Last updated on 2012.02.26
I have a whole boatload to say about HB 1234, Governor Daugaard's package of education-wrecking reforms, and the tinkering done to it yesterday in Senate Education. Short form: the bill still promotes policies that will hurt teachers, students, and the overall quality of South Dakota's public schools, which is exactly the result the plutocrat ideologues want.
More on that later. But for now, consider this morsel: Dianna Miller testified yesterday in favor of HB 1234. The Senate Education minutes say Miller spoke on behalf of the "Large School Group." But was she representing schools, or was she representing her other employer, Governor Dennis Daugaard?
Dianna Miller currently labors under a three-month, $15,000 contract as a consultant for the Governor's Office. Her job is to "assist in the passage of legislation to benefit the State."
Well, with its reduction of local control, I suppose you could argue that HB 1234 benefits the State... but not the state.
Not surprising. Lobbyists who do this, and some of the top lobbyists do, are not properly representing their other clients. The large schools should fire her.
"The bill still promotes policies that will hurt teachers, students, and the overall quality of South Dakota’s public schools, which is exactly the result the plutocrat ideologues want."
I'd say that's a little bit extreme. Everyone has the same ultimate goal in regards to education. There are simply different ideas out there vying for recognition and eventual implementation. Verbal attacks against anyone who n'est pas d'accord avec toi doesn't seem like a brilliant policy.
Elliot, Cory is right. The real agenda is preparing students to be human capital for the global economy, not education. For example making cheese for a French corporation in Brookings.
Nice research Cory.
Cory, after all of this debate about merit pay and tenure, how many promising high school graduates are going to choose education as a college major? As a teacher yourself, would you encourage a student to pursue their dream of becoming a teacher?
How much better off would you be economically using your information systems degree instead of your teaching degree?
What would possess a young person to go into a profession to devote 4 years of study and accumulate $20,000-$40,000 of debt to get a job where they have no hope for job security and the knowledge that their salary will not keep up with inflation...and that their neighbor working at Gehl straight out of high school can make more?
The Law of Unintended Consequences always has surprises for us.
Unfortunately, Elliot, some of those ideas include a concerted effort to dismantle the public education system and replace it with a private system to reinforce free-market ideology and further concentrate wealth and power at the top.
I'm all for a collapse in public schools in favor of a voucher-based program. It's more efficient, encourages students to learn at their own pace, and has been well-implemented in the past (note, Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman was the champion of this concept.)
Also, if you'd like, I can disprove, ad infinitum, your statement that free-market ideology promotes a further concentration of power (see next post.)
I was impressed with Senator Schlekeway's willingness to confront the Governor. He elevated himself in my opinion. He's not just a political hack. Gray, Rave, Krause and Rempleberg dropped.
Capitalism came about just as feudalism was beginning to dwindle in Western society. The absolute power of a divinely guided ruler over his underlings (the ultimate source of his power was indeed from these very underlings, as well as a fortunate family tree.) In can be said that, of all social systems ever implemented, a system of laissez faire capitalism has proven to be the most effectively egalitarian. Within the laissez faire system, money and power are highly liquid (and the consistent liquidity of said system makes it egalitarian), certainly more so than in any practically implemented communist, socialist, or monarchist state.
Capitalism, and capitalism alone is responsible for most modern technology, the creation of the middle class, and the tremendous increase in quality of life over the last 300 years. Nothing has kept the gears of innovation moving like capitalism has. Nothing has motivated social progress like capitalism has. Nothing has allowed for acceptance of new ideas like capitalism has.
Indeed, capitalism only has one flaw: it is difficult to purely implement. Our market so mixed that any free market reinforcement should be accepted as a gift from God! Bailouts, federal banks, and subsidies are what you should be complaining about, Mr. Heidelberger, they are the real culprits. They support a natural inefficiency that allows for an imbalance within the economic system, creating the occasional person of excessive wealth. Government intervention in the economy is responsible for a considerable majority of the evils of today. Don't take my word for it, though! Some old, bearded, homeless-looking guy said the same thing once, "Human subtlety...will never devise an invention more beautiful, more simple or more direct than does nature, because in her inventions nothing is lacking, and nothing is superfluous." That "guy" was polymath Leonardo da Vinci, possibly the greatest individual mind the world has ever known.
