3 ms·

These industries, more or less, need to be highly regulated because we've faced the alternative and it's worse. The quality of education went up SIGNFICANTLY wh

These industries, more or less, need to be highly regulated because we've faced the alternative and it's worse. The quality of education went up SIGNFICANTLY when the state took more control over it.

seabass-labrax 2y ago
Part of that is questionable, because the state gets to set the means by which the quality of education is measured. However, a more objective measure is the extent of education; certainly, the introduction of national education has always produced a much greater literacy rate.
- consteval 2y ago
  The thing is extent and execution are intrinsically linked. Meaning, unregulated markets mean the extent will be limited because people will just choose not to get educated. Which makes sense, if they themselves are uneducated they don't have perfect reasoning skills or future outlook. A market relies on the participants having visibility and ability. They need to see the alternatives, understand them deeply, and have access to them. Turns out you can't do that in a bunch of markets, education being one of them. So, it can never be a true free market.
snowfarthing 2y ago
Did it really improve, though? There's evidence that Colonial/Revolutionary-Era American populace was highly educated, and that education had been gradually going downhill as the United States gradually adopted the Prussian model of education -- an education system designed to produce loyal soldiers and interchangeable worker widgets. There is a strong tendency to recognize "market failure" as a problem -- but it is rather rare to see people discuss "regulatory failure". Yet there is this endless cycle of increasing regulation, where a politician or bureaucrat identifies a problem with the market -- real or imagined -- and then offers a solution. That solution the situation even worse, but politicians and bureaucrats will blame this on "market failure", and then insist on another solution ... and so it goes. Yes, it's true that some regulation is necessary. But how much effort is put into place to make sure that the regulations put in place do what they are supposed to do? What effort is put into place to identify the nasty side effects of otherwise good regulations? The assumption that all regulations exist because the alternative is worse is deeply flawed. And that's even before we get into the fact that regulations have their limits: people can handle only so many rules, particularly if they are onerous, and will start ignoring regulations when it's the only way to get things done. An example of this is a report from the FAA, where they identified around 2,000 pilots who didn't report disqualifying health conditions. Why? Because the conditions were quickly resolved, and their livelihoods depended on flying, so they didn't want to go through the hassle of waiting three months for their license to fly to be cleared again. What's worse, of the 2,000 or so pilots who did this, only 4 or so had serious-enough conditions that they shouldn't have been flying!
- consteval 2y ago
  > Did it really improve, though? Yes. > There's evidence that Colonial/Revolutionary-Era American populace was highly educated I've never seen this evidence, but to speculate: probably since the colonist were, well, colonists, and literally building every industry from the ground up, they had to be. After this though, in the 19th century, we knew most people could not read or write. > an education system designed to produce loyal soldiers and interchangeable worker widgets True, but worker widgets who can read. > There is a strong tendency to recognize "market failure" as a problem -- but it is rather rare to see people discuss "regulatory failure" I experience the opposite, but granted I live in Texas. The default mode is regulations are bad, and the less the better. > The assumption that all regulations exist because the alternative is worse is deeply flawed It's not an assumption, it's an observation. When it comes to education and others. The thing is the free market relies on there being a free market. Not every market can be a free market. That's a problem. I've already explained how education can never be a free market above, but another example is healthcare. I can't compete in healthcare because of the HUGE time investment in schooling. I also have zero choice as a consumer - I just go to the nearest hospital. There's also no visibility in price because you have to diagnose me first, and that can be wrong or things can pop up later. Healthcare is not, and will never be, a free market. Even now the US has a largely socialized healthcare system, it just so happens to be the worst socialized healthcare system. Primarily because we've handed it off to the private sector, who have incentives to actually make it worse. Meaning, insurance thrives when you receive less care. The inefficiency is built into the profit motive, and you can't get around it.
  - snowfarthing 2y ago
    > I've never seen this evidence, but to speculate: probably since the colonist were, well, colonists, and literally building every industry from the ground up, they had to be. I would strongly recommend looking into John Taylor Gatto's "An Underground History of American Education", at least as a starting point. Indeed, that is where I learned that a literacy drop between WWI and WWII raised eyebrows, but when it came to the Vietnam era, the Army had to investigate "How can so many people fake illiteracy?" and found that the answer was "They aren't faking it." > After this though, in the 19th century, we knew most people could not read or write. Now it's your turn: I'd like to see your evidence for this. > True, but worker widgets who can read. That's assuming that everyone (including educators and politicians) think reading is important. >> There is a strong tendency to recognize "market failure" as a problem -- but it is rather rare to see people discuss "regulatory failure" > I experience the opposite, but granted I live in Texas. The default mode is regulations are bad, and the less the better. Have you considered the possibility that what is happening in Texas is an attempt to recognize harmful regulations, and weed them out so that people can have more freedom to function? >> The assumption that all regulations exist because the alternative is worse is deeply flawed > It's not an assumption, it's an observation. When it comes to education and others. I cannot help but worry that your observations are cherry-picked. There's plenty of regulatory fail to observe for the few who look to observe it. > The thing is the free market relies on there being a free market. Not every market can be a free market. That's a problem. I've already explained how education can never be a free market above, [ed: I can't find that explanation] but another example is healthcare. I can't compete in healthcare because of the HUGE time investment in schooling. I also have zero choice as a consumer - I just go to the nearest hospital. There's also no visibility in price because you have to diagnose me first, and that can be wrong or things can pop up later. > Healthcare is not, and will never be, a free market. Even now the US has a largely socialized healthcare system, it just so happens to be the worst socialized healthcare system. Primarily because we've handed it off to the private sector, who have incentives to actually make it worse. Meaning, insurance thrives when you receive less care. The inefficiency is built into the profit motive, and you can't get around it. I have both experienced and seen what health care in Great Britain is like, and based on the statistics I hav come across over time, to this day, to suggest Great Britain's health care is better than America's is a big stretch. Something similar can be said of Canadian health care (Pittsburg, PA, has more MRI machines than all of Canada!), and certainly, Cuba's awful health care system should be considered "socialized". To the degree that American health care is better than these systems, it's largely because of the private aspects of it -- and what's worse, to the degree that it's harmful, it is because of government regulations that kill competition. How is it that the law requires that I have the freedom to choose where I want my car repaired, but that I must find an "in-network" doctor? Why can I purchase auto insurance from any company in any State, but I must have insurance sold in my home State? How the heck are these specific kinds of restrictions supposed to make health care better?!? Many of the concerns you gave about health care apply to the car repair market too -- both in terms of insurance and in terms of car repairs and maintenance. Why is it that mostly-privatized car repair is market-friendly, but health care is not?

