Why not instead deal with the fact that austerity is the wrong cure for the disease
I don't think that's been shown. In fact, this magical thinking about "long term" versus "short term" debt reeks of clever rationalization rather than solid economic theory.
As for Krugman, I've read him, and he's displayed a fantastical lack of economic understanding, his Nobel prize notwithstanding.
In the end, the longer we delay reckoning with the fact that we cannot afford the governments we have, the worse it will get when we do have to reckon with it. Every country undergoing austerity has had skyrocketing unemployment and a lower standard of living not because of austerity, but because the *lack* of it for so many years.
...then why not reduce all taxes to 0%, and fund government exclusively through deficit spending?
It seems the spin is "there was an error, therefore there is never a problem with debt" - this really seems to be missing the original point.
In the end, I suppose the fact of the matter is that eventually, as a debtor, governments using fiat currency will ameliorate their problem by devaluing the currency, and punishing savers while rewarding other borrowers like themselves. The economic harm that this does will be great, perhaps even devastating, but life will go on, just a little bit harder.
The problem with the American government education system is that it is compulsory. Back in the day when education was literally forbidden by law, the underclass and discriminatory victims *valued* education. Education was seen as an escape route from poverty and as an empowerment.
Once the compulsory education system was set up, as a way to politically indoctrinate citizens and prepare them for factory jobs, instead of being grateful for the opportunity that was now an obligation, the response has typically been resentment amongst a large fraction of those being incarcerated.
The simple fact of the matter is that from a *cultural* perspective, compulsory education has engendered the creation of a resentful and destructive underclass, that actively *ruins* government education for those people who do value it. You cannot change this culture under the current compulsory system.
As for satire being relevant to the argument, often humor cuts to the truth. Of course it's silly to think of a nine year old working at a sheet metal factory in any sort of skilled position, much less running the floor. But say you had been working at the factory, slowly making your way up the menial job chain, starting at 9 years old - maybe you started off simply taking out trash, or mopping floors - it it so unreasonable to imagine that after 6 years of work, that 15 year old might in fact have grown into a position of responsibility and authority with enough motivation and work ethic? Is it further unreasonable to think that this 9 year old, at 18 years, would be in a better place to compete with a high school drop out of the same age with no work experience?
Our infantilization of teenagers through compulsory education needs to stop. While there are certainly those that value a government education, and will not ruin the enterprise for their peers, if we wanted better results from our government education system, it would be a privilege that can be revoked for failure to apply oneself.
Everyone can consider themselves, and their labors, as their private property. Private property is indeed the basis of freedom.
From Bastiat:
"When a portion of wealth is transferred from the person who owns it — without his consent and without compensation, and whether by force or by fraud — to anyone who does not own it, then I say that property is violated; that an act of plunder is committed."
“I got my first job when I was 9. Worked at a sheet metal factory. In two weeks, I was running the floor. Child labor laws are ruining this country.” - Ron Swanson
Frankly, a large majority of children now housed in government schools for babysitting would do better for themselves and their families if they were working.
I would assert that the individual's body, and the labors thereof, are the ultimate private property, and should be strictly protected.
I have no idea how you would imagine some minor advantage leading to slavery - it's almost as if you are trying to conceive of some sort of contract which abrogates private property rights...
Do you have a concrete example, so I can understand you better?
Simple: limit regulation to the strict protection of private property rights.
Unlimited liberty requires security of oneself and one's property. Government should simply be the collective use of force in defense of private property rights. Bastiat had it figured out over a hundred years ago: http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html
That's not for us to decide on behalf of someone else. If they want to bring it up with the potential employer, that's their business.
It becomes our decision when we're paying for the education. Imagine that potential employer effectively paid for 100% of that student's education - don't they have a right to the data regarding that education?
The feds are overstepping their boundaries by interfering with them.
I firmly agree, and have personally observed the effects of "No Child Left Behind" as a federal lever to impose national will on state schools. If we actually had real state control, then maybe we could try out the effect of 100% public public school records in one state and observe the consequences compared to another.