So, while there is a problem within the current establishment, it is not the open market, but instead the lack of a truly free market. Liberating the education system from government-control would solve any perceived problems. A voucher system has been shown to help kids form poorer backgrounds more than the standard public school system. A privatized system eliminates national controversies over separation of church and state- in an educational context, at least. A privatized system could focus much more on the individual needs of students, and place students among optimally similar peers. Oh, and a privatized system would inevitably lead to higher teacher pay.
As Steve and Cory said, I think we'd all like to see more kids stay in South Dakota, but making them into neatly pressed cogs for the wheels of industry, is not the way to do it. I believe in public education, but its getting harder and harder to not go ahead and homeschool in this state. I truly think we're preparing students for a future that won't exist by the time they get there. Now, more than ever before in history perhaps, we need creative thinkers, not drones.
Elliot, it was the union movement and collective bargaining (trade unions) that created the middle class in the US. Before that, in Europe it was the guilds.
Unbridled capitalism leads to the accumulation of wealth and power, subsequent corruption and ultimately to tyrrany.
Capitalism's limitation is that it is only concerned with profit and the accumulation of wealth. Nothing wrong with that except as it leads to the exploitation of human beings and the violation of their human rights.
See Abraham Lincoln:
"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."
and...
"These capitalists generally act harmoniously and in concert, to fleece the people."
Thank you, Madame Livermont! That is exactly why we need capitalism! I look at prime examples in the capitalist world like Bill Gates, Thomas Edison, Steve Jobs, and Henry Ford as pretty creative thinkers. It's a little different in regulated societies, which kill creativity, quite viciously, in fact. In Soviet Russia, machine cog you! (As a result of said cogging, I can't name one great Soviet innovator. At least not one that wasn't a monkey.)
I'm sorry, Elliot, but I believe that creative thinking is a gift of God to all humanity, not the product of a flawed human system. Some of the greatest thinkers of all time had never heard of capitalism.
FYI: My ten-year-old would tell you that Thomas Edison was homeschooled by his mother who encouraged his experiments.
The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil. We see before us a huge community of producers the members of which are unceasingly striving to deprive each other of the fruits of their collective labor - not by force, but on the whole in faithful compliance with legally established rules. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.
- Albert Einstein, The World As I See It (1949)
Mr. Fleming,
I hope you realize that Lincoln was horribly misguided. Capitalists are all individuals in an economic system. Thus, his second statement must be erroneous (or people like to fleece themselves a lot.) Applying Lincoln also implicates you in this little ditty. "There is a physical difference between the white and black races that will for ever forbid the two races from living together on terms of social and political equality."
It looks like capitalism wasn't the only thing he was wrong about, was it?
I would add that exploitation doesn't exist among concurrent parties, as defined by a legal contract. So long as workers consent to work (no slavery or indentured servantry exists in American society.) Also, capitalism is the preservation of a natural system, which da Vinci and I agree works pretty well, generally allocating everything pretty well (compare: Louis XIV's Palais Versailles and the humble homes of his subjects. There's a larger difference there than there is between the average American home and the homes of most millionaires. The average home may actually almost equal toWarren Buffett's Omaha home, I may add.)
Unions have had a part to play in American history, but I don't think it's a positive one. The anarcho-communist movement of unions (popularly labelled the First Red Scare) in the USA was responsible for some of the worst terrorism in our history. If bombing innocent families (like that of John D. Rockefeller) is how we created a middle class, then you may be right. Only then, however.
Capitalism is the blind system- the one where intellect and work-ethic are rewarded and where prejudice is penalized naturally. If you're for reigns of terror, police states, genocide, or huge, insurmountable wealth disparities, please continue to criticize capitalism. If not, I suggest you get behind one of the greatest forces for good our world has ever known.
I'm enjoying the conversation, everyone. I would remind Mr. Fleming that Einstein was a physicist, whose knowledge outside of his field was not great, from childhood onward. He was a true idealist, but his genius shines through in areas quite different from his politics.
I would remind Ms. Livermont that Bertrand Russell, a huge philosopher of the 20th Century (who was, coincidentally, a close friend and associate of Einstein's), held the staunchest belief genius and creativity could be crushed if they were not encouraged properly. You're right, laissez faire capitalism doesn't synthesize creativity. It rewards it, however, and encourages it to come forth far more than any other socioeconomic system does.
Pretty weak response, Elliot. Mostly emotional, fear-based blather. Looks like you yourself are not immune to the seductive power of mindless propaganda.
Einstein, Newton and Gutenberg changed the the way human beings understand reality. None of them was ever enriched by capitalism. On the contrary, their insights, ideas and inventions were appropriated and exploited by capitalists oftentimes to the perversion of their creator's intent.
