-
Website
http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle -
Original page
http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2005/02/22/jonathan-chait-confirmation-bias-in-one-satirical-lesson/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
Regarding this:
David Friedman made a similar point a few years ago in post the rest of which I disagree with (and it's probably one of the only things he has every written that I find disagreeble). Here's how he put it:
(1) The evidence--empirical and scientific--bearing on the case is conflicting and complex, and thus hard to assess and evaluate.
(2) Even where we agree fully about the kinds of considerations that are relevant, we may disagree about their weight and so arrive at different judgments.
(3) To some extent (how great we cannot tell) the way we assess evidence and weigh moral and political values is shaped by our total experience.
(4) Often there are different kinds of normative considerations of different force on both sides of an issue and it is difficult to make an overall assessment.
The burdens of judgment are sufficient to explain reasonable disagreement between libertarians, egalitarian liberals, and conservatives. Adherents of each of these traditions make reasonable yet incompatible judgments about justice, moral values, and the relevant evidence (within certain bounds). So against Chait, we don't need to explain disagreement between liberals and conservatives by appealing to the notion that liberals embrace empiricism while conservatives are ideological. We only need to point to the differing reasonable ways in which liberals and conservatives interpret evidence and endorse moral principles.
So this is basically to say what you said, but I thought I would sneek in some Rawls while we're at it.
Take school vouchers. The main goals are to weaken the teachers unions (strong Democratic supports) and channel money to religious institutions (strong Republican supporters). No one really cares if it will provide for a better education system...though the Republicans always pay a few shills to say vouchers are about the children.
Taken from the Georgia Public Policy Foundation:
The Children’s Education Foundation (CEF) was started in August of 1992 with a gift of $1 million from a successful Atlanta businessman who wanted to provide a choice of educational opportunities to low-income families. Because of limited finances, these families had no choice in where their children went to school.
The program was designed to provide participating families with a 50 percent financial scholarship (in the form of a voucher) toward the tuition cost at a school of the parents’ choice, either public or private. The other half of the tuition would have to be paid by the family.
Despite the availability of a “free” education at their assigned public school, many times more low-income families applied to participate in the program than could be accommodated. Within the first week of the program’s announcement, CEF received more than 500 applications for the 200 slots, and was forced to cut off applications when the number reached nearly 1,000.
Being able to remain at the public school system of her early school years (City of Decatur) gave Tiffany much needed stability in the seventh grade when her family was falling apart and she was faced with having to move to an inferior and unfamiliar middle school. (Tiffany’s residence was moved out of Decatur, so she was faced with a $2,250 out-of-district tuition to remain in her excellent public school, Renfroe Middle School.)
The Amish people in the Pennsylvania Dutch country are free to attend their own schools and to follow the way of life that they as a community have chosen. As with the Amish people, children in inner-city Atlanta, and many others throughout the entire metropolitan area, also want to fulfill their hopes and dreams by getting the best education available. Therefore, those hopes and dreams may not be fulfilled by attending the public school to which they are assigned. For example, Murjan Ali’s dreams include attending a Black Muslim school. For Micha and Rina Ghertner, it is attending Yeshiva, a Hebrew school.
For these children and many more, the privately-funded voucher program of the Children’s Education Foundation is their only hope — their ticket out. Being financially disadvantaged, these children would have no alternative to the schools assigned to them, except for CEF.
----
So tell me again, monkeyboy: who doesn't really care about providing a better education system?
This also seems to be a private effort, not a government program. I don't think anyone doubts rich kids (and kids helped by rich people) have better schools open to them.
Government funded vouchers would take money away from public schools...
Don't change points in midstream. Your "point" was that vouchers are really just a vast right-wing conspiracy to channel money to strong Republican supporters for political results.
As the Supreme Court itself recognized, it is the families who ultimately decide whether their vouchers will be spent on religious schools or secular schools, not the government.
And I don't know whether you know this or not, but you may want to rethink exactly how much support Republicans get from Jews and Black Muslims. Surely two of the most widely represented groups in the Republican base.
This also seems to be a private effort, not a government program. I don't think anyone doubts rich kids (and kids helped by rich people) have better schools open to them.
And yet, acknowledging this, you still wish to deny these same opportunities to poor children. Shame on you for calling yourself a liberal.
Government funded vouchers would take money away from public schools...
...And give it to poor children so that they can go to better schools. You seem more concerned with giving money to public schools than you do with actually doing things that help the children who go to these schools.