What? Are you going to stick cameras in the stalls of public restrooms too? I mean.. they're paid for by taxpayer money, right? How do we know what's going on there if there's no video record?
That's actually a very good point - publicly funded restrooms (say, those at a park or rest stop), should certainly be open to public scrutiny. But I'd assert the data wouldn't have to include full-on video of people doing their business (though, lord knows, it's not like the consumer technology doesn't exist to setup your own pinhole camera). My real problem with government surveillance isn't that it exists in the first place, but that the data it brings isn't made public. If government wanted to install video systems that recorded every person entering and exiting a public restroom, the entire public should have access to that feed - as it is, the disparity of information between citizen and government is troublesome. I guess I'm arguing that expanding the information to the citizen is easier than restricting the capabilities of government.
You already have a right to your identity.. ever hear of "identity theft"? You can also change your name if you like. Heck, you can even post as anonymous coward.. which might be advisable in your case.
I mean something different - I mean, literally, the ability to change your name without anyone, including the government, being able to track that change. This isn't about anonymity, this is about having the right to effectively destroy your history and start from zero reputation. It was something one could do in older days, simply by walking far enough away from where people knew you...but was it a *right*? Was it a *good* thing on the whole?
What next? Do I have to post my performance reviews from work? I don't work for the government, but I do pay taxes.
As a taxpayer, you deserve access to the performance reviews of every single government employee.
The taxpayers of a town and state have a right to a statistical summary of certain data to gauge the school's performance, but they have no business accessing data of individual students, not if it can be matched to a particular student.
I disagree - taxpayers of a town and state deserve the raw data. If a student doesn't want to have their school performance public, they shouldn't go to a taxpayer funded school.
For all the theoretical harm of knowing that Johnny is learning disabled (or hell, gifted), I simply don't see any overwhelming evidence that the harm would outweigh the benefit. I'd be open to actual experiments on it though:)
Isn't it better to know that a student was learning disabled? I mean, say you've got that student out of school, and they're looking for a job. Employer doesn't know anything about the kid, and during the interview, sees terribly poor performance because of dyslexia - but because he doesn't *know* he's looking at a dyslexic, he just figures the kid is stupid, lazy or being disrespectful, and *bam* - no job offer. While certainly there are some people who will take a look at some tag on some file and jump to an unfortunate conclusion, there seems little reason to hide information like that.
As for being accessible to "the school system", that *is* the federal government. And knowing the school district employees that I do, that means it really isn't secure at all. Furthermore, if a student's performance isn't public to the taxpayer, how are they supposed to know their tax dollars are being spent well? Without the raw data, school systems (under the "sorry, it's just us, the student and parents") can make up any story they want.
As for being "entered by the same people in the same system", make no mistake, I don't just want to hold the educators accountable, the *students* and even the *parents* should be held accountable, neither of whom actually enter in test scores or other entries into the school record.
As for the right to privacy, just like a person walking on a public street has no right to prohibit people from photographing or listening to them, a student in a public school should have no right to prohibit the taxpayer from observing them.
Now the bar codes - that's an interesting idea. Imagine, for example, if instead of a right to privacy, we asserted a right to *identity* - that is, you could arbitrarily change your identity at any time, to something unattached to your previous identities. Of course, this is morally suspect in say, cases of a fraud or criminal changing identity to avoid accountability for their crimes, but in essence, that's what a strong right to privacy would be - "sorry sir, but I have no past record for you to examine". I haven't thought through all the benefits and disadvantages such a "right to identity" would have, but I think that as a parallel to the "right to privacy", it can be somewhat informative.
While I value my privacy, and certainly enjoy poisoning the well of data collectors to avoid targeting, I'm not sure if I'd embrace it as a civil right, since it requires the effective suppression of other people's speech. Back in the day where you lived your whole life in the same village, effectively, you had no privacy - the school marm and all the other socialites were certainly privy to who was bright in school, and who was a bit slow. Going to a village shopkeep looking for a job included dealing with whatever reputation you had garnered during your life, however fair or unfair it was earned. It might be that society is arguably better off when people know everything about everyone else, and it might be that society is arguably better off when we're all effectively strangers - I've yet to see any particularly convincing evidence either way.
