thought is that economies of scale play a significant role in providing a better education to the children of the masses (read: median income and below).

My second thought is on Hayek's decentralized knowledge. The consumer is the parent. In order for the parent to make an informed decision on the product, information must be available. With many, smaller schools (as opposed to fewer larger ones) the population of previous consumers of any specific school decreases, as does the probability of a potential consumer having access to the previous consumer and their information. Consequently, choosing a good school becomes a game of chance.

According to this graph from the Cato Institute, federal spending on education has increased by %190 since 1970 while tests scores have remained stagnant. Obviously, "we" need to jack up the spending.

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/09/30/chart...

Aren't NAEP scores truncated and normalized? They shouldn't even be on the same chart as spending (which isn't truncated or normalized), and they certainly shouldn't share the same y-axis.

Besides, isn't the relevant statistic spending per pupil? What exactly do they expect total government spending to tell you?

Wow - it's amazing what graphs you can come up with from an organization that explicitly says in it's mission statement what conclusions it draws on public policy issues (and I'll note - the Princeton Economics Department has no such mission statement and no such constraints on the conclusions that their researchers draw). My wife applied for a research job at Heritage last year - they actually asked her, in the interview "would you be opposed to promoting conservative solutions and a conservative understanding of policy in the work that you do here?".

If a research organization has a mission statement that is any more specific than "we seek to better inform the public about X, Y, and Z policy issues", I say take whatever they put out with a grain of salt. And even if their mission statement is just "we seek to better inform the public", obviously you should still bring a skeptical eye to them as well.

So, you are denying that we've seen significant increases in spending on public education since 1970s? We don't need a CATO study to tell us that; it has been the conclusion of numerous organizations and economists since that time. And it shouldn't be all that surprising.

I'm denying no such thing, Mommsen1625, which should be pretty clear if you read my comment.

I'm saying the increase in federal spending is irrelevant because (1.) there is an increas in total expenditures, (2.) there has been an increase in the returns to education, and (3.) there are just more students to teach than there were in 1970.

What matters is the effectiveness of a federal dollar, which means spending per pupil. What also matters is the relative share of federal control, which means federal spending as a share of total spending. I don't see how an increase in total spending is surprising or relevant. We've increased our spending on potatos since 1970 too. So? Who cares?

And the point still remains - the NAEP scores are definitely truncated, and I believe they're normalized too. It doesn't make sense to compare them to total federal spending as a statement about whether federal spending makes a difference. That comparison makes no sense.

Well, there hasn't been an increase on returns on education commensurate with the money being poured in. That is clear from all the surveys done on the matter and is in part why people are often so freaked out by this education.

From what I have seen states which have not seen significant levels of increase or no increase at all there have not been increases performance commensurate with the increase in spending both by the state and federal levels.

This makes me think that spending isn't the problem.

I'm not saying spending is the problem either - look at DC schools. They throw money at them and it's not doing anything. This is also probably a good point to get more specific - are we talking about higher ed or high school? Federal dollars that go to high school are minimal. Their problems I think are a lot more systemic, have a lot more to do with local tax bases, and have a lot more to do with teacher's unions. None of that means that public expenditures are bad for schools - it just means that they don't address some of the most central problems. But I never said just jack up the spending. My only point was that the Cato graph doesn't really tell us much of anything.

What we're talking about here is preventing extensive teacher layoffs. I don't think throwing money at teachers helps, if you fire teachers and put more students into the class of a teacher that's already bad (for reasons other than funding), that can't be good no matter how you look at the appropriate level of school funding.

I am talking about all forms of government support for education. They all appear to come with the third party payer problem and the moral hazard associated with it and the principal-agent problem.

As for teacher layoffs, it isn't something that troubles me very much. I don't plan on sending my children to public schools.

Even adjusted for inflation we spend far more money publicly on education than we ever have. Yet we get rather crappy results for this. This is a third party payer problem and an agent/principal problem rolled into one.

Krugman creates a strawman based upon a non sequitar. He lauds the American educations system in the 19th century and its post WW2 supremacy in higher education. Now he is saying that education is decaying because of a lack of government financing although the Department of Education was created in 1980 and federal spending on education has increased exponentially since then (current budget of $68.6 billion!).

Can somebody get this guy an economics textbook?

It also bothers me that he notes that America has been known for the wide availability of its college system, then lambastes it moments later for the low graduation rate. Given the quotas and the like for universities that draw in certain students regardless of qualification (as noted by Sowell), combined with the subsidized availability, is it really so surprising that we have such a low graduation rate relative to admission? What I would /like/ to see if a comparison of our /admission/ rates overall relative to other countries. Adjusted for population size, I'm betting it's a good deal higher. He conveniently glazes over this point.

And there's the rub, I bet he didn't look at admission rates. We let anyone with a pulse into college regardless of any ability to actually graduate. Also I'm not talking about 'Education Science", "Feminist Studies" or other poofter degrees, but REAL degrees.

For some reason, aren't you supposed to use "teet" in polite conversation?

Actually it is "teat," but we're talking about Krugman who is a boob so Don had to lower the level of discourse and used "tit."

Grocery retailers don't use taxpayer paid and maintained roads to support their extraordinaryly efficient logistics systems - not to mention their customers who also use them? They don't benefit from FDA rules and regulations that give consumers extraordinary confidence in the safety of the food supply chain the US? And, of course, they don't benefit at all from low prices that are generated through massive taxpayer paid subsidies for grains, corn, dairy, and meat producers in the country. If you want to argue against state intervention in a wide swath or the economy (and you should), at least do it with some thoughtfulness.