Bill Gates has similarly exploited creative minds, often times keeping their best ideas off the market until they can be made to fit his (now almost defunct) software platform. History is rife with capitalist exploitation of true creative people's ideas... indeed outright theft of them in many cases... with minimum compensation ever paid to the true creative geniuses.
If you want an example of where your unbridled capitalism idea nd desire for small government leads, Elliot, try Somalia.
Otherwise, name one country who is prostering under the ideas you are advocating here.
Interesting, Mr. Fleming. The personal attack, that is... I could reciprocate, but it's so much more satisfying to know that my ideas have been demonstrated well enough that the only remaining attacks are ad hominem.
We have patents, to avoid exploitation. If I agree to a contract with Mr. Gates' company, or sell it an idea, they can do what they want with it, within the bounds of the contract. That's not exploitation.
Stating that capitalism never helped Gutenberg, Newton, or Einstein is flawed. Gutenberg ran a workshop. For profit. He lost all of his money in a court case, but he didn't just make the printing press and say, "Hey! Look what I made?" Einstein profited a good bit from his work, winning a bit of money with the Nobel Prize, as well as earning himself an excellent American academic position, as a result of his hard work and creativity. Newton is a little trickier. Would you believe me though, if I told you he held some pretty important positions, including mathematics professor at Britain's greatest university?
As for states that have implemented capitalism to a large degree: Denmark (which also advocates a relatively socially liberal policy- yea on both counts!) Denmark is one of the best countries on Earth to live in, and it has much to do with the fiscal and social autonomy the fine Danish people are given.
Somalia is a terrible example of a libertarian state. There isn't a government to function on even a basic level (I don't dispute the need for a government; I simply want it to be a little smaller.) They're in the middle of a civil war, so very little can be done economically. They're chaotic because of this war, not because there isn't a big brother state to tell their industries what to do- there simply aren't many industries there in the first place! The violence and instability constrain what would otherwise be a natural growth in the Somalian economy.
I hope I cleared things up a little bit, Mr. Fleming!
Elliot
The one exception in the case of Denmark is quite high taxes, but that's not exactly what I'm complaining about.
Nothing personal. Someone needs to point out for you the difference between a smart argument and a stupid one, Elliot.
Meanwhile, you should probably review this before you officially adopt Bertrand Russell as your champion of capitalism:
http://www.zpub.com/notes/idle.html
Elliot,
Most of your analysis, however, seems to assume that negotiations are between equals and that there is never any coercion, either external or internal.
For example, a poor tinkerer, who invents an engine that gets 100 miles to gallon while living hand to mouth will not be able to negotiate the same deal as someone who doesn’t have to worry where her next meal will come from. The auto company will in effect be able to coerce them into taking a bad deal.
My memory may be faulty, but I believe Gates got parts of the system that became the Microsoft platform under a scenario like the one I hypothesize.
Capitalism may have more good elements than any other system, but it allows those with capital to exploit those without.
"Unbridled capitalism leads to the accumulation of wealth and power, subsequent corruption and ultimately to tyrrany."
No Bill, it is government interfering with free markets that cause those things. Unless by capitalism you mean corporate socialism, the fascist cousin to government based socialism.
I agree with Mr. Sibson on this one, though I don't necessarily endorse everything he's ever said. He does get bullied a whole ton though, far more than is merited, I believe.
Nobody will ever pry the Ubercapitalist title from its rightful holder, Milton Friedman.
LK- That's what I like to call the feudalism argument. It's actually one of Chomsky's favorites, if I'm not mistaken. However, the capitalist system is far more complex than x underlings and y bigwigs. It's very difficult to classify people in capitalism such that one can say "These people are rich, and these people are poor." I can assure you that more than one bidder will be there to go after a 100MPG engine, and as the number of individual bidders increases, capitalism dictates that the price continually approaches it's true market value. Anyone that invents a 100MPG engine won't be worrying about very much afterwards, except for the estate tax and reupholstering his yacht, I can assure you of that.
Denmark? Seriously? Free market?
http://www.denverpost.com/recommended/ci_13261279
If anything, Denmark is the very model of a socialist country, at least in terms of health care, Elliot:
Excerpt:
"I'm a U.S. citizen, but I've spent most of my adult life in Denmark. The Danish health care system is the nightmare of any anti-government free market believer: a tax-funded state-run universal health care system.
