I'm not suggesting markets can be replaced by experimentation in their entirety, I still like markets a lot. But experimentation can produce some of the benefits produced by markets.
Since I'm an economist and a statistician I can't give a straight answer to anything, so I'm going to do this by probabilities:
1) 70% chance of a Romney / Pawlenty or Huntsman ticket. I give Obama a 60% chance of winning in this scenario.
2) 10% chance of Bachman / Cain or Cain / Bachman ticket. I give Obama a 95% chance of winning in this scenario.
3) 10% chance of a Johnson / Paul ticket. I give Obama a 40% chance of winning in this scenario.
4) 10% chance of some other candidate being nominated (I'm not informed enough to get into more detail). I give Obama a 50% chance of winning in this scenario.
A couple of points:
1) You're assuming there are no broken kids now. That's a fairly heroic assumption.
2) There are three ways to approach experimentation on kids: A - never change anything ever. B - change thins without properly testing them C - changes things as part of a rigorous experiment. I suspect we can agree that C is preferable to B, but are you suggesting A is preferable to C? If so, are you at all uncomfortable with a norm that states the more important something is the less effort you should put into making it work better?
The trouble when you say things like that Freddie is that it sounds like you care more about who owns the schools than how well they perform.
I'm a big fan of specificity, so rather than talking at the high level, lets get down to details a bit more. What is it about government schools that you desire? You can't run a good experiment without defining your success criteria, so by all means let's evaluate any future experiments (and not just with vouchers, I'd be really interested to see what a school run by a teachers' co-op could do) against the criteria that matter to you and other government schooling advocates.
My point in writing this piece was to go beyond the status quo vs. vouchers debate in education. Education is an extremely complicated good and there are any number of variables one could alter about it. I believe there are answers out there, but to find them we actually have to look. My point was that if privately operated providers are beyond the pale, then government will have to do that experimentation itself.
In his talk Harford spent a decent amount of time discussing the difference between experimentation and mere tinkering. You need clear criteria, ongoing monitoring and some form of controls for it to be an experiment.
Variation in preferences is a whole different issue, and if there is a sufficiently large variation in what people consider to be a good school then any form of government schooling is likely going to be inadequate.
This argues in favor of a strong social safety net, excellent public infrastructure and government provision of many public goods. And this is backed up by evidence; the neoliberal regime in the USA has fallen flat on its face in terms of growth.
Three points:
1) What you just described is neoliberalism, which can basically be described as a small regulatory state combined with a moderate to large welfare state.
2) Given the definition above the US isn't neoliberal - the US government is a moderate-to-large regulatory state, with a patchy welfare state.
3) US GDP growth rates are quite respectable, nothing I'm talking about is going to have much of an effect on growth rates - there'll be some effect at the margin but that's about it.
I read an article once about Miton Friedman as a parent. Apparently he strongly avoided using "because I said so" as a reason (this was from his now-adult children, so he might have done when they were too young to remember).
Mind you, he spent his days explaining economics to politicians, so it may be that he found explaining things to children a simple task by comparison.
I'm not suggesting unions are without merit, but I don't think they can help beyond what they are now. For one thing I think their political power will make some things worse (see: international trade).
But still you're right, union do help workers in a number of ways.
There's a world of difference between voluntary certification / training and a legally-required licence. It's the latter I find problematic, not the former.
Now lets look at hotel workers. Do you think, just maybe, that the training provided by their unions helps keep workers safe from guests with sexual predation on their minds? Or is it the maids job to service the guests in all ways?
So you're saying that the absence of legally-mandated professional licensure for hotel staff is the equivalent of granting a licence to rape to hotel guests? A bit overblown, don't you think? And how much training do you need to call the police?
On “Experimentation and Policy”
I'm not suggesting markets can be replaced by experimentation in their entirety, I still like markets a lot. But experimentation can produce some of the benefits produced by markets.
On “2011 Time Capsule”
I think Johnson has more centrist appeal, though in retrospect I should have had it as Johnson / Paul or Paul / Johnson
"
I'm pretty sure he opposes federal prohibitions on marijuana.
"
Since I'm an economist and a statistician I can't give a straight answer to anything, so I'm going to do this by probabilities:
1) 70% chance of a Romney / Pawlenty or Huntsman ticket. I give Obama a 60% chance of winning in this scenario.