Yup, if the taxpayer funded the road, they should have access to the cameras installed on it. I should also be able to look up the driver history of any license plate, and see if the asshole in front of me has a drunk driving conviction, or a speeding conviction.
Here's the thing - the government is already using this data, so imagining that it's "private" is an illusion - the only reasonable response is to make sure *everyone* has the information, so that they can be fully aware of what data is out there on themselves, and make decisions, say, to only drive on private roads if they are concerned with surveillance.
It's not a surrender of rights - it's a protection of rights. If taxpayer dollars are used for a function, the taxpayer has a right to the data thus derived.
Now, one may argue that the arbitrary use of government funds to run schools is an improper one - and that would solve the moral conflict quite nicely.
I suppose if you're arguing, as say the military might, that while the public funds the military, the exposure of say, secret special ops identities would breach national security and so should be protected, I'm not sure if I can see such a clear harm from the public consumption of government school data. Yes, I can imagine some far fetched scenario where a serial killer who hunts people who get B+ on every third test for a year might do some data mining that would end up targeting some unfortunate souls, but as a general rule, I think I'd prefer a 100% publicly accessible database rather than one shared only with private companies and those politically connected.
Interesting point - arguably already a reality, since the rich already can pay for additional privacy today:)
However, at the very least, this will make pause for the rich who would be political - that is to say, those rich who wish to be government employees, or take government largess, will have to give up their privacy. I'd even go so far as to assert that any private company that has a government contract must make the terms and performance of that contract public.
As it stands right now, the grand disconnect between the taxpayers and information on the things they pay for seems like an evil enough to be remedied. Whether or not an upper class that can hide its children's test scores and school records provides any sort of problem to be addressed I think is an open question.
Children are affected by parental decisions outside of their control all the time. Parents should know well ahead of time that the consequence of taking a government job, or taking government benefits or entitlements, means an accountability to the taxpayer. Learning disabilities or no, the public has a right to the data generated by its financial largess.
Is it okay for government funded research to remain private? Is it okay for sex offenders to remain private?
Government is an extension of the taxpayer - if I'm paying the bill, I deserve a look at the data. The only issue I'd have with this database is that it should be 100% publicly accessible.
...should have their school records available to the taxpayers who funded them. If teachers can't judge the progress of a student by their school records, how are taxpayers supposed to judge the efficiency of schools or teachers or students without those records?
As far as I'm concerned, as soon as someone gets on the government dole, either because they're employed by the government, or are being supported by the government using taxpayer money, *every* taxpayer has a right to inspect the data. The person paying the bills has a right to know what they're paying for.
That's my point - by defining "expenses" in such a way that we attempt to socially engineer behavior (we like charities and people on the payroll, so that's an "expense", but we don't like junk food or alcohol, so that's not), we setup cases like these where certain individuals/corporations can make a boatload of money, but have no tax liability.
If we were to talk about "profits" when it came to individuals, maybe if *everything* they ever bought during a year was considered an "expense", and we only taxed them on the money they had "left over", it might be equitable - but imagine the hue and cry if people spent millions on hookers or gambling and left with no tax liability at the end of the year.
Now of course even the alternative, say, a flat "transaction" tax, ends up vulnerable to many of the same issues (do-gooders will decide that they need certain transactions exempted, and the whole furball starts again), but I haven't yet been convinced that our current system is the best choice of all evils.
I propose simplifying the system by asserting that anyone can optionally decide to pay at the same rate that someone else is able to. If some company is able to pay 0%, then *everyone* can choose to pay 0%.
The whole "profit/deduction/tax break" boondoggle is a function of government deciding to socially engineer behavior with destructive tax policy, rather than simply collecting the bare minimum taxes necessary across the broadest base possible. Deciding what can/cannot be deducted from "profit" or "income" is a pit full of perils.
Slashdot Mirror
gunbot.net
It's spendy, but it's out there.
Mod parent up. It's always easiest to fool yourself - Feynman had it right.
