This is incorrect.
Fractional reserve banking is not a requirement to pay a deposit holder interest.
I somehow doubt that that “$000” is likely to be the make-or-break for hardly anybody - either the people have plenty anyway, or that $000 woudn’t be enough to get them in. So I think you’re arguing from a population of negligible size.
And let’s take a look at why those $000 are being taken. Well, it’s clearly to support a public school system. You appear to be arguing to let the free market supply basic education. One obvious side effect of this is that, pretty much by definition, there will be a portion of the population who fail to get an education under this system, due to not being able to afford it at the going market price.
So arguing for completely throwing education to the free market is declaring that poor kids shouldn’t get educations. I have certain opinions about people who take this perspective.
Regardless, the government does not take this perspective; it sees a minimal level of education for all as a benefit to all of society - and thus, something all of society can be asked to pay for. Hence, publicly funded public schools.
Now, how do vouchers change this equation? Clearly, their intent is twofold: to pipe money to scam schools to be embezzled and stolen, and to return education to the free market. Presumably most people only seek the latter outcome, and presumably many of them do it because they see a way to gain personal advantage for their kids doing it (rather than out of some brain-dead unthinking dedication to free markets regardless of their outcomes).
Of course, if one group of people are gaining advantages, it’s probably at the expense of another group - and in this case, it’s the people who can afford the difference in costs to get their kids into private schools, at the expense of the public school system, which the voucher plan is quite frankly designed to cripple and destroy (being a reversion to the free market - or rather, a free market without a governmentally sponsored public school as an option).
So we’re back to throwing the poor kids on the pyre of other people’s greed - specifically the greed of people most of which I suspect don’t really need to bleed the public school system to be able to afford private school. They just want to crucify the poor kids to save a few extra bucks.
Gee what a noble goal that is.
Very well done. But I would claim you’ve made my argument for me.
How can a bank be required to repay $100 on demand to its depositors, when it has only $5 on hand? If all its loans go bad, is the $100 backstopped in some manner? Will those depositors get their money back? If so, how does that process happen? Where does the money come from? Is it just printed on little pieces of paper? Is it extracted by force, from someone else?
Furthermore, who is actually allowing that to happen, when the technical definition of that is ‘bankruptcy’? The courts have actually ruled that other holds of commodities, such as grain elevators, cannot legally loan out grain along the fractional-reserve lines you describe above. They consider it fraudulent. It is against the law. Why is allowed for banks? How are they different?
And I note you also you caught an extremely nice little irony amongst the recent unpleasantness, which is that FNMA preferred stock was one of the very few assets that the gubmint allowed to count as Tier 1 capital. Hence, driving up its demand on the asset side of the balance sheet at most banks. Who made those rules? What is an FMNA preferred share, anyway? Who determined that is was so safe, and so secure, that a bank could count it as Tier 1 capital?
What if interest can’t be granted to depositors? What if the terms and conditions of demand deposits (and by comparison, time deposits) are left to supply and demand to decide the rate of interest? Is there some universal mandate that demand deposits require interest? Perhaps they do require payment for safekeeping. After all, putting money in the bank, and then having the ability to immediately recall it the next minute, or ship it off to someone else, seems like a nice service. Is there a universal law that people should be paid for that, instead of the reverse?
You know, there is only one way all of the above weird, contorted pretzel-logic of rules could have come into being. And that is if the government made them up, and enforced them at the point of a gun.
And enforced the restriction of new entrants, limiting competition, via burdensome charter requirements and other regulatory fiat, thereby cementing the large national lenders in place as part of a ‘too big to fail’ oligopoly.
But that’s not important. What’s clear, of course, is that the ‘free market’ is responsible for the current financial mess.
Crucify the poor for some extra bucks? What?
Let’s take a look at some of the parents involved in the D.C. voucher program. Here’s a link to a protest (yes, I know the link is from the AntiChrist…FOX news)
Do those parents sound like a few $000 is going to make or break them? It sure sounds like it to me.
But for many parents, that’s not a subsidy… it’s a refund on their taxes.
You only frame it as “subsidy” because your mind is already conditioned into believing that tax money belongs to the school system no-questions-asked.
Consider today how people buy clothes. One person can choose to buy a cotton shirt. Another person chooses to direct his money towards a polyester shirt.
But imagine that the govt raised taxes and forced everyone to fund a “The Public Clothing and Garment Act”. Imagine 75 years later and several generations living under that “Public Clothing” act. The Clothing Act laws dictates that the funds must be used to only by polyester shirts. Peoples minds get accustomed to this scenario and their minds have become warped. The public has failed to distinguish between the real merits of public and individual choice and the original validity of institutions. If someone 75 years later were to suggest that he wants a “voucher” or “coupon” to rebate his taxes so he can buy a cotton shirt, people like you would reframe it as “a subsidy”. WTF? You’ve just become an unwitting mouthpiece for the govt. How can it be a “subsidy” if the tax money wasn’t even even paid to the govt to begin with?!?!
