LibertyLover says:

I can tell you’re trying to lead me using the Socratic method to some conclusion you already have. It would be much easier if you bring it up directly.

I have. A couple of times. But you keep refuting it. The only way to get you to see you are wrong is to get you to answer in an objective way without expressing feelings about the issues.

For instance — saying that it is human tragedy when a bank fails without insurance is an assumption on your part. Perhaps the bank didn’t have any depositors left. In which case the only people hurt would be the owners. That’s not much of a tragedy.

On the other hand, the FDIC insures creditors, not the banks, to keep the economy stable. By your own statements, and fact, Keynes stated that when people hoard their money, the government has to spend to keep the economy stable. People hoard their money for what purpose? Because banks are unreliable. FDR solved that problem, as defined by Keynes, by creating the FDIC (some historians say he didn’t, but congress did).

The FDIC and it’s payouts follow Keynes because without them, according to Keynes, people don’t trust the banks.

I think you realize this but for some reason don’t want to say it.

I don’t think the FDIC has ever had costs more than the insurance pool, but could be wrong.

You are. Over half of the FDIC get’s its money from government subsidies. The FDIC is not self-sufficient. It requires taxpayer money to keep it afloat.

But, according to Keynes’ theories, without it the economy would be unstable. Thus, it is a Keynesian institution because the government pumps money into it for those reasons.

And as that money never, ever, ever gets repaid in Total, the deficit continues to climb.

Now, all of that being said, I think the FDIC is probably a good idea. If we’re going to let special interests dictate how the government does things, I want to make sure those same special interests don’t end up with all of my money.

You think things are screwed, so what would YOU change?

http://tinyurl.com/2ftfbug

LibertyLover says:

I appreciate the honesty.

Yeah, it’s easy to be pure in my honesty because I’ll never be president either.

And I agree with you on Paul more than you probably think I do.

Re: Howard Dean

Surprisingly, I support a lot of what he was to say. All things being equal, I would have supported him. However, not everything is equal.

His ideas on universal healthcare provided by the State was the nail in that coffin in my book.

I liked his ideas on equality. They have a most libertarian scent to them.

I liked his ideas on open government. Beating on Cheney didn’t get the attention it deserved in my opinion.

He could balance a budget. Unfortunately, some of things IN that budget were questionable to me. The people of his state seemed to like him so I guess they didn’t have a problem it, though.

I liked his opposition to Iraq.

There are more things in common between libertarians and democrats than most people think (probably more in common with them than republicans). What drives the democrats nuts about that is we can agree on social issues but not economic issues.

The democrats believe in equality of outcome.

The libertarians believe in equality of opportunity.

chris says:

That is a good soundbite. If you frame it in philosophical terms it SOUNDS right. Who doesn’t enjoy freedom?

Operationally it’s a disaster. Look at the FEMA response after Katrina. People who, as a point of faith, accept that government cannot be an effective means for addressing a problem can hardly be expected to be able governors.

Government is now more of a loophole, or even a profit opportunity. Extract the public goods to benefit a select friend.

It isn’t a philosophical thing until they sell it to the masses. Even then it is twisted pretzel logic. Not freedoms across the board, mostly financial freedoms for people who are already advantaged.

LibertyLover says:

Government does some stuff better, private sector does some stuff better.

Agreed. And the things it does better is located in the Constitution. The founding fathers knew this and that is one of the reasons they restricted it. Everything else it has tried to do, it has failed at.

Education is a prime example. Even Obama, to my shock, said that we needed to start letting the locals start having a larger say in the schools.

I have yet to hear of a single government project, not defined in the Constitution, that couldn’t have been better handled by private industry as long as the government did its job of protecting the property rights of the people and not tried to show favoritism to a select group.

chris says:

“Even Obama, to my shock, said that we needed to start letting the locals start having a larger say in the schools.”

That is actually an example of something that should be more centralized. People always talk about the way that China and India can produce engineers, or any other job description, in huge numbers. In their case it is because of the huge population.

Local control in education is almost unique to America. It comes from a time when whackjob religious sects were more important than teaching people basic skills. Today it holds us back dramatically.

Sure, everyone can go their own way in college. Take Advanced Basket Weaving, or whatever. As it stands we are neglecting BASIC skills because some parts of the country think it is more important to teach creationism than science.