This time, I think, you went just a little too over the top to fool anyone. School vouchers as wealth transfer from the Democratic poor to the Republican rich?
Now that's some level-headed empiricism!
Take the war in Iraq. It's obvious the Republicans calculated their chances of re-election would be better off if we invaded Iraq, so they did. it. Their publicly stated reason for going in changed frequently, but the real reason didn't. That their pals in the defense industry cleaned up was a bonus, too.
Same thing with the recent restriction of lawsuits against companies. Trial Lawyers are a big supporter of the Democrats. This bill was just an attempt to limit their income.
Again, that Rebublican supporters don't have to worry so much if one of their products kills or maims a bunch of people is a bonus. I can't even remember what the publicly stated reason for this bill was...something about protecting consumers by limiting their right to sue a company?
Political power gain + economic gain for your supporters = passed bill.
You are proposing diverting stolen tax money so that the children of the improvident poor can get better educations.
You even advocate giving poor children the same opportunities as richer children, in direct contradiction of the sainted Hayek's writings on the subject.
What will this do to their parents' incentives? And you call yourself an anarcho-capitalist.
Where did Hayek say that one shouldn't divert stolen tax money from an entirely unneeded welfare benefit to rich families to a welfare benefit to poor families? If I recall, Hayek was all in favor of providing a minimum floor for the poor.
Shifting already stolen tax money to more efficient and more moral uses in no way conflicts with anarcho-capitalism. I'd prefer to get the government out of the education business altogether, but until that happens, means testing and school choice for poor children is the way to go.
Where do you get the idea that Republicans came up with this idea? Just like Social Security privatization, school choice is an issue that libertarians like Milton Friedman and the Cato Institute have been advocating for decades, and has only recently been adopted by Republicans. I could care less what their motives might be. I judge public policies by their expected consequences, and not by the motives of the people who propose them.
Your M.O. seems to be:
Step 1: Assume all Republicans intend to do evil.
Step 2: Conclude from Step 1 that any policies proposed by Republicans are necessarily evil, because that is what Republicans intend to do.
Step 3: Profit!
(PS. What was Clinton's reason for the Balkan interventions? I'm personally inclined to believe that he, just like Bush, sent in troops because he thought it was the right thing to do.
Are you going to claim he's also in the pocket of the Miltiary Industrial Complex(tm), or are things Different When It's A Democrat? Either one would be interesting to watch you try and rationalise.)
I'm not saying the Democrats are any less calculating than the Republicans.
Take the Social Security 'reform' effort led by the Republicans. There are plenty of ways to extend the life of SS with small adjustments in retirement age, benefit calulations, tax rates, etc.
Instead, the Republicans propose private accounts. That these accounts will give Wall Street firms (leading Republican supporters, natch) tens if not hundreds of billions in windfall bucks isn't even disputed by Bush.
How transparent can you get?
The thought that anything gets done in Washington because it's the right thing to do is laughable.
I just finished writing that the effort is not being led by Republicans, but by libertarians. The Republicans only followed after the fact.
There are plenty of ways to extend the life of SS with small adjustments in retirement age, benefit calulations, tax rates, etc.
Sure, and there may have been plenty of ways to extend the institution of slavery. Why we would want to extend the either of these two dreadful (but certainly not on the same level ethically) social institutions is beyond me. Privatization is a step towards ending it, not mending it, and that's a good thing.
That these accounts will give Wall Street firms (leading Republican supporters, natch) tens if not hundreds of billions in windfall bucks isn't even disputed by Bush.
And why should it be? Doesn't any large privatization effort necessarily give private firms hundreds of billions in windfall bucks? That's simply the definition of privatization: instead of the government taking people's money through taxation, firms and customers trade value for value. What's the problem?
The thought that anything gets done in Washington because it's the right thing to do is laughable.
And yet you want to solidify the statist system which you yourself admit is easily and inevitably corruptable? Whose laughing now, monkyboy?
Insofar as we can provide better opportunities for the disadvantaged without engaging in political violence to force others to submit to our authority, that is most certainly a good thing. The fact that liberals like monkyboy say they want to improve educational opportunities for poor children, yet seem more concerned with making sure lots of money goes to public schools than with making sure actual children get what the tax dollars are paying for, is at once both incredibly humorous and incredibly frightening. It shows where some people's real priorities are: not on helping people; but instead on maintaining political power at any cost. (borrowing a concept from monkeyboy himself)
If we were starting from scratch, maybe vouchers would be the way to go. But we have invested trillions of dollars in our current education system and in most cases it provides a perfectly good result.