These industries, more or less, need to be highly regulated because we've faced the alternative and it's worse. The quality of education went up SIGNFICANTLY when the state took more control over it.

seabass-labrax 2y ago

Part of that is questionable, because the state gets to set the means by which the quality of education is measured. However, a more objective measure is the extent of education; certainly, the introduction of national education has always produced a much greater literacy rate.

consteval 2y ago
The thing is extent and execution are intrinsically linked. Meaning, unregulated markets mean the extent will be limited because people will just choose not to get educated. Which makes sense, if they themselves are uneducated they don't have perfect reasoning skills or future outlook. A market relies on the participants having visibility and ability. They need to see the alternatives, understand them deeply, and have access to them. Turns out you can't do that in a bunch of markets, education being one of them. So, it can never be a true free market.

snowfarthing 2y ago

Did it really improve, though? There's evidence that Colonial/Revolutionary-Era American populace was highly educated, and that education had been gradually going downhill as the United States gradually adopted the Prussian model of education -- an education system designed to produce loyal soldiers and interchangeable worker widgets. There is a strong tendency to recognize "market failure" as a problem -- but it is rather rare to see people discuss "regulatory failure". Yet there is this endless cycle of increasing regulation, where a politician or bureaucrat identifies a problem with the market -- real or imagined -- and then offers a solution. That solution the situation even worse, but politicians and bureaucrats will blame this on "market failure", and then insist on another solution ... and so it goes. Yes, it's true that some regulation is necessary. But how much effort is put into place to make sure that the regulations put in place do what they are supposed to do? What effort is put into place to identify the nasty side effects of otherwise good regulations? The assumption that all regulations exist because the alternative is worse is deeply flawed. And that's even before we get into the fact that regulations have their limits: people can handle only so many rules, particularly if they are onerous, and will start ignoring regulations when it's the only way to get things done. An example of this is a report from the FAA, where they identified around 2,000 pilots who didn't report disqualifying health conditions. Why? Because the conditions were quickly resolved, and their livelihoods depended on flying, so they didn't want to go through the hassle of waiting three months for their license to fly to be cleared again. What's worse, of the 2,000 or so pilots who did this, only 4 or so had serious-enough conditions that they shouldn't have been flying!