I would just note that most roads in this country are paid by users, not by taxpayers. The people who use the roads pay for the roads. One of the main reasons they are becoming so congested is that those funds have been siphoned for other things like mass transit instead of building new road surface.

Food safety which he FDA has very little control over; it is mostly something that those involved in this arena self-enforce.

Subsidies for agricultural products increase their price; indeed, that has been the point of them since they were introduced in the 1930s.

I just had a quick look at wikipedia (fair enough to criticise my source), it appears that local roads are basically taxpayer funded, interstate highways are a mix of user fees and funding from general tax funds. Funnily enough, it's a pretty good example of a "mixed economy industry".

I'll take your comments on the FDA, though I'd ask the question whether the FDA has a role in ensuring that self-enforcement efforts are effective and meet public health standards. Meat inspection isn't a public effort?

I think the general case would be that farmer subsidies has increased prices, but I'm not sure that is the case for pork and several other markets, but I'm more than willing to concede this point.

David,

Again, the whole point of agricultural subsidies and related measures (like buying up "excess" production) was and is to keep up prices for the poor, poverty striken farmer (never mind that as a profession they are on average far more wealthy than the rest of the population). Of course, I have not even gotten into the significant hardship these policies place not only on poor Americans but on third world farmers as well. As I recall, Oxfam (<snark>that uber-libertarian organization</snark>) estimated a few years ago that the money gained by third world farmers from ending farm subsidies would overwhelm what we (the West) are currently spending on foreign aid by several factors. This is a concentrated benefits, dispersed costs story. Want to end Third World poverty? A good way to start down that road is to end agricultural subsidies for rich Western farmers. When politicians get serious on an issue like this I'll take their rhetoric about wanting to help the poor seriously.

Thankfully in the U.S. we only have subsidies on just a half dozen or so products; most of U.S. agriculture gets by without them.

I'll take your comments on the FDA, though I'd ask the question whether the FDA has a role in ensuring that self-enforcement efforts are effective and meet public health standards. Meat inspection isn't a public effort?

Well, first of all I have a moral objection to the FDA; some government organization basically shouldn't be able tell what I can and cannot imbibe, eat, etc.

Second, it is pretty clear that the way the FDA works today that it is (a) captured in many ways by the entities it regulates and (b) delays the entry of too many products for too long into the marketplace and that this delay comes with significant harms.

Anyway, if all the FDA did was to inspect and give a grade to products I would find such a role less objectionable than what the FDA does now.

On roads, most local roads are taxpayer funded, and taxpayer funding becomes less important as one goes up the ladder; state roads are based on user fees more, and federal roads even more so.

I agree with you on what I think the role of the FDA should be, I'm no fan of prohibition and think a well regulated market is a much better answer, and that's without getting into all the public safety benefits that would accrue from legalizing and regulating many of the banned substances.

It's the same point muirgeo made the other day about the fact that we live and always have lived in a mixed economy. Every "cleaned by capitalism" post that Don puts up is fair enough as a general statement, but it should be "cleaned by the mixed economy".

That's no proof that a mixed economy is always right. It's just a reason to proceed cautiously. Anybody who says that the market is always going to work best or the state is always going to work best should be taken suspiciously. And the fact is, Krugman has never indicated he thinks the state is ALWAYS going to work best, although he does say that sometimes it does. To quote something he wrote recently:

"self-interest is still the best motivator we know – or more accurately, the only consistent motivator. So I’m for market economies. But I’m for market economies with strong safety nets, with adult supervision in capital markets, with public provision of goods the private sector does badly (like basic research and much of education.) An idealized New Deal is about as far as I go."

And yet that gets conflated into statism! If you want to hurl a label, just call it "mixed economyism". It's less flashy but at least you don't sound like a loon yelling it at people.

"I’m for market economies. But I’m for market economies with strong safety nets, with adult supervision in capital markets, with public provision of goods the private sector does badly "

pretty arrogant position,IMO.who is the adult he is referring to.are the other participants in the economy somehow less capable than his holiness krugster?

he is advocating a nanny state where gets to play papa and screw the taxpayer.there is no such thing as a mixed economy.if the govt meddles,then it is not free.period.just like there is nothing like half pregnant

That we have a mixed economy and that virtually every industry or company that is successful can thank some degree of government intervention that allowed them to be so is pretty simple to understand.

I get irritated by supposedly conservative minded people (and I fall into this camp) who choose to simply criticize their political opponents or worse, use poorly thought out arguments and present them as self-evident.

Honda succeeded despite the Japanese government's efforts to kill it as a car company. Imagine a world without the Honda Accord. There are a lot of similar examples where governments have tried to strangle entrepreneurial efforts in their cradle.

There are also industries - like American railroads - which were significantly harmed by all the "help."

Of course this "intervention" you speak of is covered by the field of public choice.

Can you provide some links about Honda? I wouldn't have guessed that they almost didn't make a long time ago, they seem so successful.

Here is a short article on the subject: http://www.autohistory.org/feature_7.html

Soichiro Honda's biography is fairly amazing.

Thanks!

I learned of the Honda story on one of Russ' podcasts; so props to Russ.

I also have to say that one of the things look forward to on Monday is listening to EconTalk. I've learned an incredible amount from the podcast.