I don't think that's been shown. In fact, this magical thinking about "long term" versus "short term" debt reeks of clever rationalization rather than solid economic theory.
As for Krugman, I've read him, and he's displayed a fantastical lack of economic understanding, his Nobel prize notwithstanding.
In the end, the longer we delay reckoning with the fact that we cannot afford the governments we have, the worse it will get when we do have to reckon with it. Every country undergoing austerity has had skyrocketing unemployment and a lower standard of living not because of austerity, but because the *lack* of it for so many years.
Eventually, the piper must be paid.
...then why not reduce all taxes to 0%, and fund government exclusively through deficit spending?
It seems the spin is "there was an error, therefore there is never a problem with debt" - this really seems to be missing the original point.
In the end, I suppose the fact of the matter is that eventually, as a debtor, governments using fiat currency will ameliorate their problem by devaluing the currency, and punishing savers while rewarding other borrowers like themselves. The economic harm that this does will be great, perhaps even devastating, but life will go on, just a little bit harder.
Mod parent up. DDT is safe for humans and the environment.
...and is harmless to humans and other life forms.
The problem with the American government education system is that it is compulsory. Back in the day when education was literally forbidden by law, the underclass and discriminatory victims *valued* education. Education was seen as an escape route from poverty and as an empowerment.
Once the compulsory education system was set up, as a way to politically indoctrinate citizens and prepare them for factory jobs, instead of being grateful for the opportunity that was now an obligation, the response has typically been resentment amongst a large fraction of those being incarcerated.
The simple fact of the matter is that from a *cultural* perspective, compulsory education has engendered the creation of a resentful and destructive underclass, that actively *ruins* government education for those people who do value it. You cannot change this culture under the current compulsory system.
As for satire being relevant to the argument, often humor cuts to the truth. Of course it's silly to think of a nine year old working at a sheet metal factory in any sort of skilled position, much less running the floor. But say you had been working at the factory, slowly making your way up the menial job chain, starting at 9 years old - maybe you started off simply taking out trash, or mopping floors - it it so unreasonable to imagine that after 6 years of work, that 15 year old might in fact have grown into a position of responsibility and authority with enough motivation and work ethic? Is it further unreasonable to think that this 9 year old, at 18 years, would be in a better place to compete with a high school drop out of the same age with no work experience?
Our infantilization of teenagers through compulsory education needs to stop. While there are certainly those that value a government education, and will not ruin the enterprise for their peers, if we wanted better results from our government education system, it would be a privilege that can be revoked for failure to apply oneself.
Everyone can consider themselves, and their labors, as their private property. Private property is indeed the basis of freedom.
From Bastiat:
"When a portion of wealth is transferred from the person who owns it — without his consent and without compensation, and whether by force or by fraud — to anyone who does not own it, then I say that property is violated; that an act of plunder is committed."
“I got my first job when I was 9. Worked at a sheet metal factory. In two weeks, I was running the floor. Child labor laws are ruining this country.” - Ron Swanson
Frankly, a large majority of children now housed in government schools for babysitting would do better for themselves and their families if they were working.
I'm not sure if I'm understanding your point.
I would assert that the individual's body, and the labors thereof, are the ultimate private property, and should be strictly protected.
I have no idea how you would imagine some minor advantage leading to slavery - it's almost as if you are trying to conceive of some sort of contract which abrogates private property rights...
Do you have a concrete example, so I can understand you better?
Simple: limit regulation to the strict protection of private property rights.
Unlimited liberty requires security of oneself and one's property. Government should simply be the collective use of force in defense of private property rights. Bastiat had it figured out over a hundred years ago: http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html
...3D is nothing but a headache waiting to happen.
Call me when they've got glasses that can determine my focal point in real time and adjust the image accordingly.
It becomes our decision when we're paying for the education. Imagine that potential employer effectively paid for 100% of that student's education - don't they have a right to the data regarding that education?
I firmly agree, and have personally observed the effects of "No Child Left Behind" as a federal lever to impose national will on state schools. If we actually had real state control, then maybe we could try out the effect of 100% public public school records in one state and observe the consequences compared to another.
