Subject: [Topical] Dialog Concerning Economics and the War on Terror

_____
From: Thompson,Scott Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2006 12:31 PM
To: Rob; Joe Baksha
Cc: Shiloh Madsen; T. Scott Thompson
Subject: RE: Fun with Graphs

We spend about 30% of our GDP on government (including entitlements and
defense). Japan spends about 45, England 40, France 50. We have the lowest
per-capital government spending of any nation in the developed world.

Since much-needed Welfare reform (done under a Democratic president), far
fewer deadbeats belly up to the public trough, and yes there are fewer
children in poverty. With Earned Income Tax Credit, people are now
encouraged to work instead of sit and watch Springer reruns. The new TANF
assistance program, which replaced AFDC has helped reduce poverty of
African-American children by about 25%. All these are great things, and I
suspect we would all agree the reforms were necessary and effective.

“Throwing money” at anything is ludicrous. Any money transferred to any
program (social services, education, science research, the arts) should be
used as an investment in infrastructure, human capital (training) or
incentive. “Throwing Money” has the implicit and negative connotation of a
hand-out or a waste, and no rational person would support that. By
characterizing economic support of education as “throwing money” you have
already framed the statement in an overtly negative light. It’s like
saying, “In Iraq military operations kill children. Do you support killing
children?”. Sometimes the way we choose to frame a question or statement,
even in our own minds, has a fantastic impact on the way we consider the
issue, or even *if* we consider it at all. Politicians use the tactic
frequently to elicit an emotional instead of intellectual reaction.

Regarding education:

Primary education remains one of the few bastions of government monopoly
along with (for example) the military and government licensing programs.
Such fully funded “markets” tend to be rife with fiscal corruption, poor
levels of service and slow rates of innovation (25 years from the F18 to the
F22). Deregulation of prior government-controlled or sanctioned monopolies
have been clearly shown to have positive benefits in quality and price (e.g.
airlines, telecommunications, banking). In general, a free and competitive
market with incentives to compete on the basis of price and quality will
foster far more innovation and customer satisfaction than will a legislated
autocratic program. In cases where the government artificially subsidizes
or augments a market it takes the form of either a protection from
competition or an incentive (money!) to innovate. Primary Education is not
a subsidized market, it is fully-supported by government revenues. As such,
all the dysfunctions and weaknesses of government get inherited by education
while none of the benefits of subsidization are realized. Here are some
examples:

1) non-competitive salaries compared to market-driven sectors: Teachers are
paid very poorly

2) textbook-by-committee wherein the substance of information to be taught
is decided by non-experts and those seeking political kudos and
grandstanding instead of a quality end-result (well-educated, talented,
curious and rational children).

3) High barriers to entry. Teachers unions are quick to support any
regulations making it more and more difficult for new teachers to enter the
field. Albert Einstein could not have taught high-school physics. Neither
Bill Clinton nor George Bush can teach a social studies class.
4) High barriers to exit: It’s very hard to fire a bad teacher for bad
teaching.

5) Low incentives to innovate: since teachers aren’t measured by the
success of their students, they have little reason (not to mention little
money) to innovate.

Figuring out how to turn a slug-like government monopoly into a cheetah-like
competitive market is difficult (and threatening to the slugs). That would
be a nice topic to delve into further. For the time being though, I propose
that money, whether “thrown”, “wasted”, “invested”, “earmarked”, “leveraged”
or “allocated” will be part of the solution. Teacher pay *must* go up for
the teaching-profession to be staffed by anybody other than mediocre slugs
or passionate and self-sacrificing individuals who get paid a pittance for
their contribution. Giving kids incentives to not be slugs is a different
(but not necessarily unsolvable) problem.

It’s really hard for me to type a *few* words about a topic, and I find I
still want to dig deeper.

Bad Guys

We’re not fighting terrorists in Iraq, we’re (mostly) fighting sectarian
insurgents. The only way to militarily fight a broad insurgency is with
brutality – that’s the way the Nazis, the Romans and the Mongols were able
to maintain a huge empire (and a tactic the British could/would not employ,
even during the American Revolution and that we could not employ in
Vietnam). Kill 100 random citizens for every one of our soldiers, and the
insurgency will stop in a heartbeat. Doing that, though, is absolutely
unethical and will only foster more hatred which will eventually destroy us.
The only option an ethical republic has for fighting an insurgency is to
“win hearts and minds” in the battle for broad support. That will never be
done with tanks, smart-bombs and bullets.

