[barmar]

I think access the "same quality education" may be an unreasonable goal. Does that mean we do away with private schools? There should be a reasonable minimum standard of education available to everyone, but I don't see how you can really prevent rich people from being able to pay for "extras" if they want them. The same goes for health care, and basic living needs (a rental apartment, healthy food).

It would be nice if public schools could all offer the same quality of education as private schools, but it just ain't gonna happen. Many are struggling just to meet minimum standards.

[mike777]

Winstonm, on 2013-April-25, 07:08, said:

Let me once again point out...

(emphasis added)

I think Winston makes an important point among many important points.

I hope he repeats them.


with that said keep in mind the weakness or fragile nature of wanting stability or as I call it robustness.

[onoway]

http://www.commondre...ne/2013/04/24-3

[mike777]

onoway, on 2013-April-25, 22:24, said:

http://www.commondre...ne/2013/04/24-3

I hope you note I address this issue this very important issue in many posts in this thread

example=post #20

[kenberg]

barmar, on 2013-April-25, 09:28, said:

I think access the "same quality education" may be an unreasonable goal. Does that mean we do away with private schools? There should be a reasonable minimum standard of education available to everyone, but I don't see how you can really prevent rich people from being able to pay for "extras" if they want them. The same goes for health care, and basic living needs (a rental apartment, healthy food).

It would be nice if public schools could all offer the same quality of education as private schools, but it just ain't gonna happen. Many are struggling just to meet minimum standards.

No, definitely do not do away with public schools. That is not at all my goal. And yes, it is unrealistic to expect full equality. Still....

I graduated in 1956 from a public high school that was not particularly a good one. But by no means horrible. I had close friends who graduated from a public high school that was regarded as the best public high school in the city. We went off to the University of Minnesota approximately equally prepared. From what I have observed here and now, nothing remotely like that is the case. The best public schools are a good deal better than what I attended, while many others are much much worse. I realize that many kids come from very bad backgrounds and this seriously distorts the educational process. So it's a difficult problem to solve. Difficult or not, I regard it as at or close to the top of the list of disadvantages arising from inequality. Right up there with hunger and inadequate medical care.

Added: Also, in my high school years and later, I got to know some kids from private schools. I saw no reason to be concerned about the advantages they had.

[onoway]

mike777, on 2013-April-25, 22:30, said:

I hope you note I address this issue this very important issue in many posts in this thread

example=post #20

Just updating the latest figures. How far can the gap stretch before something tears?

[onoway]

kenberg, on 2013-April-26, 05:24, said:

No, definitely do not do away with public schools. That is not at all my goal. And yes, it is unrealistic to expect full equality. Still....

I graduated in 1956 from a public high school that was not particularly a good one. But by no means horrible. I had close friends who graduated from a public high school that was regarded as the best public high school in the city. We went off to the University of Minnesota approximately equally prepared. From what I have observed here and now, nothing remotely like that is the case. The best public schools are a good deal better than what I attended, while many others are much much worse. I realize that many kids come from very bad backgrounds and this seriously distorts the educational process. So it's a difficult problem to solve. Difficult or not, I regard it as at or close to the top of the list of disadvantages arising from inequality. Right up there with hunger and inadequate medical care.

Years ago we spent some time in Connecticut as house parents in a nation wide program which was supposedly intended to help highly intelligent kids from disadvantaged backgrounds to get into and succeed in university. Out of the 10 or so kids, only 3 of them fit the criteria. Of the others, one was the son of a US colonel and a couple could barely read ..about primary school level..(these were kids in the last two years of high school)..who had been sponsored because (as the letter in one file said) "he's a really nice kid and this will likely be the only chance to see anything of the world outside (X)." The rest were there because they would enhance the high school basketball and football teams.

It was a sad example of a program set up with possibly the best intentions in the world but which cost a great deal of money and had little real value for any except perhaps two of the kids. Maybe that's enough to make it worthwhile, but something so simple as better screening would have made it so much more useful. Still, as it was, either they didn't have any other applicants or the hosting school board didn't approve them as it was supposed to be a larger group.

Aside from anything else, waiting until a kid is in grade 11 or 12 to do something about a disadvantaged background seems questionable.

It was interesting that most of the kids were clearly cynical about the whole business, especially the ones who knew they were there for the sports programs.