That's actually a very good point - publicly funded restrooms (say, those at a park or rest stop), should certainly be open to public scrutiny. But I'd assert the data wouldn't have to include full-on video of people doing their business (though, lord knows, it's not like the consumer technology doesn't exist to setup your own pinhole camera). My real problem with government surveillance isn't that it exists in the first place, but that the data it brings isn't made public. If government wanted to install video systems that recorded every person entering and exiting a public restroom, the entire public should have access to that feed - as it is, the disparity of information between citizen and government is troublesome. I guess I'm arguing that expanding the information to the citizen is easier than restricting the capabilities of government.
I mean something different - I mean, literally, the ability to change your name without anyone, including the government, being able to track that change. This isn't about anonymity, this is about having the right to effectively destroy your history and start from zero reputation. It was something one could do in older days, simply by walking far enough away from where people knew you...but was it a *right*? Was it a *good* thing on the whole?
As a taxpayer, you deserve access to the performance reviews of every single government employee.
I disagree - taxpayers of a town and state deserve the raw data. If a student doesn't want to have their school performance public, they shouldn't go to a taxpayer funded school.
For all the theoretical harm of knowing that Johnny is learning disabled (or hell, gifted), I simply don't see any overwhelming evidence that the harm would outweigh the benefit. I'd be open to actual experiments on it though :)
Isn't it better to know that a student was learning disabled? I mean, say you've got that student out of school, and they're looking for a job. Employer doesn't know anything about the kid, and during the interview, sees terribly poor performance because of dyslexia - but because he doesn't *know* he's looking at a dyslexic, he just figures the kid is stupid, lazy or being disrespectful, and *bam* - no job offer. While certainly there are some people who will take a look at some tag on some file and jump to an unfortunate conclusion, there seems little reason to hide information like that.
As for being accessible to "the school system", that *is* the federal government. And knowing the school district employees that I do, that means it really isn't secure at all. Furthermore, if a student's performance isn't public to the taxpayer, how are they supposed to know their tax dollars are being spent well? Without the raw data, school systems (under the "sorry, it's just us, the student and parents") can make up any story they want.
As for being "entered by the same people in the same system", make no mistake, I don't just want to hold the educators accountable, the *students* and even the *parents* should be held accountable, neither of whom actually enter in test scores or other entries into the school record.
As for the right to privacy, just like a person walking on a public street has no right to prohibit people from photographing or listening to them, a student in a public school should have no right to prohibit the taxpayer from observing them.
Now the bar codes - that's an interesting idea. Imagine, for example, if instead of a right to privacy, we asserted a right to *identity* - that is, you could arbitrarily change your identity at any time, to something unattached to your previous identities. Of course, this is morally suspect in say, cases of a fraud or criminal changing identity to avoid accountability for their crimes, but in essence, that's what a strong right to privacy would be - "sorry sir, but I have no past record for you to examine". I haven't thought through all the benefits and disadvantages such a "right to identity" would have, but I think that as a parallel to the "right to privacy", it can be somewhat informative.
While I value my privacy, and certainly enjoy poisoning the well of data collectors to avoid targeting, I'm not sure if I'd embrace it as a civil right, since it requires the effective suppression of other people's speech. Back in the day where you lived your whole life in the same village, effectively, you had no privacy - the school marm and all the other socialites were certainly privy to who was bright in school, and who was a bit slow. Going to a village shopkeep looking for a job included dealing with whatever reputation you had garnered during your life, however fair or unfair it was earned. It might be that society is arguably better off when people know everything about everyone else, and it might be that society is arguably better off when we're all effectively strangers - I've yet to see any particularly convincing evidence either way.
Yup, if the taxpayer funded the road, they should have access to the cameras installed on it. I should also be able to look up the driver history of any license plate, and see if the asshole in front of me has a drunk driving conviction, or a speeding conviction.
Here's the thing - the government is already using this data, so imagining that it's "private" is an illusion - the only reasonable response is to make sure *everyone* has the information, so that they can be fully aware of what data is out there on themselves, and make decisions, say, to only drive on private roads if they are concerned with surveillance.
