Progressive Era Not the Model

Originally posted by spruce112358
Here's a nice argument I found on-line about why concentrating wealth is what should happeen:

"Suppose John and Jane both have businesses making and selling widgets. However John is more efficient at making widgets than Jane and can therefore profitably sell his widgets for $9 to Jane's $10.

Over time, John's share of the market increases and Jane ...[text shortened]... -- has simply rewarded the most efficient and capable person. What is wrong with that?

But Jane has needs too...., and once John squeezes her out, won't he raise prices to $15 without any competition? 🙂

Originally posted by normbenign
If I understand you point, then public schools are also corporate welfare.

Then obviously you don't understand my point.

Charter schools are privately owned, but publicly funded. Public schools are publicly owned and funded.

Originally posted by generalissimo
Its very questionable whether these institutions are "delivering too little" generally speaking in all of the aforementioned countries, never mind being inefficient to a point that would justify their abolition or a radical stripping down.

This question has been raised before, but it seems you neglected it for some reason, why is it that further cen ...[text shortened]... er's unions' opposition to such innovations are invariably grounded in parochial interests?

Because centralization/decentralization of operations does little to increase the quality of products/services in general.

Most large companies experience this in about a 10-15 year cycle -- they centralize to achieve consistency (but sacrifice customer closeness), then they decentralize to empower those closest to the customer (and lose consistency). This gives the illusion of "change" and "progress" even though either orientation works and neither has a fundamental affect on the ability to deliver a quality product.

I don't think the biggest difference between European and American education systems is the centralization. The biggest difference seems to be the how much more disciplined European students are.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Then obviously you don't understand my point.

Charter schools are privately owned, but publicly funded. Public schools are publicly owned and funded.

Ok, so one publicly funded entity favors the corporate owners. The other favors the corporate workers, the union teachers.

Neither is truly private, and the notion of publicly owned is a pure fantasy.

The public is only owner of the schools when there is a budget shortfall, and they are asked for more in taxes. The rest of the time they are ignored, and often disrespected by the management.

Originally posted by spruce112358
Because centralization/decentralization of operations does little to increase the quality of products/services in general.

Most large companies experience this in about a 10-15 year cycle -- they centralize to achieve consistency (but sacrifice customer closeness), then they decentralize to empower those closest to the customer (and lose consistency) ...[text shortened]... on. The biggest difference seems to be the how much more disciplined European students are.

The culture of the student population., right?

The one fly in that ointment is the Japanese, who spend a lot more time in school, year round, and more hours per day. Harlem Success academy, a charter in Harlem, uses that model and is outperforming elite private schools. See the video, "Waiting for Superman".

The Harlem charter doesn't cherry-pick, and is located in a culturally disadvantaged area, with a local public school failure almost guaranteed.

On your main point of centralization or decentralization, I agree that each has its benefits, although centralization tends to be small efficiency advantages, vs. more accountability, and easier management in decentralized units.

Originally posted by spruce112358
Here's a nice argument I found on-line about why concentrating wealth is what should happeen:

"Suppose John and Jane both have businesses making and selling widgets. However John is more efficient at making widgets than Jane and can therefore profitably sell his widgets for $9 to Jane's $10.

Over time, John's share of the market increases and Jane ...[text shortened]... -- has simply rewarded the most efficient and capable person. What is wrong with that?

I don't see your point, you get the same result regardless of income or personal capital taxes.

Originally posted by normbenign
"Now, how is it that we have the most privatized health care system in the developed world, and yet the most expensive?"

Not true. The amount of American health care that remains "private" is really quite small. Medicare covers all over 65, where the lion's share of health care dollars are spent. And Medicaid covers the poor. In between, the majori ...[text shortened]... at leaves in the consumer market, but the percentage is quite small that is truly private.

Employer paid insurance is private. And a seriously outdated model by the way.

Originally posted by normbenign
Ok, so one publicly funded entity favors the corporate owners. The other favors the corporate workers, the union teachers.

Neither is truly private, and the notion of publicly owned is a pure fantasy.

The public is only owner of the schools when there is a budget shortfall, and they are asked for more in taxes. The rest of the time they are ignored, and often disrespected by the management.

😴😴

More BS. Most public school systems have elected Board of Educations, so the public has input into what policies are followed with their money. Your simplistic "analysis" is nonsense.

Originally posted by normbenign
But Jane has needs too...., and once John squeezes her out, won't he raise prices to $15 without any competition? 🙂

John might -- except for Shelly and Mark who are waiting in the wings. Shelly has a way to produce widgets for $8.50 while Mark can only be profitable at $12 but his widgets have a lot more features.

There are only a couple of things that will stop both of them starting businesses to compete with John: government regulation and high taxes.