consteval 2y ago
> Did it really improve, though? Yes. > There's evidence that Colonial/Revolutionary-Era American populace was highly educated I've never seen this evidence, but to speculate: probably since the colonist were, well, colonists, and literally building every industry from the ground up, they had to be. After this though, in the 19th century, we knew most people could not read or write. > an education system designed to produce loyal soldiers and interchangeable worker widgets True, but worker widgets who can read. > There is a strong tendency to recognize "market failure" as a problem -- but it is rather rare to see people discuss "regulatory failure" I experience the opposite, but granted I live in Texas. The default mode is regulations are bad, and the less the better. > The assumption that all regulations exist because the alternative is worse is deeply flawed It's not an assumption, it's an observation. When it comes to education and others. The thing is the free market relies on there being a free market. Not every market can be a free market. That's a problem. I've already explained how education can never be a free market above, but another example is healthcare. I can't compete in healthcare because of the HUGE time investment in schooling. I also have zero choice as a consumer - I just go to the nearest hospital. There's also no visibility in price because you have to diagnose me first, and that can be wrong or things can pop up later. Healthcare is not, and will never be, a free market. Even now the US has a largely socialized healthcare system, it just so happens to be the worst socialized healthcare system. Primarily because we've handed it off to the private sector, who have incentives to actually make it worse. Meaning, insurance thrives when you receive less care. The inefficiency is built into the profit motive, and you can't get around it.
- snowfarthing 2y ago
  > I've never seen this evidence, but to speculate: probably since the colonist were, well, colonists, and literally building every industry from the ground up, they had to be. I would strongly recommend looking into John Taylor Gatto's "An Underground History of American Education", at least as a starting point. Indeed, that is where I learned that a literacy drop between WWI and WWII raised eyebrows, but when it came to the Vietnam era, the Army had to investigate "How can so many people fake illiteracy?" and found that the answer was "They aren't faking it." > After this though, in the 19th century, we knew most people could not read or write. Now it's your turn: I'd like to see your evidence for this. > True, but worker widgets who can read. That's assuming that everyone (including educators and politicians) think reading is important. >> There is a strong tendency to recognize "market failure" as a problem -- but it is rather rare to see people discuss "regulatory failure" > I experience the opposite, but granted I live in Texas. The default mode is regulations are bad, and the less the better. Have you considered the possibility that what is happening in Texas is an attempt to recognize harmful regulations, and weed them out so that people can have more freedom to function? >> The assumption that all regulations exist because the alternative is worse is deeply flawed > It's not an assumption, it's an observation. When it comes to education and others. I cannot help but worry that your observations are cherry-picked. There's plenty of regulatory fail to observe for the few who look to observe it. > The thing is the free market relies on there being a free market. Not every market can be a free market. That's a problem. I've already explained how education can never be a free market above, [ed: I can't find that explanation] but another example is healthcare. I can't compete in healthcare because of the HUGE time investment in schooling. I also have zero choice as a consumer - I just go to the nearest hospital. There's also no visibility in price because you have to diagnose me first, and that can be wrong or things can pop up later. > Healthcare is not, and will never be, a free market. Even now the US has a largely socialized healthcare system, it just so happens to be the worst socialized healthcare system. Primarily because we've handed it off to the private sector, who have incentives to actually make it worse. Meaning, insurance thrives when you receive less care. The inefficiency is built into the profit motive, and you can't get around it. I have both experienced and seen what health care in Great Britain is like, and based on the statistics I hav come across over time, to this day, to suggest Great Britain's health care is better than America's is a big stretch. Something similar can be said of Canadian health care (Pittsburg, PA, has more MRI machines than all of Canada!), and certainly, Cuba's awful health care system should be considered "socialized". To the degree that American health care is better than these systems, it's largely because of the private aspects of it -- and what's worse, to the degree that it's harmful, it is because of government regulations that kill competition. How is it that the law requires that I have the freedom to choose where I want my car repaired, but that I must find an "in-network" doctor? Why can I purchase auto insurance from any company in any State, but I must have insurance sold in my home State? How the heck are these specific kinds of restrictions supposed to make health care better?!? Many of the concerns you gave about health care apply to the car repair market too -- both in terms of insurance and in terms of car repairs and maintenance. Why is it that mostly-privatized car repair is market-friendly, but health care is not?