[mike777]

onoway, on 2013-April-26, 06:49, said:

Years ago we spent some time in Connecticut as house parents in a nation wide program which was supposedly intended to help highly intelligent kids from disadvantaged backgrounds to get into and succeed in university. Out of the 10 or so kids, only 3 of them fit the criteria. Of the others, one was the son of a US colonel and a couple could barely read ..about primary school level..(these were kids in the last two years of high school)..who had been sponsored because (as the letter in one file said) "he's a really nice kid and this will likely be the only chance to see anything of the world outside (X)." The rest were there because they would enhance the high school basketball and football teams.

It was a sad example of a program set up with possibly the best intentions in the world but which cost a great deal of money and had little real value for any except perhaps two of the kids. Maybe that's enough to make it worthwhile, but something so simple as better screening would have made it so much more useful. Still, as it was, either they didn't have any other applicants or the hosting school board didn't approve them as it was supposed to be a larger group.

Aside from anything else, waiting until a kid is in grade 11 or 12 to do something about a disadvantaged background seems questionable.

It was interesting that most of the kids were clearly cynical about the whole business, especially the ones who knew they were there for the sports programs.

excellent example of a policy of robustness over a policy that wants to gain from uncertainty, randomness, and volatility. One that strives to not accept and learn from failure. A policy to reduce all of the above elements rather than gain from it. A policy that in the long run explodes in failure.

btw I grant that robustness in the short run looks better than failure in fighting inequality.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

The tendency toward equality at times seems to be without much regard to liberty.

[hrothgar]

mike777, on 2013-April-27, 20:35, said:

excellent example of a policy of robustness over a policy that wants to gain from uncertainty, randomness, and volatility.

Guess we need some programs to promote more terrorist incidents.
Those create a lot of chaos.
So do whack-jobs like like the guy from the Newtown shooting.

Just think of the uncertainty, randomness, and volatility if we had a massacre like that every week, or better yet every day.

[barmar]

While hearing the news about the factory collapse in Bangladesh, I got to wondering: How does the wealth difference within the US compare to the difference between the US and emerging markets? I have a feeling that our 25th percentile is far better off than the average Indian, Chinese, etc.

[mike777]

barmar, on 2013-April-27, 21:24, said:

While hearing the news about the factory collapse in Bangladesh, I got to wondering: How does the wealth difference within the US compare to the difference between the US and emerging markets? I have a feeling that our 25th percentile is far better off than the average Indian, Chinese, etc.

my first thought was crony capitalism. Yet another example of it and its failure.

Another example of govt corruption.

Keep in mind this building failed because it failed regulations...more regulations was not the issue even more laws was not the issue.

MOre and more laws and regulations don't solve this issue. And yes bribes are illegal so that does not help/;

---


I will suggest just suggest an answer from childhood. They must fear...

"pls don't quote me in part"


---


side note I want to bring in the French tv show called Spiral. I fully grant this is tv but if the govt of France is any fraction of this.........you must watch this show.


http://en.wikipedia....iral_(TV_series)

[Winstonm]

mike777, on 2013-April-27, 21:46, said:

my first thought was crony capitalism. Yet another example of it and its failure.

Another example of govt corruption.

Keep in mind this building failed because it failed regulations...more regulations was not the issue even more laws was not the issue.

MOre and more laws and regulations don't solve this issue. And yes bribes are illegal so that does not help/;

---


I will suggest just suggest an answer from childhood. They must fear...

"pls don't quote me in part"


---


side note I want to bring in the French tv show called Spiral. I fully grant this is tv but if the govt of France is any fraction of this.........you must watch this show.


http://en.wikipedia....iral_(TV_series)

Regulations neither supported nor destroyed this building. Neither more nor less regulations would have mattered. What failed was the building, the mortar, steel, welds or design. A lack of enforcement of regulations may have prevented this tragedy if the failure was due to substandard building practices.

PS: The owner of this building is now in jail. With laissez-faire, there would be no repercussions other than bad publicity.

[kenberg]

barmar, on 2013-April-27, 21:24, said:

While hearing the news about the factory collapse in Bangladesh, I got to wondering: How does the wealth difference within the US compare to the difference between the US and emerging markets? I have a feeling that our 25th percentile is far better off than the average Indian, Chinese, etc.

