Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 9 Sep 1992 18:00:22 -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.

>>       the point of my statement was that often artwork sells at prices lower
>>       or equal to the price of the materials that are used to produce it.
>
>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?

>>        replacing them isn't a horrible thing.  stripping away half their
>>        students and half their funds and leaving the rest to rot is.
>
>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.

It isn't like we have a decision between this half-assed measure and
something wonderful.  If something wonderful was really an option,
we'd have done it.

Speaking of educational priorities, I know of a school district that
decided that its new superintendent, who has never been a
superintendent or even a high official in a district as big, should
make more than the outgoing guy.  The increase just happens to be the
amount saved by firing some library assistants.

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.

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