And it can therefore be suggested that they are successful at the expense of taxpayers rather than the loyal patronage of customers.

"poorly thought out arguments and present them as self-evident"

A perfect example of one:

"virtually every industry or company that is successful can thank some degree of government intervention"

Ha! So, Mr. Norsemen with a PC (are you going upgrade your moniker to viking7 next month?) what industries in the US have been successful without any government intervention?

Let's first eliminate any that rely on intellectual property rights. Then let's eliminate any that use transportation.

Then let's eliminate any that currently or earlier benefited from trade barriers, direct and indirect subsidies, or preferential tax treatments.

Then let's eliminate any that really on public capital markets.

Then let's eliminate any that hold funds in a US bank that is regulated, let alone the accounts that are backed by the FDIC.

Of course, we can't include any that conform to public health or safety regulations that give their customers confidence, while we're in this neighbourhood, let's also eliminate any that directly or indirectly use a product that has been tested and certified by a federal agency.

I almost forgot to include any industry that relies on labour that holds a federal certification or was ever educated in a publicly funded institution.

I'm quite interested in reading about the massive number of successful companies and industries that fall outside those guidelines.

"what industries in the US have been successful without any government intervention?"

You sure missed, and rather reinforced, my point. Successful WITH government intervention is not the same as successful BECAUSE OF government intervention.

You haven't convinced me, but feel to try to demonstrate any company that was successful without any government or social inputs?

"You haven't convinced me, but feel to try to demonstrate any company that was successful without any government or social inputs?"

Why do you insist on hammering home your logical deficiencies? I don't HAVE to demonstrate that. YOU have to demonstrate that companies would not have been successful without those inputs. How do you know they would not have been EVEN MORE successful without them?

I don't doubt that you have had success in your private life. You also obviously have difficulties with basic logic. But I don't assume your success is due to your logical deficiencies.

Wow. Power trip much? I don't have to demonstrate anything to you, nor would I be inclined to do so for someone who has such a lack of civility.

Of course you don't. Nobody has to refrain from self-contradiction.

Mixed economies are not stable.

There is no such thing as "idealized New Deal," just as there is no such thing as an "idealized Iraq War." If you want all this government interventionism (or you want a war against Iraq) then you have to take it warts and all. Honestly, Krugman's statement is about the dumbest I have ever seen on the matter.

Of course there is no idealized New Deal. Hence the adjective "ideal". I think he's just saying that he'd toss things like wage and price controls, etc.

You do have to take it "warts and all", but you can also use the New Deal as a good example of what you're talking about without being forced to advocate everything that was included in the New Deal!

Someone said this to me the other day - I mentioned I support a carbon tax that is rebated so there is a change in relative prices but not in the absoltue tax burden. They said "well that has no chance of passing so if you're going to advocate intervention you have to take responsibility for cap and trade and C4C, etc.". No I don't! I'll take the warts and dead weight losses associated with what I would support - the inevitable inefficiencies of implementation - and I think that the benefits still outweigh those warts. But that doesn't mean you're obliged to support things you don't actually support just because some third party claims it's in the same statist rubric.

danielkuehn,

Since the New Deal was a disaster it is a "good example" in a way.

Carbon are not what is going to happen (and they are uneeded anyway). If anything happens it will come in the form of cap and trade, which will be a public choice nightmare. I can't wait until it gets chopped to pieces by the WTO. The reaction to that will be worth watching popcorn with.

Anyway, when the warts include things like the increased micromanagement of my daily life, well, sorry, but the warts are not worth the benefits.

Further, what exactly is their to idealize about the New Deal?

About the only good thing economic historians state that FDR did was his gold standard policy.

It is well known now that his regulatory policy was a mess. That there was not much of anything counter-cyclical about what he was doing. That the take over of large swaths of the power industry proved detrimental for the growth of that industry and lead to all manner of abuses against the citizenry which the government did nothing to address. And that the work projects proved so controversial with the citizenry even at the time that they were scaled back in scope almost immediately after they came into being.

So, what exactly is there to "idealize?" The gold standard policy?

Countercyclical deficits were too weak to really pull us out - but it's still widely recognized by economic historians as having been being better than nothing. Obviously not all historians, but I'm curious who exactly you're thinking of when you say he is only recognized for his gold standard policy, or that the New Deal was a disaster. Certainly that opinion is out there, but it's hardly a consensus position. His bank policy is also noted.

But it's true - as Keynes said FDR was on a dual path of "recovery and reform", and Keynes himself worried that reform was overshadowing recovery efforts (the parallels to today on this are notable). FDR's administration more or less rejected Keynesianism and grudgingly provided a weak Keynesian stimulus. But that doesn't mean it was a disaster. I'm not apologizing for workers comp, unemployment insurance, and social security, as much as they may bother you. But this is starting to get besides the point - arguing over the New Deal again. The point is Krugman supports a mixed economy, and as David Rotor said - the idea that we can ascribe all good to the market and all bad to the government when we benefit from this mixture is silly. I'm of the Karl Polanyi school of thought. I don't always see the modern market and the modern state as two distinct institutions.

Countercyclical deficits were too weak to really pull us out - but it's still widely recognized by economic historians as having been being better than nothing.

I'd say this is no longer the case.

Obviously not all historians, but I'm curious who exactly you're thinking of when you say he is only recognized for his gold standard policy...

That seems to be the consensus these days.