That’s one of the amazing psychological side effects of creeping big government: you take away choices and after a few years, people start to think that any choice the govt didn’t choose on your behalf with (what used to be) your money is evil.
That’s a nice post. Well said.
This is a faulty conclusion.
Today, we have free market for buying food. You can choose to put your food budget towards a restaurant outing, or buying groceries and cooking meals yourself. You can pick which brands of soda or cereal to consume.
And yet, there are still govt programs to offer free breakfast, free lunch to children that need it. There’s also food stamps. Even stranger, the food stamps let parents exercise some free choice… they can’t buy cigarettes but they can choose which brand of milk to purchase. A free market with a safety net can co-exist.
Having a free market does not automatically mean you take the people with no money, grind them up and feed them to the pigs.
The 2 scenarios are opposite:
Food is a free market choice with a few that require a govt safety net.
Education is a govt program with a few that want to opt out for the free market.
Food or education could have been funded either way.
A lot of the arguments people make have no philosophical basis… it’s simply what people are used to.
Food has been free market historically so it “feels right” that it’s free market.
Education has been publicly funded for so long that it “feels right” that it’s publicly funded.
Well of course it does, duh!
And it is one area where the education intelligentsia gets things completely wrong, in my opinion. One of the big problems with current education decision makers is that they all, by and large, buy into this idea that with the right combination or cutting edge pedagogy and inspired teaching that every student can and will become someone with a “life-long love of learning” (to use one of the oft repeated catch phrases). First of all, even if it were true, teaching is as much of an art as anything, there are never going to be enough truly inspiring teachers. So the plan is dead on arrival. Second, it ignores the reality that some kids aren’t going to succeed in the education system, no matter what. The best thing we can do with those kind of kids is to give them some kind of education that gives them a chance in life and not pretend that they are all going to be brain surgeons, when by doing so, we are actually failing them. Every successful 1st world education system tracks kids (and god forbid :eek:, they do it by utilizing another bugaboo of the education establishment, standardized testing).
So I take it you agree completely with the rest of that post, based on the fact you didn’t respond to it.
You know, the part where I demonstrate that voucher systems are fundamentally an unjustfiable attack on the poor. You know, that part.
It was so nonsensical I didn’t even bother.
The intent of voucher programs is to pipe money into scam schools? Is that what the poor parents in D.C. and Milwaukee, who are on waiting lists for such things, are trying to do? Get the money so they can pipe it into scam schools?
I wish we had vouchers where I live. Our public school is mostly hispanic, there are only two white kids in the whole third grade and my daughter is one of them. She has trouble making friends because they all speak spanish and make fun of her for being white, and she’s getting too close to the only other white kid in her grade, she calls him her boyfriend and shes too young for that. My kindergardener is falling behind because they spend half their day learning English which is a waste as he already knows English. I’d like to pull them out of that school and put them in one of the Christian schools around here which are mostly white.
Falling behind who?
YES!!! They believe basicly in social Darwinism… Basicly just like the parents who HAVE to get wittle Smashly into the Right Nursery School so that she can end up going to a Name Brand College/University so that she can get into a high powered job. Capitalism is basicly ecnomic Darwinism.
Besides, here’s something that I’ve never heard answered. Schools need money to function correct? How are we improving public schools by taking away money that THEY could use to improve themselves and throwing it at private schools? The people who advocate this system seem to think that the free/private market is free from “corruption” …or that it’s perfect b/c it’s not “Big Government.” :rolleyes:
The real answer to improving public education is NOT by taking away money, but rather setting up a whole bunch of different schools with different teaching methods/ specializations etc. The problem with our school system is that it’s too “one size fits all”
Jesus, how many times does it need to be said? The surest way of achieving diversity in educational methods is to allow a free market in education. No one thinks the free market is free from all corruption - it’s not the specter of “corruption” in the public schools that makes them such a poor choice - though corruption is certainly present. It is the one-size-fits all, top down mandated approach to public education that makes no sense.
To take our food stamp analogy further: do we need the government mandating what people should eat? Instead of baking public bread and providing it for the disadvantaged, we provide food stamps which can purchase food from the free market. Instead of only Fed-Bread, we have hundreds of kinds of breads for different tastes. Why can’t we have the same in education? To clarify my position: I believe an education for all people is a good goal, for multiple reasons. I fully support publicly funded education, but not publicly run education. Every child should get the chance to have an education, but they should have a choice of where they go.