Denmark provides "free" health care to all residents, funded through taxes.
There is an optional private health care sector, but it is tiny compared with the vastly larger public system that is used by most of the population. Users pay for a few procedures, such as fertility treatments (from the third attempt onwards) and non-essential cosmetic surgery, as well as most of their own dental care and a portion of prescription medication.
Apothecaries are privately owned, but doctors" visits and hospitalization, including tests, treatment, follow-up care, and some medication, are fully covered.
The Danish health care system is not cheap. According to OECD's Health Data 2009, Denmark's health cost per person, public and private, was $3,512. But in the US the cost is more than double at $7,290!
In addition, Danish health care covers everybody - 100 percent of the population-while in the U.S. fewer than 80 percent of citizens are covered, and often only partially.
So basically the U.S. system costs more than twice as much and still leaves nearly a quarter of the population in the lurch if they need any medical care."
Also, almost all education systems in Denmark are free to Danish residents.
You want to know why taxes are high?
It's because of the socialist entitlements.
So, I guess I don't get where you're coming from Elliot.
And I have a suspicion that you don't either.
Comparing Denmark to America is like comparing a pinhead to bowling ball.
As a resident of Europe, I think I'm acting within my rights, discussing my continent. Over the last decade, Denmark, as well as many other Northern European states have begun to migrate towards a far more liberal (European definition; equivalent of rightist) economic system, which couples well with the Northern Europeans' stereotypically socially liberal government.
Let's get some facts clarified, before you abuse Google again and become an instant expert on Danish economics.
Denmark doesn't have a nationally set minimum wage (which actually allows for far more social equality, but that's a debate for another time.)
The way Denmark uses taxpayer dollars is far more worthy than the way we do. They actually have a budget surplus, occasionally. Speaking as a libertarian, an even budget or a minute surplus is exactly what I want.
An ex-PM of Denmark wrote a book, From Social State to Minimal State, in which he outlines his classical liberal beliefs. That should be the kicker right there, but there's more...
Danish employers have nearly unlimited freedom in hiring and firing employees.
Marijuana is decriminalized, and there is actually a semi-anarchist village within Copenhagen that openly sells it for personal use (I know because I've been considering a visit to Copenhagen, though I personally abstain from cannabis in all forms. I do enjoy the occasional Carlsberg, though. Speaking of which, alcohol's purchasing age is only 16, under most circumstances.)
The parties that are currently largest and third largest in Denmark's parliament are center-right and right, respectively, often acting comparably to the UMP here in France (Sarko and Chirac's party), from what I've seen of their legislation. Most of the "socialist" policies of Denmark are relics from the time when their social democrat party was in control.
Prostitution is legal (a major staple of my free market ideal is the legalization of vices, no matter how I personally feel about them.)
Google the Danish Progress Party to see something that may surprise you. They were big-ish in the '70s, and advocate killing the income tax, if my head serves me well (which it occasionally does.)
We have to remember that even though economics may be my future field, I tried to base my selection upon both social and economic liberty. At the expense of universal healthcare, higher, but gradually decreasing taxes, and next to nothing in terms of gun rights, Denmark offers a good bit more social liberty than most of the U.S.
If I had to transfer my citizenship, I would choose Denmark as my new home. I can see past the downside in terms of healthcare (that is after all one, sole issue) and taxes/welfare costs, and look at the big picture. Denmark is socially progressive, and probably a few years ahead of America, in terms of when it will legalize gay marriage, drugs, and prostitution. Businesses probably have more rights in Denmark than in America, albeit paying higher taxes for them. All-in-all, Denmark comes off as easily one of the two or three most pro-liberty states on Earth, certainly in Europe. That, combined with a world-class city like Copenhagen, a great tradition (I'm a huge Viking-period history enthusiast), and a naturally beautiful countryside, would make Denmark my second favorite country, in terms of potential citizenship, after only the U.S. of A., which I like for more nationalistic reasons.
I realize this post is quite long, but to fully address the concerns raised by Mr. Fleming, it was necessary. Well, maybe not necessary... but certainly personally preferred.
I think Denmark is great and don't blame you for liking it there. I'm just astonished that you used it as your one and only example of a country that runs on capitalist, unrestrained free market principles, especially as opposed to socialism. I think that's laughable.
Elliott,
I have a (bad) joke for you my stats teacher in grad school told me; I think it demonstrates your line of thinking.