...or that the New Deal was a disaster.

That's just my assessment.

His bank policy is also noted.

I'll grant that.

I'm not apologizing for workers comp...

That existed largely prior to the New Deal.

...unemployment insurance...

I don't know if it bothers me much, as I've never studied it.

..and social security...

It is a policy that I basically ignore because I understand that it is simply unsustainable; it will not exist by the time I retire (if I ever do). It is not like any rational person should actually depend on it.

...the idea that we can ascribe all good to the market...

The market provides better outcomes in the main than government does. I don't know if that is an "all good" position, but I don't believe it is.

...and all bad to the government...

Government does a dozen or so things better than the market does. Beyond that it has little competency and is so prone to rent seeking that it ... well, you get my point.

Anyway, delightful conversation. Have work to do.

BTW, what are these "points" all about exactly?

Edit: Oh, I figured it out. What a neat idea.

Krugman says: ...for the past 30 years our political scene has been dominated by the view that any and all government spending is a waste of taxpayer dollars.

This is an incredible statement given the rise in government spending over those 30 years. The view that government spending is a waste has been talked about but that view has been largely ignored by virtually all government practitioners. To say that it has been the dominant political view is absurd.

I don't think churches being tax-exempt is a problem at all. I just wish everybody was :)

Do you think Krugman is blindly loyal to progressive dogma, or is just whoring out his credentials to the manipulative classes?

Excellent question.

Both.

1) Critical thinking in academia is dead, which allows him to function as he does, and 2) Critical thinking is central to Russ & Don’s Hayekian perspective. It takes some effort and is much more complex yet simple, and provides multiple options and identifies pitfalls quickly.

Krugman reflexively reverts to (failed) government intervention/control, because that’s all he knows. Because he’s lazy.

Here's the Krugman logic:
"The rise of American education was, overwhelmingly, the rise of public education — and for the past 30 years our political scene has been dominated by the view that any and all government spending is a waste of taxpayer dollars. "

So since public education was a great success because of govt spending,the govt should spend further to err.improve its success?

Just like the govt invented the internets.

Do you honestly think it's blind loyalty to progessive dogma, or do you think it's based on his understanding of the economics of education and the very real differences between the market for groceries and the market for education? I can't imagine you'd react well if someone suggested that everything you promote on here is due to blind loyalty to dogma. Just because people disagree on something doesn't mean the person you are arguing with is dogmatic (although certainly there are dogmatists out there).

"o you honestly think it's blind loyalty to progessive dogma, or do you think it's based on his understanding of the economics of education and the very real differences between the market for groceries and the market for education?"

In the US, education is dominated by a government-run monopoly, there is, for the most part, no market.

This is as opposed to the Netherlands, where schools receive government funding per student, but 70% of schools are independent of the government in their operations.

There is a reason why people don't accuse Roubini of being dogmatic. I'm sure the bloggers here @ the Cafe would vehemently disagree with Roubini.

OK, I don't find Roubini to be especially dogmatic either - just like Don and Krugman. I'm not sure what your point is. Glad we agree on Roubini, though.

Re; The market for education.

I do think you're onto something here. The thing is, the true market for education differs by a very wide margin from the political demand for education.

Most of what passes for public education in the U.S. is the mere housing of people under the age of eighteen. So the question is, who does public education serve primarily? The students or the administrative/faculty apparatus of the public schools?

C'mon Daniel. Krugman has become as predictable as the lunar orbit.

As for there being differences between education and groceries, I don't see it. Society thrives better the better educated persons are. Society thrives better the better fed people are. What's the difference?

And you're not predictable? I could set my watch by Cafe Hayek reactions. Nevertheless, I don't think that makes you or Russ dogmatic. You have reasons for coming to the conclusions that you do (which is why it's worth reading here, rather than other places that do come to these conclusions dogmatically).

There are a lot of issues worth taking a stand against progressives on. Public provision of education is not one of them. That's not to say nobody should make a case against it - it's just to say that if you had to pick one point where "progressives" (which is a silly red herring because moderates and conservatives support public education as well) are clearly dogmatic, education is not one of them. Differences between education and groceries abound - positive externalities, credit constraints, principle-agent problems associated with parents who will inevitably be making educational choices for their children, uncertainty about the future value of an education, asymmetric information, etc, etc. I know you don't buy into this stuff or it's impact, but at least give people the benefit of the doubt by assuming that they're not dogmatic about their concerns.

And you're not predictable? I could set my watch by Cafe Hayek reactions.

Of course. Any consistent philosophy, ideology, etc. should produce a certain predictability in its adherents. Libertarians are consistently for minimizing extortion in social relationships.

It's easy once you grok the premises. Still wondering about yours, they seem to be encased in mushiness.

Exactly! Predictability is no proof of dogmatism, that's all I'm trying to say.

I wouldn't waste too much time thinking about my philosophy. I've generally found that anyone that doesn't brazenly declare their libertarianism comes across as "mushy" on here unless they brazenly declare their socialism. My guess is you'll always be predisposed to see me as mushy, so don't even worry about it.

Well Daniel,

On occasion you have stated that you find certain developments in government policy to be "troubling". That's good, people should find certain things "troubling".

What I want to express to you is that I see these troubling things not as mere oddities that just happen, but as part of a trajectory that I think everyone should find "troubling".

I see that there has been and is increasing growth of government power and participation in all areas of society.