2) 10% chance of Bachman / Cain or Cain / Bachman ticket. I give Obama a 95% chance of winning in this scenario.
3) 10% chance of a Johnson / Paul ticket. I give Obama a 40% chance of winning in this scenario.
4) 10% chance of some other candidate being nominated (I'm not informed enough to get into more detail). I give Obama a 50% chance of winning in this scenario.
On “Gold and Bacon and Libertarians Oh My!”
The experience was worse in retrospect than I believed it to be at the time. I didn't have much of a frame of reference.
On “Experimentation and Policy”
I can believe A is better than B, that's a perfectly reasonable position. What I want is less B and more C.
"
A couple of points:
1) You're assuming there are no broken kids now. That's a fairly heroic assumption.
2) There are three ways to approach experimentation on kids: A - never change anything ever. B - change thins without properly testing them C - changes things as part of a rigorous experiment. I suspect we can agree that C is preferable to B, but are you suggesting A is preferable to C? If so, are you at all uncomfortable with a norm that states the more important something is the less effort you should put into making it work better?
"
No better (or worse) outcomes and lower cost, that's pretty awesome for unpromising.
"
The trouble when you say things like that Freddie is that it sounds like you care more about who owns the schools than how well they perform.
I'm a big fan of specificity, so rather than talking at the high level, lets get down to details a bit more. What is it about government schools that you desire? You can't run a good experiment without defining your success criteria, so by all means let's evaluate any future experiments (and not just with vouchers, I'd be really interested to see what a school run by a teachers' co-op could do) against the criteria that matter to you and other government schooling advocates.
My point in writing this piece was to go beyond the status quo vs. vouchers debate in education. Education is an extremely complicated good and there are any number of variables one could alter about it. I believe there are answers out there, but to find them we actually have to look. My point was that if privately operated providers are beyond the pale, then government will have to do that experimentation itself.
"
In his talk Harford spent a decent amount of time discussing the difference between experimentation and mere tinkering. You need clear criteria, ongoing monitoring and some form of controls for it to be an experiment.
"
Variation in preferences is a whole different issue, and if there is a sufficiently large variation in what people consider to be a good school then any form of government schooling is likely going to be inadequate.
On “Gold and Bacon and Libertarians Oh My!”
My high school had little in the way of extra-curricular that interested me, and no girls.
Guess how much fun I had.
On “Rawlsekianism Reloaded: Normative justification”
Nice post Murali, I look forward to part 2.
On “Video Games are Protected Speech”
Only Sith deal in absolutes.
"
Yes, Thomas is certainly not all upside, its more that Scalia appears to be all downside.
"
Given the difference between Scalia and Thomas on Gonzales v Raich, I'd rather have the nut.
On “Because you said so”
It's a general rule of life that whenever someone says "but" they are negating everything that came before the but.
Sorry, but I don't make the rules ;)
On “Competition and Inequality”
Three points:
1) What you just described is neoliberalism, which can basically be described as a small regulatory state combined with a moderate to large welfare state.
2) Given the definition above the US isn't neoliberal - the US government is a moderate-to-large regulatory state, with a patchy welfare state.
3) US GDP growth rates are quite respectable, nothing I'm talking about is going to have much of an effect on growth rates - there'll be some effect at the margin but that's about it.
On “Because you said so”
Nicely played sir. Not to nit-pick, but Patri is Milton's grandson, not his son.
"
I read an article once about Miton Friedman as a parent. Apparently he strongly avoided using "because I said so" as a reason (this was from his now-adult children, so he might have done when they were too young to remember).
Mind you, he spent his days explaining economics to politicians, so it may be that he found explaining things to children a simple task by comparison.
"
So perhaps there is a point to those participation trophies - it sharpens the kids' BS detectors.
On “Competition and Inequality”
I'm not suggesting unions are without merit, but I don't think they can help beyond what they are now. For one thing I think their political power will make some things worse (see: international trade).
But still you're right, union do help workers in a number of ways.
"
Good, then I think we're on the same page, or at least adjacent ones.
"
There's a world of difference between voluntary certification / training and a legally-required licence. It's the latter I find problematic, not the former.
So you're saying that the absence of legally-mandated professional licensure for hotel staff is the equivalent of granting a licence to rape to hotel guests? A bit overblown, don't you think? And how much training do you need to call the police?
"
Thanks Eric, is this the sort of thing you were thinking of when you spoke of "bottom-up liberalism"?
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.