Libertarians seem perfectly happy to ignore the massive transition costs of their programs, and they cannot guarantee a better result, just the idea that maybe their system will work better than the current one.
Poor education of a student can be attributed to poor parent involvement as much as 'bad' schools. Handing the daughter of a single-parent crack addict $5000 a year ain't gonna get her a better education.
Yeah, go ahead, somebody: "Pointing out grammar and spelling mistakes is poor Web etiquette." Bullshit. That's an antiquated canard from the days when the Internet was dominated by a bunch of math geeks who couldn't spell or use grammar properly.
In 2005, pointing out grammar and spelling mistakes is perfectly proper. It's not only proper, it's commendable. The world needs to spin more efficiently, and helping others to communicate with precision only helps that cause.
This blog's author can help the world spin more efficiently by remembering the following:
-- "It's" is a contraction of "it is" or "it has."
-- "Its" is the possessive form of the pronoun "it."
Another old Internet myth is that when a poster corrects the spelling or grammar of another poster, he inevitably makes a spelling or grammar mistake in his own post. If someone can actually find an error in this post, I welcome it.
Actually, for the people who can least afford a decent education, it provides not only a lousy education but little chance for any other. This isn't to say that I support vouchers - I don't - but your argument is simply that we've spent so much money for mediocre results that it would be foolish to do something to get better results. That seems, at best, retarded.
Libertarians seem perfectly happy to ignore the massive transition costs of their programs
Since most libertarian programmes are actually a reduction or abolition of other programmes, the transition costs are nearly non-existent or even negative. Vouchers have a small transition cost, and the thorough, correct libertarian solution also has a small transition cost.
- Josh
when he cites his list of certain outcomes:
... he is discussing tangible things -- not ideas but material, which is to say not ideology but materialism. friedman, for his part, when he says
... is in fact reciting ideology. he may feel it derived of empirical evidence, but it is a value judgement. freedom is NOT an a priori good; as hume demonstrated so clearly, there is no such thing.
unfortunately, chait (as you well note) does not recognize this point as applying to himself -- his views are no less intrinsic value judgements. he simply places value on utility over individuality.
and therein the confusion -- "liberal" is a word too abused to have meaning. chait seems to mean materialist. you seem to mean libertarian, when you say
both have been called liberal. and there are empirical examples to support both.
- Josh
Small transition cost?
I think this fits in with Will's original post nicely. An average elementary school costs about $30 million to build. Throw in books, cubbies, school buses, etc. and you are looking at over $50 million. There is one in every neighborhood in America.
School districts enjoy certain economies of scale because they are educating every kid in America. Under the voucher program, the cost of replacing one elementary school with 30-40 smaller ones to suit the tastes of different parents would probably double or triple the costs.
There may be no transition costs for the government, but someone will have to pay these costs...
A more likely explanation is that the people who most need insurance will be unable to afford buying their own plan. Ever hear of a pre-existing condition clause? These are inherently adverse-selective. I would add that they're a market failure as well since the chronic, day-to-day medical expenses, i.e. the ones most likely to be financially crushing, are the ones that aren't covered.
More directly, Will, when was the last time you couldn't afford medical care that you desperately needed? I have Crohns disease, and a few years ago I was unable to afford my $500 a month prescriptions on my $7 an hour job. I have a 10 inch scar from my sternum to my crotch, where they took out a big chunk of my intestine, to show for it. I also ran up thousands of dollars of credit card debt during that period of time on my prescription bills. There comes a point when you are forced to choose financial ruin or physical ruin.
As for Tyler Cowen, the whole "people who need insurance are too irresponsible to buy it" line isn't quite insulting enough. He should come out and say what he means -- people in the situation I used to be in should just die because we can't afford our medical bills. Asshole...
Granted the people who are very high risk are unlikely to find insurance, but I doubt many of them would want it anyways since the premium would be so high.
Insurance only applies when an event is uncertain and for the most part unlikely. Hence the person with a pre-existing condition can't get insurance because the cost of insurance would be equal to the cost of the medical treatement.
Only if the insurance company doesn't know about it, and doesn't have the clause you note. Forcing insurance companies not to have such clauses would be very bad in that it would raise everybody's rates and likely result in more people not having insurance not less.