It's not a surrender of rights - it's a protection of rights. If taxpayer dollars are used for a function, the taxpayer has a right to the data thus derived.
Now, one may argue that the arbitrary use of government funds to run schools is an improper one - and that would solve the moral conflict quite nicely.
I suppose if you're arguing, as say the military might, that while the public funds the military, the exposure of say, secret special ops identities would breach national security and so should be protected, I'm not sure if I can see such a clear harm from the public consumption of government school data. Yes, I can imagine some far fetched scenario where a serial killer who hunts people who get B+ on every third test for a year might do some data mining that would end up targeting some unfortunate souls, but as a general rule, I think I'd prefer a 100% publicly accessible database rather than one shared only with private companies and those politically connected.
Interesting point - arguably already a reality, since the rich already can pay for additional privacy today :)
However, at the very least, this will make pause for the rich who would be political - that is to say, those rich who wish to be government employees, or take government largess, will have to give up their privacy. I'd even go so far as to assert that any private company that has a government contract must make the terms and performance of that contract public.
As it stands right now, the grand disconnect between the taxpayers and information on the things they pay for seems like an evil enough to be remedied. Whether or not an upper class that can hide its children's test scores and school records provides any sort of problem to be addressed I think is an open question.
If you have a psychological or medical problem that is being paid for by the taxpayer, the taxpayer deserves the data. Period.
No. I paid for it, I deserve the raw data. If you don't want your child's school records public, then don't send them to government school on my dime.
Criminal records should be public data.
Police reports should be public data.
FDIC insured accounts should be public data (particularly with payouts).
Government cameras and other traffic observations on public roads should be public data.
Individual student records for students in government schools should be public data.
Employment records of all government employees (including salaries, evaluations, etc), should be public data.
If I'm paying for it as a taxpayer, I deserve the data.
Children are affected by parental decisions outside of their control all the time. Parents should know well ahead of time that the consequence of taking a government job, or taking government benefits or entitlements, means an accountability to the taxpayer. Learning disabilities or no, the public has a right to the data generated by its financial largess.
Is it okay for government funded research to remain private? Is it okay for sex offenders to remain private?
Government is an extension of the taxpayer - if I'm paying the bill, I deserve a look at the data. The only issue I'd have with this database is that it should be 100% publicly accessible.
...should have their school records available to the taxpayers who funded them. If teachers can't judge the progress of a student by their school records, how are taxpayers supposed to judge the efficiency of schools or teachers or students without those records?
As far as I'm concerned, as soon as someone gets on the government dole, either because they're employed by the government, or are being supported by the government using taxpayer money, *every* taxpayer has a right to inspect the data. The person paying the bills has a right to know what they're paying for.
That's my point - by defining "expenses" in such a way that we attempt to socially engineer behavior (we like charities and people on the payroll, so that's an "expense", but we don't like junk food or alcohol, so that's not), we setup cases like these where certain individuals/corporations can make a boatload of money, but have no tax liability.
If we were to talk about "profits" when it came to individuals, maybe if *everything* they ever bought during a year was considered an "expense", and we only taxed them on the money they had "left over", it might be equitable - but imagine the hue and cry if people spent millions on hookers or gambling and left with no tax liability at the end of the year.
Now of course even the alternative, say, a flat "transaction" tax, ends up vulnerable to many of the same issues (do-gooders will decide that they need certain transactions exempted, and the whole furball starts again), but I haven't yet been convinced that our current system is the best choice of all evils.
I propose simplifying the system by asserting that anyone can optionally decide to pay at the same rate that someone else is able to. If some company is able to pay 0%, then *everyone* can choose to pay 0%.
The whole "profit/deduction/tax break" boondoggle is a function of government deciding to socially engineer behavior with destructive tax policy, rather than simply collecting the bare minimum taxes necessary across the broadest base possible. Deciding what can/cannot be deducted from "profit" or "income" is a pit full of perils.
Mod parent up. We know the contractor has been fired - how many government employees got fired for this failure?