Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 14 Sep 1992 10:34:36 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: democratic platform

>>It isn't that tough to start a biz in the US.  If you whine about biz
>>practices that are inefficient, but are unwilling to risk your money
>>to prove it (to the benefit of all), then we know how much faith you
>>have in your beliefs.  Why should we have any more?
>>
>>        money?  you mean the stuff that almost pays my rent and my food
>>        and my school?
>
>Yes.  I eat occasionally at a rather successful ribs joint started by
>someone who decided that her ribs were better than any she could buy
>with her AFDC check.  Everyone on this list is WEALTHY by comparison.
>We're well educated whiners expecting someone else to make it for us.
>
>        1) some businesses take more initial investment than others.

So?  If you're so damn clever, you can get the funds from a
cheap-to-start biz.

>>So?  That doesn't mean that it is worth subsidizing, just that it costs
>>more than people think it is worth.
>>
>>        actually, there is a lot of money in art investment.  but the
>>        money is passed around between investors buying from other
>>        investors, and not all that much trickles down to the artist
>>        (for example, the most expensive paintings are generally the
>>        ones sold early in the artists career, pre-fame, that is).
>
>So?  BTW - If you really think that certain low price art will be
>valuable, you can benefit both the artist and yourself by acting on that
>belief.  If you're right, everyone wins.  If you're wrong, then why
>are you insisting on subsidizing this art?

Well, brni?

>>Let me make sure I've got this right.  brni thinks that improving the
>>lot of half the kids is a bad idea because it doesn't improve the lot
>>of ALL the kids.  Given a choice between letting them ALL rot and
>>letting only half of them rot, brni choses ALL.  That's an interesting
>>value system.
>>
>>        nope.  you don't have it right.  helping half the students and
>>        leaving the rest where they are isn't bad.  however, helping
>>        half the students at the *expense* of the other half IS bad
>>        (because it is harmful),
>
>Hold it.  The discussion started with an assumption that the schools
>were a pit NOW.  They're not going to get worse.
>
>>        and does not really address the real
>>        problems that are going on in the system.  its just another
>>        bandaid.
>
>So?  It's a bandaid that leaves half better off and the other half
>are just where they started.
>
>        no. they are a pit now.  they will be a deeper pit when this
>        is all implemented.  i mean, really, bush has been avoiding
>        adding money to the education budget, and these vouchers have
>        to come from somewhere.  a school with half the students is
>        going to get half the funds it had before,  making everthing
>        just that much tighter.

Hey - a "new math" problem.  If we take away half the kids and
half the funding, what is the effect on the spending/pupil.
Answer - no effect.  How is that pit going to be deeper?

Interestingly enough, the voucher proposals don't actually "take away"
half the money when they take away half the students.  They assume
that the private schools will be cheaper, so the vouchers are worth
LESS than the public school gets for that student.  In other words,
more than half the money stays when half the students leave.  The
spending/pupil GOES UP.  How is that pit going to be deeper?

>The public systems are adminstrator heaven.  They have enough money
>to do what we'd like them to do, but they have different values.
>Maybe we should have other suppliers.
>
>        maybe we should reform the administrative level of the public
>        school systems as a first measure, then use the money saved to
>        work on the rest of it.

That's been promised for decades; it hasn't happened.  The problem
has gotten worse.  AFTER it gets fixed, we can talk about assuming
that it will.  Until then, it would be stupid to do so.

The voucher proposal buys time for the public schools to get their act
together.  It gives them more money/student to do it with.  Yet,
they're fighting.  They're claiming that "any day now" they'll deliver
what they've been promising for years.

Competition works.  Look at American cars.  They didn't get better
until we started buying foreign cars.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU