Occasional Notes: Stuff I Too Easily Agree With
By my lights, they’re in descending order of plausibility.
James Joyner shares my view of sanctions and adds another reason to mistrust them:
Sanctions almost never work, since the ruling class is the last to feel the pain and there are always state and non-state actors willing to circumvent the sanctions regime for a price. As a general rule, sanctions make those enacting them feel like they’re doing something but wind up hurting the very people we’re ostensibly trying to help, the ordinary citizens suffering under repressive regimes.
What’s less widely understood, as Damon Wilson, the Atlantic Council vice president and International Security Program director, noted in introducing the panel, is how incredibly hard sanctions are to undo. Years after we toppled Saddam Hussein and replaced his regime with one friendlier to the United States, a myriad of sanctions remain in place.
James Hanley doubts the doubters of charter schools. I’m sympathetic, but the school choice debate here at the League is one I’ve chosen to stay out of. There are only so many hours I can spend on blogging:
There is a persistent tendency among educators, and left-leaning folks in general, to claim that education is a distinct type of good, so that unlike other goods, a competitive market is an inferior way to produce it. I once had a college prof tell me that all monopolies were bad, except the state’s education monopoly. But I have yet to hear one of these folks make an argument for why education is so distinct. It’s rather remarkable how persuasive they find the words, “it’s just different,” to be.
And education is different in some ways. Quality assurance is just really damned hard (and standardized testing doesn’t do it). And it is primarily a private good, but one with substantial positive externalities. But neither of those make it peculiarly appropriate for monopoly production, or even for wholly (as opposed to partially) public production.
Ditto all that to health care.
Theodore H. Frank notes a curiosity in the Toyota recalls:
The Los Angeles Times recently did a story detailing all of the NHTSA reports of Toyota “sudden acceleration” fatalities, and, though the Times did not mention it, the ages of the drivers involved were striking.
In the 24 cases where driver age was reported or readily inferred, the drivers included those of the ages 60, 61, 63, 66, 68, 71, 72, 72, 77, 79, 83, 85, 89—and I’m leaving out the son whose age wasn’t identified, but whose 94-year-old father died as a passenger.
These “electronic defects” apparently discriminate against the elderly.
Further considerations here. Were it not for the magic of the state, which makes all action seem public and impartial, we might suspect something fishy. But I am sure our regulators only have our best interests in mind, and not the welfare of their GM subdivision.
Finally, does the advent of GPS mean we’ll no longer need signs? The answer seems “yes” to me.
In former times, buildings located on city streets didn’t have numbers. You’d just go to King’s Street and look up and down it for the sign of Saint Jerome. (Woe to you if you don’t know that Saint Jerome’s attributes include an owl, a lion, a skull, a trumpet, a cross, and a book.) There was a better way, we found it, and we used it. The same principle applies here.
Note, however, that while we may achieve a world where signs are unneeded, achieving a world where they do not exist is another question.
Ditto all that to health care.
That’s a joke, right? I mean what with the whole discussion of the important of nuance and individual difference in what you quote, and then you saying “Ditto all that”? That’s got to be some arch, dry joke, right?Report
The things I quoted are almost entirely applicable to health care. Consider:
Seems about right to me.Report
If you see price as a signal, and you see price’s relationship to supply/demand as a rule analogous to laws of physics, it’s very easy to start seeing price signals in places like health care, education, and so on.
The wacky thing is that if you start doing this, you start noticing that the government’s one and only response to a price signaling greater growth in rate of demand than the rate of growth in rate of supply is to increase demand.
Every.
Single.
Time.
And the general response to “that’s a bad policy that will make things worse” is some variant of “you don’t care” with a dash of “at least making things worse is doing *SOMETHING*”.Report
Jason,
I’ve been trying to find the time to respond here properly. I thought about replying to James directly on Positive Liberty, but I know you.
I need to preface this by mentioning that I am part of a group that is actively working to start a charter school in my neighborhood of Cleveland for the fall of 2011. Which puts me in a good position to talk about charter schools and public schools. We’ve been studying them intently and we have many people in our group who have been working on these issue for years.
Most of the charter schools in Cleveland have something important in common. They suck. Badly. There are a few exceptions, but I can list them on one hand, reserving one finger for a charter that I’m unaware of. Most of the charter schools in Cleveland underperform the Cleveland Metropolitan School District (CMSD), itself an incredibly low bar.
James and You seem to think that the free market system will eventually shake out the bad charter schools and the good ones will thrive, but we aren’t heading in that direction. The crappy cookie-cutter ones that are little more than test-prep programs (and the kids still fail the test) are multiplying. The few good ones find expansion slow and difficult because they are concerned about quality.
The reason for this is actually pretty simple, once I learned the answer. The incentive structure is twisted. Academic quality is not the driver that causes parents to send their kids to charter schools. In fact, the priority list for choosing a school typically looks like this:
1) Safety
2) They care about my child
If academic quality comes into it, it is a distant third. Worse, parents typically have no idea how to judge a school’s academics.
So to get parents to send their kids to a charter, all you have to do is convince them of #1 and #2. Since the default perception of CMSD (like most urban districts) is that the schools are not safe, you don’t really have to do much. Unfortunately, it also incentivizes charters to inflate the perception of unsafety of the public schools. Whether it is true or not, it is good for business. Charters (particularly for-profit ones) also have a nasty habit of just pushing out the kids that are in any way problematic and just dump them back on the public system.
Anyway, my primary point is just that the incentive structure for charters does not lead to a good education in a free market system. It just leads to schools that a perceived to be safe, where the kids are cared for, but anything else (such as actually educating), can be cut for profit.Report
Well, I did call it stuff I “too easily” agree with.
It’s clear you can’t say “charter schools are good” with no qualifications. The policy of having charter schools is good only insofar as these schools encourage individual initiative and the development of new approaches to learning, and then to the extent that these new approaches succeed. It stands to reason (a) that these approaches are out there, mostly undiscovered, thanks to rapidly advancing technology and (b) that public schools are ill-equipped to find them.
Will charter schools do better? A lot depends on the rules permitting them to come into being, which vary from one system to the next. Cleveland’s may just not be all that good, but I’d want to make a very detailed study of the problem before I concluded anything.Report
I often feel like I’m way behind the tech curve because I have no cell phone and only understood what an IPod is about a year ago (my wive has owned one for three years). The reason there will continue to be street signs is for people like me, who actually went to a wedding last summer and after getting driven all over Brooklyn by friends said to my wife, “It was the damnedest thing! They all had these things in their cars that told them where to go! I have no idea how it knew that.” Happily for me though my wife was also unfamiliar with GPS.Report
The fallacy here is that charter schools = a competitive market.
What’s fishy is that the whole witch hunt against Toyota comes hot on the trail of calls by the new Japanese government to end the occupation of Okinawa.Report