A physicist, a chemist, and an economist are all adrift in a lifeboat on the ocean. They have no water, and one can of food to share, but no way to open it. The chemist starts talking, saying "Perhaps I can use some of the saltwater, sprinkle it on top of the can, and create a chemical reaction that will eat open the can!" The physcsist looks around the boat and says "Perhaps I can use one of the oars on this boat as a leaver, and pry open the can that way!" The economist then looks at both of the men and state "Alright, imagine a can opener....."
Yeah, bad joke. I know, but pertains to the study of econ wonderfully. You are beginning your arguments from a predetermined set point; Denmark is socially liberal, thus libertarian, thus I like it. Econ is theory, much like philosphy, or religion. Besides Say's Law (which in itself is so constrained it should not be considered a law), there is nothing but opinion coming from economics. Remember, one can quantitatively prove correllation to almost anything BY anything. That does not make it valid or reliable in its measurments.
And in regards to Soviet inventors (not that I have any love for the USSR), please look up these men. Never mistake the political stresses one may live under (or perhaps even support) for a lack of ingenuity of the human mind. It is the height of arrogance.
Lev Artsimovich
Alexander Bereznyak
Gersh Budker
Georgy Gause
Igor Gorynin
Mikhail Kalashnikov
Pyotr Kapitsa
oops, sorry for double post.
"With all thy getting, get understanding," so went the Forbes quip.
First, the Plot to Seize the White House, likely the greatest threat against the democratic republic, was hatched, furthered, and promulgated by capitalists - US nationalist capitalists. It was stopped by a general from the socialist US military. Capitalist greed knows no bounds. Then or now. The capitalist system has advantages but it must be ruthlessly controlled for its own good. The fact that the FBI said that over 80% of mortgage fraud was lender fraud footnotes the timeless human frailty.
Second, the largest and one of the most complex organizations in the US that consistently receives highest marks for admiration among the citizens is not capitalist; rather it is the very socialist US military. Consider that no for-profit doctor would treat a patient in a field aid station with live ordnance imbedded in his body, no for-profit company would medevac him.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAKaZdFk0eA
How delightful that we finally agree on something Corey! Ms. Miller does not speak for Watertown. As good intentioned as the bill is (to raise academic achievement) we have real concerns it will undermine the foundations of our collaborate success and lead to the opposite of what’s desired. I have no doubt some schools could benefit from HB1234, but not Wtn. It would make creating environments of academic success more difficult. If I were to continue to serve on the Wtn school board for another year, I would advocate our school not support renewing her contract.
Did someone say Quisling?
In 1981, Dianna Miller became president of SDEA, after teaching high school for eight years. During her tenure she collaborated with Bill Janklow to transform the SDEA from a professional organization which represented all of teachers' concerns and interests to a labor union which was limited to matters of wages and working conditions in its organizational role. At that time, the spring break for students was a professional development week for teachers, during which an institute was conducted which provided professional workshops and information sessions, and study sessions at which teachers raised issues, examined the state of their profession, and forumulated recommendations for identifying and meeting students needs from the classroom perspective. The institute week was moved to August, just before classes commenced for the year, but the SDEA no longer had its status as profesional organization and foiund that it was no longer a forum at which teachers and administrators--all educators--examined the state of the profession and proposed means to meet the emerging educational needs. The entire institute idea was soon abandoned, but Ms. Miller was regarded as the person who sold out the profession and silenced its role in formulating professional policy and providing professional advice.
Ms. Miller was no longer welcome as a representative of educators, but Bill Janklow provided for her. She was given the job of deputy secretary of Game, Fish, and Parks, and for a time served as Janklow's chief of staff. Through her political contacts, she become executive director of the South Dakota Mining Association and became a lobbyist for the larger school districts. The entrenched South Dakota GOP has kept her further employed as a consultant for educating juveniles in correctional institutions, and, of course, her latest stint as a lobbyist for Gov. Daugaard. Ms. Miller has devoted her career to the service of the anti-education lobby. There are many educators around who after 30 years have clear memories of what she did to education in the state.
Fred, don't make me come endorse your for District 4! :-) I appreciate your good sense on HB 1234. I hope you're calling your legislators and sharing that wisdom with them.
David, thank you for that important bit of history. I remember as an elementary school kids hearing those vacation days called "SDEA days."
Elliot, private schools pay teachers less than public schools.
How does large schools set their position on particular bills? Or does their lobbyist have full control of the agenda? Does Sioux Falls and Pam Homan support HB1234 now? Who gave direction to Ms. Miller?