There is a linkage between alcohol prohibition in the early 20th century and the push to have government regulate what we eat.

Google "Fabian Socialism" then try telling yourself there isn't a pattern.

Examine the incentives in a system dominated by political power and then tell yourself that there's no slope towards ever increasing government.

"You have reasons for coming to the conclusions that you do (which is why it's worth reading here, rather than other places that do come to these conclusions dogmatically)."

Good point. I typically find Krugman's reasoning lacking or sophomoric. Take this paragraph from today's column:

"Of those lost jobs, 29,000 were in state and local education, bringing the total losses in that category over the past five months to 143,000. That may not sound like much, but education is one of those areas that should, and normally does, keep growing even during a recession. Markets may be troubled, but that’s no reason to stop teaching our children. Yet that’s exactly what we’re doing."

Is the 29,000 net? How many were teachers? How does it compare to other similiar time periods? If abnormal, might there be other drivers for the job loss, such as age demographics or expansion of private education? Doesn't the 5 month window include the May/June time frame which coincides with the end of the school year and a time when many teachers lose jobs? Again, how does that 143,000 number compare with similar time frames in past years for state and local education? Also, any data to show that education grows in a recession and what drives that? My guess is that one driver is that the unemployed go back to school when they're unemployed. Yet I know unemployed that aren't going back for degrees, they're going back to training provided by private companies to earn certificates on certain computer programs or systems.

The facts Krugman gave simply don't support his conclusion: that we are stopping teaching our children. His facts also make me suspicious because they don't tell me much unless I have a good answers to the questions above.

"that we are stopping teaching our children"

The bigger irony is that Krugman fails to recognize that test scores show we stopped teaching children in public schools long ago.

I'd say that the test scores show that we haven't improved teaching, even while we've doubled or tripled the inflation-adjusted spending per student on education.

Guys,

How much of it has to do with the relatively cushy lifestyles even the those on the lower rungs of the income ladder enjoy?

In the third world, if someone has a chance at education, they grab on with both hands and study as if their lives depend on it (because they do). The parents push the children no matter how many hours they are working and the students are extremely motivated. How much of the terrible American school system results from a lack of motivation on the part of the consumers of education do you suppose?

Seth,

I have no data to support my gut feel, but I'd bet that while funding per student has risen dramatically, the student to teacher ratio has increased.

The little reading I've done on the issue suggests there is a pretty compelling argument to make that fewer students per teacher is the best way to improve education outcomes. Everything else is noise.

The little reading I've done on the issue suggests there is a pretty compelling argument to make that fewer students per teacher is the best way to improve education outcomes.

I think you've read teacher's union propaganda. Class sizes during the height of the Baby Boom were typically 35 or more kids, even in elementary schools. Education in 1960s and earlier was far superior than what is offered today The problem is that schools have become indoctrination centers; teaching kids to chant, "Barack Hussein Obama ... mmm mmm mmm" has taken priority over teaching kids how to read and spell.

Hi David - My argument is that I typically find Krugman's reasoning laughable, not what makes for effective education.

But, if I were to put my money on a single factor, I'd put it on teacher quality. Trouble is that's hard to determine objectively, which is all the more reason to give power back to parents.

Also, I don't think the student/teacher ratio has increased. The belief in that factor as a panacea has been around for awhile, and while a lot of funding has gone to administrators and football stadiums, some has gone to fulfill this idea.

This link shows that, at least from 1990 - 06 the ratio decreased: http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/2009/section4/i...

Moreover, in Japan student-teacher ratios are typically around 35. If you can achieve a disciplined classroom, you can raise the ratio and still achieve high performance in learning.

One of the challenges in dealing with government-provided education is that Constitutional limitations on government, which are fine for dealing with adult citizens regarding law enforcement, do not translate well to the powers needed by a teacher to achieve discipline.

And freshman university class sizes can be measured in the hundreds. Decreasing class size likely has one of the lowest returns for educational dollar investment (my understanding is that no positive correlation has been found)--and it is not unimaginable that it may have a negative return, given how it reduces exposure to the best teachers. Students would do better if the best teachers were able to teach to larger classes.

I agree.

I agree that Krugman's reasoning is often laughable - most of my comments on this post are to suggest that the criticism that was used is also laughable.

On the point we're discussing - student/teacher ratio - I think that article actually supports my position. There has been, I believe, a huge increase administrative and special needs funding in schools and those additional staff resources are counted on the "teacher" side of the equation. As the technical note at the bottom says "Student/teacher ratios do not provide a direct measure of class size". I won't quibble about teacher quality as an important measure, but I'd rather have an average teacher teaching my child in a class of 16 than a brilliant teacher teaching my child in a class of 38.

David - Can you quote where the article supports your position that the "student to teacher ratio has increased"? The technical note does not support your position either. I'll give you that you really meant 'class size' when you wrote 'student to teacher' ratio. But, even at that, I don't believe the technical note or the article can be used to support your position. You may be right, but you can't draw your conclusion from the data given the article.

Go ahead and put your kid with average teacher. That's your choice. It's a free country. I'll choose the brilliant teacher. I had several brilliant teachers in college that managed to teach a great deal to rooms of several hundred people.

Seth,

We can quibble over what percentage of teachers are brilliant, and what the cutoff on class size you'd rather have an average teacher rather than a brilliant one, but let's simplify the issue to class size. Which would you rather have your kid exposed to; an average teacher with 16 kids or an average teacher with 38 kids?