This is not really a market failure in that the market would never have worked even in ideal circumstances. Most market failures such as externalities, adverse selection, moral hazard and even public goods result from non-ideal circumstances (e.g. imperfect information, ill defined property rights, etc.).
He isn't saying that at all, and putting words in his mouth is dishonest.
As for your plight exactly what would you have other people do? Medical resources are not infinite and if some are given to you that means other have to go without. Exactly who should go without and who should decide? Do we want that decision to be politicized? Even if it is politicized that doesn't mean you'll get the treatment you want or even need.
School districts enjoy certain economies of scale because they are educating every kid in America. Under the voucher program, the cost of replacing one elementary school with 30-40 smaller ones to suit the tastes of different parents would probably double or triple the costs.
I teach part-time for Kaplan, a company that specializes in test preparation. They have a large number of offices with classroom facilities in every state in the U.S. (and multiple in driving distance from me), and they also offer classes at local schools and other facitilities. Their offices are nothing more than your standard strip-mall office complex, like a dentists office with larger rooms. Yet I doubt they spend anywhere near the amount of money you cited.
You are stuck in the mold of thinking that the free market will provide education in exactly the same way that the government monopoly does. Life doesn't quite work like that, Bub.
And anyway, why do you care so much about the costs entrepreneurs and their venture capitalists will have to pay to create new schools? Since when is that a concern of statists? You guys are able to think of the most absurd reasons to reject a free market in education when the serious problems of state monopoly education are staring you directly in the face.
This is not a market failure of insurance because it falls outside the definition of insurance. Insurance insures against risk. Pre-existing conditions are not a risk; they are a certainty.
Maybe you could say that this is a general failure of the market, but that is not a new complaint; everyone already knows that the "market" itself cannot provide charity to people who can't afford things. That is something only charitable people and organizations, or thieving governments, can do.
The idea that people are going to vote for a school that resembles "nothing more than your standard strip-mall office complex, like a dentists office with larger rooms" is exactly...zero.
Imagine having to choose between a school run by Enron and a school run by Microsoft:
I have a complaint against a teacher, I gotta sit on hold for two hours before getting to talk to some teenager in India reading off a script...perfect!
Or maybe the school my kid's in has all its money looted by executives...and in the middle of the year I have to take a month off work to find a new one...that I have to pay for myself...brilliant!
I'd rather vote for that private army you guys keep pushing...hehe :)
I have a complaint against a teacher, I gotta sit on hold for two hours before getting to talk to some teenager in India reading off a script...perfect!
Kaplan is a private corporation, and yet all teachers must provide students with their email address and/or a phone number and are required to respond within 24 hours to any query.
Or maybe the school my kid's in has all its money looted by executives...and in the middle of the year I have to take a month off work to find a new one...that I have to pay for myself...brilliant!
Would you like me to point you to the many cases of government bureaucrats and teacher's union thugs looting the money that should have been spent on education? Or how about the time that one of my sister's teachers got sick in the middle of the year and was replaced with a incompetent substitute? (One of the reasons my sister switched schools, incidentally.)
I'd rather vote for that private army you guys keep pushing...hehe :)
Much worse than that public army currently using your tax dollars to wage a war against a country that represented no threat to you or me.
I think the libertarians here miss the point about adverse selection. It is a theoretical problem with markets with asymmetrical information. If there is a well-functioning insurance market, then someone has found a way to overcome it.
But one insight behind social democracy is that many socially-desirable insurance markets don't exist. Another is that people are rationally ingnorang about risk, and so can be better off when a paternalistic state makes them pay for insurance against risks they would otherwise ignore.
Or you could find a school that allows for month-to-month payments. My son goes to a private school and that is how 95%+ of the parents pay. I also tell people to look for this when looking for a martial arts school. With the latter not because of "looting" but because I view the month-to-month schools as being more interested in teaching the art than making a quick buck.
Yes, but it usually entails things like different permiums and deductibles, contracts that result in non-coverage if the hidden information is revealed etc. All of these things modern day progressives see as unfair.
What is truly hypocritical about the modern progressives is that they don't seem to see the unfairness of those with the hidden information taking advantage of not just the insurance company (i.e., people), but also of the insurance companies other customers (more people). I'm not sure if this is due to some sort of schizophrenic like nature of the progressive philosophy (corporations are bad, profit making is bad, etc.) or just simple ignorance.