Apart from generic regulations restricting the start-up of new businesses, if the government starts specifically regulating widget-makers (John may even suggest this), then John will quickly send a delegation to Washington and in a Georgetown restaurant will convince regulators over a $1500 bottle of Cheval Blanc that loopholes need to be created in the law for HIS method of manufacture which is "safe" and "proven" unlike those other "untested" methods. John can easily pay for these lobbying efforts out of his higher profits. But Shelly and Mark will have to waste valuable time trying to figure out the new regulations and convincing their investors that they can navigate them.

Second setback: high taxes. Shelly's and Mark's investors realize it is a gamble to try to compete with John's business. But the higher the return, the more they are willing to take a risk -- even if it has a small chance of success. However, if anyone who gets "rich" becomes the enemy and has to pay 70% taxes (as no1marauder advocates), then suddenly there is a lot less reason to take that risk. Shelly and Mark, personally, also have to assess whether they are willing to take the gamble to succeed big. But if most of their potential gains are going to be taxed away -- screw it, they might as well work for John.

Capitalism does produce millionaires and inequality -- but that's good because it also produces competition, low prices, and high employment. Socialism/government interference does the reverse.

Originally posted by spruce112358
John might -- except for Shelly and Mark who are waiting in the wings. Shelly has a way to produce widgets for $8.50 while Mark can only be profitable at $12 but his widgets have a lot more features.

There are only a couple of things that will stop both of them starting businesses to compete with John: government regulation and high taxes.

Apart f ...[text shortened]... low prices, and high employment. Socialism/government interference does the reverse.

There are only a couple of things that will stop both of them starting businesses to compete with John: government regulation and high taxes.

Of course everyone has access to unlimited starting capital. I think I might start a steel mill tomorrow. Just going to call the bank to give me a loan, BRB.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
[b]There are only a couple of things that will stop both of them starting businesses to compete with John: government regulation and high taxes.

Of course everyone has access to unlimited starting capital. I think I might start a steel mill tomorrow. Just going to call the bank to give me a loan, BRB.[/b]

Spruce went to Day 1 of ECO 101 where they taught the simplified perfect competition model of capitalism. Unfortunately, he never went back to class.

EDIT: I wonder where I proposed that 70% tax on the rich that spruce said I did ..............................

Originally posted by no1marauder
Spruce went to Day 1 of ECO 101 where they taught the simplified perfect competition model of capitalism. Unfortunately, he never went back to class.

EDIT: I wonder where I proposed that 70% tax on the rich that spruce said I did ..............................

He has probably mistaken you for me, I have argued for a 70% top marginal income tax rate. Of course that has copulate all to do with how well one can own and run a business (at least not directly, indirectly it's beneficial to business in general).

Originally posted by no1marauder
Spruce went to Day 1 of ECO 101 where they taught the simplified perfect competition model of capitalism. Unfortunately, he never went back to class.

EDIT: I wonder where I proposed that 70% tax on the rich that spruce said I did ..............................

One of your frequent references to the prosperous 1950's when top marginal rates were in the 70-90% range, probably. Even when such rates had nothing to do with producing that prosperity (actually had contributed to destroying it by the 70's).

Do you deny advocating very high (e.g. >50% ) taxes on the rich?

Originally posted by spruce112358
One of your frequent references to the prosperous 1950's when top marginal rates were in the 70-90% range, probably. Even when such rates had nothing to do with producing that prosperity (actually had contributed to destroying it by the 70's).

Do you deny advocating very high (e.g. >50% ) taxes on the rich?

IIRC, No1 has advocated returning to the Clinton era tax rates (maybe a little higher) and treating capital gains and inheritances as ordinary income.

This would be a huge tax increase, but would not be 70% or even 50% (on the federal level, anyway).

Originally posted by spruce112358
One of your frequent references to the prosperous 1950's when top marginal rates were in the 70-90% range, probably. Even when such rates had nothing to do with producing that prosperity (actually had contributed to destroying it by the 70's).

Do you deny advocating very high (e.g. >50% ) taxes on the rich?

Some actual evidence to support the claim that high marginal tax rates were "destroying prosperity" by the 1970s would be appreciated. I don't think that anyone has claimed high marginal rates on the rich produce prosperity; the claim (based on overwhelming evidence) is that they do not impede it.

sh76 accurately summarized my present position regarding personal income taxes. I have, however, expressed support for some enhanced business credits like immediate capitalization of purchases of machinery and equipment and reduction of business tax (perhaps even to zero) for firms which increase their workforce by X amount (assuming they pay market wages and provide health insurance). Your assumption that rich folks spend all their money in innovative, job creating ways is silly nonsense.