On the other hand, I’m all for the war against fanaticism (whether
communist, christian, islamist, jewish, hindu, or ecological)!!!! On every
front, financial, logistical, technological, psychological and physical we
should be hunting down and destroying any fanatic’s ability to inflict harm
on a rational, free society- even if it means destroying or incapacitating
them – especially organized fanatics like Al Quida. We should absolutely
make sure we’re not facilitating the birth of even more fanatics in the
process. “taking the war to them” shouldn’t mean scouring neighborhoods for
AK-47 wielding malcontents in the middle-east. It should mean going after
those with the motive, method, opportunity and funding to do the free world
harm. At the top of that list (as far as I know) is Bin Ladin and his
henchmen. We’re doing a lot of wonderful things by pulling his cell-phone,
money and base of operations out from under him, but it would be genuine and
substantive progress to get him physically.

We shouldn’t be “reactive” to attacks, you must’ve misread the earlier post.
There’s not the slightest hint of an echo of a suggestion on my part that we
be reactive instead of proactive. I was very clear to indicate that we have
*failed* to be proactive in major ways as recommended by the 9/11
commission. Having our kids fighting in the middle east is only one of many
opportunities for being proactive, we’re ignoring many others and not doing
the military option very well in any case. Of course, balancing that with
Ben’s sentiment about giving up an essential liberty for a little security
is a tough job, and food for even more discussion!

Deluge

I can’t stop thinking this stuff through once I get my mind going on it. I
like to think I’m not either “liberal” or “conservative”, I’m a
compassionate rationalist. Perhaps it’s a conceit, but I believe that my
preference and tendency is to think through issues and the threads that
connect them to other parts of the tapestry of our lives. If force,
spending increases, spending cuts, government intervention, government
divestiture, more taxes, less taxes, long-term environmental (e.g. quality
of global life) considerations, etc. are to be considered, they should be
considered with reason with primacy given to fact, fairness, benevolence and
ultimate effectiveness. More often than not I find myself in the “Democrat”
camp because the “Republican” platform has been co-opted by fanaticism,
opportunism and disgusting overt and covert manipulative machinations. On
the other hand, the Democrats are full of unrealistic, idealistic,
uninspired, molly-coddling and self-defeating points of view.

I love the opportunity to discuss these issues with cherished friends who
are also passionate about their love for their country, and are thoughtful
about making it and the world more productive, more rewarding, safer and
sustainable.

If you know of others with similar interests Rob, bring them into the
debate! We’ll get this Junto going yet!

-Scott

_____
From: Rob Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2006 09:53 AM
To: Joe Baksha; Thompson,Scott
Cc: Shiloh Madsen
Subject: Re: Fun with Graphs

Our society has too much money thrown at it .. That is the reason it
is in the shape it is in. The government has created a dependant class.
Let us take care of you, you don’t need to take responsibility for your
actions, don’t try to better yourself. Just sit back, enjoy your
entitlements and pop out a few more kids… so they can depend on us too.

did you know that since the welfare reforms the amount of children born into
poverty has decreassed?

Throwing more money at a school is not the answer. dealing with parents who
treat the schools as a day care for the kids they never wanted in the first
place is. Teachers are spending so much time dealing with discipline issues
and trying to instill some sort of value system that they can’t teach the
basics… let alone advanced education. Ask John about this… I’m sure he
can elaborate far more eloquently than I.

Don’t get me wrong I am not talking in absolutes. There are exceptions to
the rules, in each theory I stated above. I think the government role in
assisting some one get back on their feet has a place albeit a limited one.

If you will check the volunteer rates for the military, you will find the
distribution amoung race and class to pretty much mirror society.

I think you 2 are trying to inundate me. two on one is a trifle unfare…
even if you two are on the wrong end of the arguement.

as for bad guys…. Most folks will never know how many attacks have been
stopped here…. no thanks to the new york times. Just know they have been.
and kiling bin ladin is litttle more than iceing on the cake. takeing the
war to them is what will ultimatley end this. Treating this as a police
issue and responding to each attack as they happpen will only insure more
attacks.

more when i get time….

why is my mail box full?
oh and you guys are still my buds!
Joe Baksha
Well stated Scott. I too agree that the extremists need to die but the
questions I ask are, “How many extremists and real trheats have we killed
lately?” What is our current goal? Why haven’t we completed are first
objective, the capture and or killing of Bin Laden? I am not willign to
send my son to fight in a conflict that has so many unanswered questions.
The great thing is, because of my financial situation I probably won’t be
faced with that dilemma. The unfortunate thing is, because we have not
spent much money on the education and improvement of our own society, many
other people will.

Friday, August 4th, 2006 @ 1:26 am Topical Politics
RSS 2.0 Trackback