Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 15 Sep 1992 03:29:00 EST
From:         Tyrone Slothrop <199561011@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: democratic platform

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.

        sure.  and maybe it works and maybe it don't.  me, i'm not
        really interested in owning my own business.  but it seems to
        me that many cheap to start businesses don't tend to have the
        kind of return that goes beyond paying expenses and living
        income.

>>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?

        i wasn't in the mood for this one before. sorry. maybe i should
        make my position a little clearer.  i like the idea that there
        be an agency (governmental or otherwise) that subsidizes and
        promotes art, regardless of content, on the merits of how good
        the artist is.  i think that it keeps alive certain types of
        art that are not currently in the mainstream.  i would be
        unhappy if this was removed, but figure that if it is, some
        sort of restructuring of the artworld might result, and this
        could also be good.  what i am really against is when the
        govt begins allocating funds according to content, which i
        take to be censorship and a restriction of thought.

        the art that is supported by the nea, and recently, refused
        support for reasons of content, is Important Art.  when i say
        this, i do not mean to say that many of the things you have
        mentioned are not Important Art, but i think that not everythig
        is marketable in the same way.  i do not think that the market
        is a good indicator of what is important or good in art.  if
        we treat art solely as a commodity, a lot of art will disappear.
        and it does not matter whether the majority of americans like it,
        or french, or japanese, or whoever.  this doesn't mean it isn't
        important.

        to make art wholly market dependant is to contribute to the
        "mall-ification" of art: art as wallpaper.

>>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?

        fewer pupils, less money, fewer services.  gee, folks, we
        can't afford to fix the band equipment this year, and besides,
        we had to lay off the band director.  and we won't be having
        a play this year.  and we fired half the teachers, so we are
        offering fewer classes.  and we fired the ones that cost more,
        you know, the ones with experience.  new computers?  youve
        got those trs80's that we dumpstered from in back of the
        private school; 4 k is plenty of memory for anything you need.

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?

        so the best school is one with no students?

>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.

        perhaps instead of assuming that it will, we should actually
        take the requisite steps to fix said problem. (the move from
        passive voice -- it will be fixed, to active voice -- we will
        fix it.)

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.

        the voucher proposal buys time for the politicians that
        don't want to actually deal with the PROBLEM, and just want
        to LOOK like they are dealing with the problem.

        the idea is that if we give everyone a voucher for $1000
        the system will fix itself.  i don't think that the system
        can fix itself.  it is a structural problem that needs to
        be dealt with by 1)the govt, 2)the actual teachers, 3)the
        community, and 4)the students.

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

        i never stopped. :>

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