I should have also mentioned, there's a huge difference between teaching an 8 year old and teaching a 18 year old. The arguments about having a brilliant professor teaching a room of 200 college kids doesn't translate well to a room full of kids in grade 4.

Grade 4 maybe not. Grade 5 probably. Grades 6-8 almost for sure. Grades 9-12 definitely.

There are a lot of issues worth taking a stand against progressives on. Public provision of education is not one of them.

I strongly disagree. This is likely one of the more important issues which advocates of liberty should take a stand against.

it's just to say that if you had to pick one point where "progressives" (which is a silly red herring because moderates and conservatives support public education as well) are clearly dogmatic, education is not one of them.

Public education is a creation of 19th century progressive action. Thus, all supporters of public education have bought into the "progressive" sales pitch for such a product.

Education is too important to allow it to be managed by political interests.

'Public' education has been with us since the early days. Yeah, more states adopted it during the Progressive era, but the momentum of the movement began building in the early part of the 19th century, not the later part.

Anyway, while I agree simply dismissing someone as a dogmatist is wrong, especially someone as well-read and well-studied as Krugman, in this instance Don is 100% justified in doing so. This is one of those knee-jerk moments where Krugman decides the problem is as he wants it to be so the solution will also be as he wants it to be without looking up the data. If he bothered to do so, he'd find that there's no correlation between spending and educational outcomes, except in limited, specific cases.

This article is old (2007) as is the study (2005), but it makes the point decently well:

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idU...

As I've seen others say, Krugman might have been something ten or more years ago, but he's little more than a hack today. It's sad to see that happen, I've read some of his old stuff (especially the one about interest rates in an interstellar situation -- pure geek porn, I loved it) and he really was (And probably still is) a very intelligent man.

Yes, I see that H Mann did his work in the early part of the 19th century, though fortunately, I did not specifically cite the Progressive era, I think a lot of progressives would likely cite Mann as an early harbinger of progressive tendencies in fomenting "public" education with his support for the Prussian model.

Krugaman was a professor of mine Daniel, and trust me he is just as Don describes him. He simply does not care how he gets to a conclusion as long as it supports his view that the world should be run by enlightened philospher kings--umm like himself.

That's interesting and surprising. So you're saying in class he didn't provide thorough reasons for coming to the conclusions that he did? He's pretty broadly recognized as a rigorous economist. What class did you have him for?

Daniel,
A fair question, but then again I knew him before he became a political hack. However, I must dig deep to remember him—he was a rather unremarkable professor. I remember Bernanke as a kind and quiet man, which is why I bristle at those who denigrate him (even here at the café—even if he is wrong). What I can remember vaguely about Krugman is as follows:
(1) We are screwed: productivity levels are so low that the United States has no future hope—this was said in the mid 1990s; productivity consequently exploded and he was proved wrong.
(2) Smoot-Hawley did not deepen the Great Depression—simply said without evidence, because he said it.
(3) The trade deficit will end when the budget deficit goes into surplus—the budget went into surplus and the trade deficit continued.
(4) Increases in taxation will not denigrate economic growth—again because Paul Krugman says so (for this I would recommend his The Age of Diminished Expectations, which (sorry it is at the office so I cannot give you specifics) which is a poorly footnoted book whose points are largely supported by a Mr. Paul Krugman.
Anyway, much more to write, but I will leave it at this for digestion. Krugman taught you to be like him—that you as a Princetonian would accept the mantle to take care of the little people. Again, I must confess (as you rightly called me out), this is very vague—he was not that great a professor (now Uwe Rheinhardt that is an econ professor I remember!)

Gross.

I've known way too many academics just like that.

Yep. Me too.

Which is why it is so important that people like Danny boy here get some exposure to Drs. Boudreaux & Roberts, the latter having been one of my professors, and from what I read, the antithesis of Krugman.

Unfortunately, that wisdom appears not to be infiltrating those brains who need it most, including Krugman’s (presuming he has one).

Important I get exposed? Haha - thankyou for being so concerned about broadening my horizons.

I do enjoy reading from Russ and Don a lot, but I find it so funny that people think they are the anti-Krugman. I actually read them for much the same reasons as I keep up with Krugman's blog - and I find the three of them very similar. They're all hopelessly predictable, not afraid to mix normative judgements into their economics, all are respectful of older intellectual traditions in economics (which I think is very important to keep in touch with), all three are brazenly outspoken - which is always nice to read in a blog, and all three take it very personally when someone suggests they may be wrong about something (which makes for interesting dynamics on a blog).

And don't worry - when I say that another economist is like Krugman I mean it as the highest of compliments.

Of course, all I can say is that my impression of the man was that he fancied himself an enlightened philosopher king--then again I was smoking a lot of pot back then.

danielkuehn,

This is from his bio in wikipedia:

"Krugman says that his interest in economics began with Isaac Asimov's Foundation novels, in which the social scientists of the future use "psychohistory" to attempt to save civilization. Since "psychohistory" in Asimov's sense of the word does not exist, Krugman turned to economics, which he considered the next best thing.[16][17]"

This is how psychohistory is described in wikipedia:

"Psychohistory, a fictional science in Isaac Asimov's Foundation universe, combines history, sociology, and mathematical statistics to make (nearly) exact predictions of the collective actions of very large groups of people, such as the Galactic Empire."

Make of this what you will.