And lastly, vouchers do not take money away from public schools*, leaving them without funds. This argument is trotted out time and time again but is simply wrong. For example, the DC school district has a per pupil spending figure of $24,606 link. The DC voucher program gives those families chosen is worth only up to $7,500 (Warning: PDF). That means one less student to serve, with over $16,000 left in the system. Even if one only considers local operating budget (a disengenous way to count it as federal money and other costs are not considered), DC spends $8,400 per student. That’s still at least 900 dollars in the public coffers with no student to spend it on. The public schools are not going to run dry because of vouchers.
*And the idea that it is “taken” from the schools is insulting; it is tax money, it is our money, it was taken from tax payers.
Now that is a good argument. However, the problem remains that vouchers - including the DC program - are regressive.
You can say “regressive” about virtually every product or service the world offers. It adds nothing to the argument.
The cost of cars are regressive because they do not price them less for people with no money.
The cost of McDonald’s hamburger is regressive because it’s the same price for poor people or rich people.
The cost of movies, DVDs, Disney World, is regressive… etc. etc.
Oh, bullshit. It was so pointedly skewering your position that you “didn’t even bother”, is what actually happened.
And as I said in the next sentence, “Presumably most people only seek the latter outcome”. So yeah, I already covered those parents you mention. Would you like to try and find a third thing to pick out of the post and focus on in an attempt to avoid trying, and failing, to refute the main point of the post: that vouchers are quite explicitly an attempt to dismantle the public education system from beneath, to the detriment of those it was designed to protect (and as a result, all of society)? That free-market education necessarily skews education away from those with fewer resources, which will create a self-perpetuating educational underclass even worse than what we have now?
Andf Ruminator: the fact that virtually everyting is more readily available to people with money doesn’t change the fact that there are some things that we, as a society, don’t particularly want to exclude poor people from. We may not be particularly bothered if rich kids get more trips to Disney World, but some of us are bothered by the idea of forcibly turning huge swaths of the population into a self-perpetuating uneducated underclass.
You must have missed my post on the first page. The problem with voucher systems is that they virtually all pay only a portion of private tuition. That means they make private schooling cheaper for wealthy and middle class families, who can afford to make up the difference, but do nothing for low income families, who can’t.
They are effectively a hidden tax break for high earners.
To grossly over-generalize: the situation as we see it now has wealthy families sending their children to private schools, middle class families that can’t afford to send their children to private schools, and lower income families that also can’t afford it. Wrapped up in this seems to be an unspoken agreement among posters that public schools are not performing as they should, and private schools are performing better than these public schools.
With vouchers, wealthy and middle families can send their children to better schools. If we imagine each socio-economic cohort was a third, we can improve the educational environment for a third of the students, the middle class. But instead, you would rather see them stuck in failing public schools? Why? If we can improve the education of a significant number of the children, why shouldn’t we?
I’m getting a sense that you wouldn’t want to do this because it wouldn’t be “fair” to the children from low income households. But life isn’t fair, and if we can improve the education of some children, we should.
They are effectively a way to provide better education to a significant number of children.
I didn’t write anything that would exclude poor people from education.
Why is everyone’s perspective so warped that a service has to be PUBLICLY FUNDED AND MANAGED for that service to EXIST? That makes no logical sense.
We don’t have a publicly funded compulsory food program… and yet, poor people have food to eat.
We don’t have a publicly funded compulsory cellphone program… and yet, poor people have cell phones.
We don’t have publicly funded electricity… and yet, poor people have electricity.
It’s all about what you’ve been accustomed to historically. If electricity service was publicly funded and controlled from the very beginning with Thomas Edison, you’d be the same exact person today complaining, “if electricity taxes were given back via vouchers, poor people won’t have electricity!”
Vouchers will not prevent poor people from having an education. They’d actually get a better education as a side effect of marketplace competition. The poor get the same side effect benefits from having cell phone companies Motorola, Nokia, Apple, competing instead of having a publicly managed US Government Cell Phone Administration manufacturing your cell phones.
Perhaps a new innovative teaching method is introduced by private company XYZ. They create virtual immersive world with a virtual teacher. Tests and exams are multi-sensory to increase the brain’s retention. This innovation is driven by competition. The poor would ultimately benefit from any cutting edge approaches from any private company – just like they benefit from the resultant cell phones they have in their pocket today.
Somehow, you believe the brain-dead bureaucracy of a public school system is the best way. Government institutions are not innovative. They are all about status quo. They are a cesspool of mediocrity.