Sure. People vote with their feet. If our 25th percentile were not in such good shape by worldwide standards we would not have the problems we have with illegal immigration.

The Post today carried a lengthy story about the family fortunes of the brothers charged with the Boston bombing. When their father arrived he began repairing cars, sometimes making as much as $100 in a single day. He was absolutely delighted. Now that story did not go so welll down the line, but the brothers' uncle lives not far from here and is apparently now making over 200K a year plus some stock options. In part at least, this is still a land of opportunity.


I have always felt most fortunate to have been born when and where I was. A good part of human history is a story of great suffering. Still, after duly noting that we are (much) better off than most, and even after acknowledging Mike's point that some people's idea of deprivation is not having a cell phone, it is still true that we can and should do better.

As I wrote earlier, campers are expected to leave the campground in as good a shape as they found it, better if possible. Not a bad metaphor, not bad at all.

[awm]

It's a very strange line of argument to go from a poorly-constructed building collapsing to an argument for less government oversight!

Certainly it's true that just having "more regulations" won't help if the current existing regulations aren't being enforced or followed. But this is an argument for fully funding government agencies and prosecuting corruption and bribery. Developing countries like Bangladesh have a lot more low-level corruption issues than we do in the US though.

In general the problem is too much corporate power, too many cases where the government that is supposed to be protecting the public good is instead influenced by large sums of money (either given under the table to bureaucrats or through the legalized bribery that is the US system of campaign contributions). However, weakening the government (say by cutting budgets or eliminating regulations) isn't the answer to this -- a weaker government means even more power in the hands of big corporations and wealthy individuals!

[blackshoe]

Winstonm, on 2013-April-28, 06:15, said:

PS: The owner of this building is now in jail. With laissez-faire, there would be no repercussions other than bad publicity.

That depends on what you mean by "laissez-faire".

[Winstonm]

blackshoe, on 2013-April-28, 18:53, said:

That depends on what you mean by "laissez-faire".

Pretty much the standard definition:

Quote

laissez faire, laisser faire [ˌlɛseɪ ˈfɛə (French) lese fɛr]
n
1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy)
a. Also called individualism the doctrine of unrestricted freedom in commerce, esp for private interests

[blackshoe]

if you define it to mean "let anyone do whatever he likes, not matter who it harms" then I suppose you have a point. But that's not the way I would define it, and I'm not alone. Wikipedia says "Laissez-faire (i/ˌlɛseɪˈfɛər-/, French: [lɛsefɛʁ]) (or sometimes laisser-faire) is an economic environment in which transactions between private parties are free from government restrictions, tariffs, and subsidies, with only enough regulations to protect property rights." To me, and I hope to most everyone, that last phrase is vital. The factory collapse in Bangladesh undoubtedly harmed a number of people in one way or another. The factory owner should be required to repair that harm, as best he can. So no, I can't buy "no repercussions other than bad publicity" at least not in a properly run society.

[PassedOut]

blackshoe, on 2013-April-28, 22:51, said:

The factory owner should be required to repair that harm, as best he can. So no, I can't buy "no repercussions other than bad publicity" at least not in a properly run society.

Many people were killed. How does the factory owner "repair that harm?"

[hrothgar]

PassedOut, on 2013-April-29, 06:20, said:

Many people were killed. How does the factory owner "repair that harm?"

Especially since the factory "owner" is a legal construct specifically designed to have insufficient funds to provide any kind of adequate restitution.

[Winstonm]

blackshoe, on 2013-April-28, 22:51, said:

if you define it to mean "let anyone do whatever he likes, not matter who it harms" then I suppose you have a point. But that's not the way I would define it, and I'm not alone. Wikipedia says "Laissez-faire (i/ˌlɛseɪˈfɛər-/, French: [lɛsefɛʁ]) (or sometimes laisser-faire) is an economic environment in which transactions between private parties are free from government restrictions, tariffs, and subsidies, with only enough regulations to protect property rights." To me, and I hope to most everyone, that last phrase is vital. The factory collapse in Bangladesh undoubtedly harmed a number of people in one way or another. The factory owner should be required to repair that harm, as best he can. So no, I can't buy "no repercussions other than bad publicity" at least not in a properly run society.

How does one "before the fact" determine the risk if there are no standards?