As for me, there are three things I remember most about Asimov's "Foundation" series; (1) elitism, (2) sexism and (3) just how blatantly disturbing and ultimately unrealistic the notion of psychohistory is.

The man who "predictably" responds with reasons and evidence to support his positions and the man who "predictably" responds with leftist talking points devoid of reasons and in defiance of the evidence are not equivalent.

Krugman and leftists are indeed dogmatic on the notion that education must be public and that government never spends enough money on it. Indeed, only a dogmatic belief in those notions would let Krugman: A) Make the preposterous claim that over the last 30 years government spending on education has declined, while: B) Simultaneously evading the obvious fact that over recent decades government schools have increasingly turned out millions of high school graduates that are alarmingly ignorant and lacking of the most basic reasoning skills.

No one who continues to advocate any sort of statism deserves any sort of "benefit of the doubt" -- not after statism's universal record of catastrophic, global-scale failure.

RE: "The man who "predictably" responds with reasons and evidence to support his positions and the man who "predictably" responds with leftist talking points devoid of reasons and in defiance of the evidence are not equivalent."

You think "I don't see any differences between education and groceries" counts as a reason? That's basically Don's argument here, as it is for a lot of public goods: "well it works with food, so why not here".

Krugman is a bitter partisan and he can be meanspirited. There's no point in denying that. But when he talks about the stimulus, for example, he presents models and REASONS for why liquidity traps are problematic and why fiscal stimulus is uniquely able to address the problems in these specific cases. And then he brings out reams of data to demonstrate that the conditions necessary in his model are actually happening in the real world. You can't even get Don and Russ to TALK about these special conditions under which Krugman thinks stimulus is appropriate, or to even acknowledge that Krugman thinks that stimulus isn't appropriate in most circumstances (for the same reasons that Don and Russ think it's inappropriate at any time, I might add). Krugman isn't a climatologist, obviously - and is he susceptible to overstating his case? Of course he is. But when he posts about climate change he posts temperature data - he makes an effort to delve into that field. What did Don do in his most recent climate post? He said "they were wrong in the 70s so why should I believe them now?" - and even THAT was a misreading of the danger they talked about in the 70s, because even in the very Time magazine article Don cited they talked about the threat being centuries away!

I like Don and Russ's work a lot, and I agree with you - they usually do provide great reasons for what they say (and hey - it's just a blog - there's no obligation to provide a rigorous defense every time) but don't even try to make this a pissing contest with Krugman. Krugman can be partisan, he can be over the top, and he can be just plain wrong. But this instinct not to take him seriously or to pretend that he can be dismissed as some dogmatist comes across as really childish every time it's brought up on here. And yet ironically I know soon I'm going to get a comment about how I'm the immature one.

DK wrote:

You think "I don't see any differences between education and groceries" counts as a reason?

Yes, I do. Pointing out the successful functioning of other markets is a valid argument.

To admit that voluntary trade to mutual benefit is the proper relationship for human beings in some markets -- while coerced-redistribution of earnings to provide unearned benefits to others is a proper replacement for a market in other situations -- such a claim bears a heavy burden of support, a burden which leftists like Krugman evade. It is for the Krugman's of the world to prove why the initation of force against the innocent is justified in the pursuit of some economic goods and services but not others -- and he cannot do it.

You also wrote:

But when he talks about the stimulus, for example, he presents models and REASONS for why liquidity traps are problematic and why fiscal stimulus is uniquely able to address the problems in these specific cases.

The dogmatic nature of his argument rests in the fact that it is pitched in non-falsifiable terms. No matter what level of "fiscal stimulus" is applied, if it fails to achieve what he claims it will achieve, Krugman will simple declare that the stimulus was "too weak" or "too late", etc. To cling to a theory regardless of the facts is by definition dogmatic -- and that's what I've watched Krugman do for a long time now.

But this instinct not to take him seriously or to pretend that he can be dismissed as some dogmatist comes across as really childish every time it's brought up on here.

It's not an instinct on my part -- it's based on the evidence. No sane, non-brain-damaged alleged "economist" can possibly believe that government spending has declined over the last 30 years and that education spending must, therefore, also be down. That's a typical Krugman claim -- and only a blind devotion to push a viewpoint can explain it.

Nor am I doing what you imply -- I’m not replying to some valid argument offered by Krugman by saying, “That argument can be ignored because Krugman is a dogmatist”. When you catch me doing that, then you can level this accusation at me -- and I’ll agree with it. But as it stands, the claim that what I wrote above “comes across as really childish” -- well, that claim comes across as really childish to me.

Re: "The dogmatic nature of his argument rests in the fact that it is pitched in non-falsifiable terms. No matter what level of "fiscal stimulus" is applied, if it fails to achieve what he claims it will achieve, Krugman will simple declare that the stimulus was "too weak" or "too late", etc."

This is nonsense - if you followed what Krugman said about the stimulus, he gave a figure that he thought was more appropriate. To falsify his prediction about what this stimulus will do, we'll have to compare the administration's projections to his. Obviously we can't falsify his ideal stimulus because the figures he proposed from the outset were never passed. But in that sense, your position on the stimulus is unfalsifiable as well. You can't blame Krugman for being unfalsifiable just because Congress didn't listen to him - especially when you're in the same boat. This stimulus is good but not nearly enough to pull us out - and when it ends up not pulling us out you're just going to argue that that's a reason for why we should have done less in the first place.