“BTW . . . I am enjoying this. No name calling”

Me too.

LibertyLover says:

Unfortunately, a centralized system isn’t working for us.

http://tinyurl.com/kvzrsj

We’ve doubled our spending per kid and haven’t seen any payback. Granted, there are a lot of variables in that number but you would expect to see SOME improvement.

It comes from a time when whackjob religious sects were more important than teaching people basic skills.

Actually, it comes from a time when the states had more autonomy.

The following link shows some of Jefferson’s thoughts on public education. It was an eye opener to me a few years ago. Note that he was trying to get that going in VA, not the US.

http://tinyurl.com/4xjfmyp

In a way, I can see the good of a people taught that society can’t exist without voluntary adherence to the law, but I also chill when I think about a centralized bureaucracy so far removed from local control that people don’t have a say in their kids’ education.

Interesting tidbit — coincidence? Maybe. The DOE was founded after Vietnam, a time of social upheaval concerned about the war. Did our federal education instill a sense of patriotism that didn’t exist then? Look at the wars (and I use that term loosely) since then. You don’t see that kind of negative reaction to our troops.

Usuaully the local pols are merely corrupt in a less elegant way.

Yes, but they are usually easier to spot and take care of. Once you are at the federal level, it is damned near impossible to get them out.

chris says:

But it doesn’t prove that we HAVE a centralized education system, or that doing so is bad.

I’m also convinced that, historically speaking, this was both a practical and religious concern. I mean like 1780-1850.

After that it was the same concern of the outsider, plus the South was culturally preparing for the Civil War. A lot of the resistance to mandatory schooling in the south after 1900 was an echo of that conflict, as were malaria suppression efforts by the Gov/Mil that Louisiana fought strenuously around the same time.

What Europe was doing around then was unifying their nations. The 18th century in Europe was about gathering up, in our terms, counties to make states. Talking more about area than as organizational units.

People in littler European countries complain that’s apples to oranges, because at the time they had MUCH higher population densities. Probably still do.

The idea behind it was nationalism. The French were especially concerned because they had a long-term loose agreement between the central and local authorities.

So all of the European countries started teaching from one source, metaphorically, so as to increase buy-in from outlying areas. Make proper nation states.

chris says:

Of course there are tons of other reasons, in education. Everyone has to be a winner. They know pretty much who is dumb right off the bat.

I know a some intelligent people, to echo TJ’s quote about brilliant among rich and poor, who are totally ignorant. They have the magical qualities but you can’t individually counter decades of misuse.

That is the best general argument I can think of to justify total effort for every kid.

More specific cases to come.

chris says:

As a side note, I have switched jobs recently to nearly double returns. This had a serious change in my basic mood. Not from the money end, either. It is hard to work in a place where everything is messed up. Grinds you down.

That sense in the country, rather than debt, is the real problem. We have to be able to do something that includes enough of the population so that there is basic stability.

LibertyLover says:

But it doesn’t prove that we HAVE a centralized education system, or that doing so is bad.

Looking at your link, it looks like we are failing.

Perhaps we need some kind of metric to justify the cost. In the business world, we have ROI (Return on Investment). Sometimes an ROI is years. Sometimes it is months. Education is measured in decades.

Perhaps the metrics they used are valid. I don’t know. What I do know is this:

I am active in the local school board. The comment on half education, half social engineering is correct. We have a lot of requirements from the federal level, just to get 3% of our budget that we have to follow. The 3% doesn’t cover the cost of the mandates. Technically they aren’t unfunded mandates. Underfunded mandates is closer to the truth.

For instance, we have to have special education teachers on staff. It takes TWO teachers to handle a class of 5. And two classrooms (a teaching classroom and a timeout room). And these two teachers are two of the highest paid on staff. We have to have them because we have to take any kid that walks through the door (whether they are paying taxes or not — think illegal aliens).

And that is just one mandate. There are many others as you can imagine.

IDEA
ESRA
ESL (English as a second language)
Title I
Reading Programs
Teacher Quality Programs

On the surface, these are all noble programs. But they aren’t working. In the meantime, more and more money is being poured into the well.

I wish I had the answer to the problem.