I'm merely making a forecast -- and one that does not depend on what level of "stimulus" the government chose versus what Krugman recommended. And that forecast is this: that no matter what economic outcome we experience over the duration of the Obama administration, Krugman will not stray from his statist premises in the least.

If we have a good economic recovery, he'll say it's a result of the stimulus (or some other interventionist government actions). If we experience only a deeper recession, he'll simply say see, I told you so, the stimulus needed to be bigger. Regardless of the outcome, regardless of the facts, Krugman will never give up his advocacy of government intervention into the economy.

Look, anyone that can continue to advocate statist intervention in the economy -- despite it's global-scale, perfect-failure-record -- deserves to be called dogmatic, if not a whole lot worse.

As for my position on the stimulus, I say it's an immoral looting of my income and thus a blatant violation of my property rights. To falsify that position, you must prove that some men have a greater right to a man's property than does the man who has earned it and is thus its rightful owner. You have to prove that it is right and just to deny someone what he's earned while granting it, instead, to someone who has NOT earned it. Proceed to justify that, if you can.

Re: "Krugman will not stray from his statist premises in the least.... Regardless of the outcome, regardless of the facts, Krugman will never give up his advocacy of government intervention into the economy."

The stimulus figure Krugman came up with has nothing to do with any imagined statist premises. He got his figure from decades old back-of-the-envelope fiscal policy equations (Okun's law, essentially), and CBO numbers on NAIRU, the output gap, and unemployment. An undergrad could do it.

If you're going to challenge Krugman's prescription explain why he's wrong. Accusing him of an "-ism" is the easy way out - and not too convincing when he's laid out exactly how he came to the figure that he did.

The stimulus figure Krugman came up with has nothing to do with any imagined statist premises.

Nonsense.

Statism is the doctrine that holds that one's life and one's property belongs to the state, who may dispose of it as it sees fit, to achieve any of its alleged goals or satisfy any of its alleged "needs".

The notion of a fiscal "stimulus" is the notion that the state, not the individual, has the right to decide how much of the individual's money should be spent at any one time -- and that if, in the opinion of the state, the individual is spending too little and saving too much, the state may veto the individual's decision and spend his/her money anyway.

Thus, the very notion of a fiscal "stimulus" is a manifestation of statism -- statism is the premise on which it is founded. To claim that advocating a fiscal stimulus has nothing to do with any statist premises is to confess an ignorance of the meaning of the terms one is using.

My "challenge to Krugman's prescription" is to assert that my life and my money belong to ME, not to Krugman, not to "society", and not to the government -- and that, as a consequence, no one but ME has any right to decide how much of my money will be spent or saved at any one time.

The fact that Krugman "laid out exactly how he came to the figure that he did" is utterly irrelevant! If a man in the street points a gun at you and demands that you give him $184.63 of your money, his action is not excused, and he is not automatically entitled to that much of your money, merely because he can show you precisely how he came to that total.

Only a concrete-bound mentality -- one that is impervious to the actual principles involved -- can possibly think that what Krugman advocates is justified because he’s done his sums properly.

oldest trick in the economist's bag: identify a 'market failure' and show how the govt funding will solve the problem. tenure? check. govt approval? check. nobel prize? double check.
it is sheer laziness to see externalities where none exist.

RE: "it is sheer laziness to see externalities where none exist"

I'd agree - that would be pretty lazy.

It's not exactly clear that publicly provided education has hurt the U.S.'s economic prospects (particularly since we have ample private competitors) - I'm not sure why you think it's that open and shut. Granted, the way our highschools have been doing in the last couple decades may get to be a problem - but that's just a matter of execution and administration. Look at public higher education. The performance of public higher education suggests that there's nothing obviously inherent in public education that's hurting our public high schools right now (and many public highschools were great - mine (Yorktown High School, Arlington Virginia) was a fantastic school). High schools struggle with the same issues that a lot of inner city institutions struggle with - including inner city market institutions. Some of those struggles are due to bad policy that hurts the market. Some aren't.

Oldest trick in the libertarian bag - since government does a lot, blame every problem in society on a government intervention. Ignore the fact that public education, combined with a free economy and political liberties, built us into the greatest nation in the history of the species.

You need to do more research on "public" education.

Read some John Taylor Gatto.

Some Thomas Sowell.

The Cartel

You might enjoy Goldin and Katz, Becker, and Heckman.

Not if they are making arguments for political control of education.
I am reasonably familiar with arguments FOR government provision of education. Most people are familiar with ONLY arguments for. I think they need to hear arguments against.

Most of public higher education is pretty much kids getting together to drink. I'm not sure if I'd call that successful.

I think that most students learn more once they actually enter the job market and have to.

It's not exactly clear that publicly provided education has hurt the U.S.'s economic prospects --

Ignore the fact that public education -- built us into the greatest nation in the history of the species.

So you went from saying that poor public education could be detrimental to economic growth in the future, to saying that public education is equally important as private property rights, rule of law and free markets in the success of America as a nation. Whoah, makes my head spin.

I don't remember saying it's "equally important". I highly doubt that, but even if I would entertain that idea I don't know how I'd determine it. But it is important.

Doesn't it follow from "strong investments in public education help America" that "if we weaken our investment in public education it will hurt America"? I don't see where the contradiction is. Suggesting that we should invest in a public good doesn't mean that that public good will always be well supplied. And anyway - despite the problems we've had we do a damn good job educating our kids too. It's not like it's been an utter failure.