OT: Choice and Milton Friedman

Information for the liberals on this group:

Free to Choose
After 50 years, education vouchers are beginning to catch on.

BY MILTON FRIEDMAN
Thursday, June 9, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT
Little did I know when I published an article in 1955 on "The Role of
Government in Education" that it would lead to my becoming an activist for a
major reform in the organization of schooling, and indeed that my wife and I
would be led to establish a foundation to promote parental choice. The
original article was not a reaction to a perceived deficiency in schooling.
The quality of schooling in the United States then was far better than it is
now, and both my wife and I were satisfied with the public schools we had
attended. My interest was in the philosophy of a free society. Education was
the area that I happened to write on early. I then went on to consider other
areas as well. The end result was "Capitalism and Freedom," published seven
years later with the education article as one chapter.

With respect to education, I pointed out that government was playing three
major roles: (1) legislating compulsory schooling, (2) financing schooling,
(3) administering schools. I concluded that there was some justification for
compulsory schooling and the financing of schooling, but "the actual
administration of educational institutions by the government, the
'nationalization,' as it were, of the bulk of the 'education industry' is
much more difficult to justify on [free market] or, so far as I can see, on
any other grounds." Yet finance and administration "could readily be
separated. Governments could require a minimum of schooling financed by
giving the parents vouchers redeemable for a given sum per child per year to
be spent on purely educational services. . . . Denationalizing schooling," I
went on, "would widen the range of choice available to parents. . . . If
present public expenditure were made available to parents regardless of
where they send their children, a wide variety of schools would spring up to
meet the demand. . . . Here, as in other fields, competitive enterprise is
likely to be far more efficient in meeting consumer demand than either
nationalized enterprises or enterprises run to serve other purposes."

Though the article, and then "Capitalism and Freedom," generated some
academic and popular attention at the time, so far as we know no attempts
were made to introduce a system of educational vouchers until the Nixon
administration, when the Office of Economic Opportunity took up the idea and
offered to finance the actual experiments. One result of that initiative was
an ambitious attempt to introduce vouchers in the large cities of New
Hampshire, which appeared to be headed for success until it was aborted by
the opposition of the teachers unions and the educational
administrators--one of the first instances of the oppositional role they
were destined to play in subsequent decades. Another result was an
experiment in California's Alum Rock school system involving a choice of
schools within a public system.

What really led to increased interest in vouchers was the deterioration of
schooling, dating in particular from 1965 when the National Education
Association converted itself from a professional association to a trade
union. Concern about the quality of education led to the establishment of
the National Commission of Excellence in Education, whose final report, "A
Nation at Risk," was published in 1983. It used the following quote from
Paul Copperman to dramatize its own conclusion:

"Each generation of Americans has outstripped its parents in education, in
literacy, and in economic attainment. For the first time in the history of
our country, the educational skills of one generation will not surpass, will
not equal, will not even approach, those of their parents."

"A Nation at Risk" stimulated much soul-searching and a whole series of
major attempts to reform the government educational system. These reforms,
however extensive or bold, have, it is widely agreed, had negligible effect
on the quality of the public school system. Though spending per pupil has
more than doubled since 1970 after allowing for inflation, students continue
to rank low in international comparisons; dropout rates are high; scores on
SATs and the like have fallen and remain flat. Simple literacy, let alone
functional literacy, in the United States is almost surely lower at the
beginning of the 21st century than it was a century earlier. And all this is
despite a major increase in real spending per student since "A Nation at
Risk" was published.

One result has been experimentation with such alternatives as vouchers, tax
credits, and charter schools. Government voucher programs are in effect in a
few places (Wisconsin, Ohio, Florida, the District of Columbia); private
voucher programs are widespread; tax credits for educational expenses have
been adopted in at least three states and tax credit vouchers (tax credits
for gifts to scholarship-granting organizations) in three states. In
addition, a major legal obstacle to the adoption of vouchers was removed
when the Supreme Court affirmed the legality of the Cleveland voucher in
2002. However, all of these programs are limited; taken together they cover
only a small fraction of all children in the country.
Throughout this long period, we have been repeatedly frustrated by the gulf
between the clear and present need, the burning desire of parents to have
more control over the schooling of their children, on the one hand, and the
adamant and effective opposition of trade union leaders and educational
administrators to any change that would in any way reduce their control of
the educational system.

We have been involved in two initiatives in California to enact a statewide
voucher system (in 1993 and 2000). In both cases, the initiatives were
carefully drawn up, and the voucher sums moderate. In both cases, nine
months or so before the election, public opinion polls recorded a sizable
majority in favor of the initiative. In addition, of course, there was a
sizable group of fervent supporters, whose hopes ran high of finally getting
control of their children's schooling. In each case, about six months before
the election, the voucher opponents launched a well-financed and thoroughly
unscrupulous campaign against the initiative. Television ads blared that
vouchers would break the budget, whereas in fact they would reduce spending
since the proposed voucher was to be only a fraction of what government was
spending per student. Teachers were induced to send home with their students
misleading propaganda against the initiative. Dirty tricks of every variety
were financed from a very deep purse. The result was to convert the initial
majority into a landslide defeat. This has also occurred in Washington
state, Colorado and Michigan. Opposition like this explains why progress has
been so slow in such a good cause.

The good news is that, despite these setbacks, public interest in and
support for vouchers and tax credits continues to grow. Legislative
proposals to channel government funds directly to students rather than to
schools are under consideration in something like 20 states. Sooner or later
there will be a breakthrough; we shall get a universal voucher plan in one
or more states. When we do, a competitive private educational market serving
parents who are free to choose the school they believe best for each child
will demonstrate how it can revolutionize schooling.

Mr. Friedman, chairman of the Milton and Rose D. Friedman Foundation, is a
senior research fellow at the Hoover Institution and a Nobel laureate in
economics.

Re: Choice and Milton Friedman

If you want choice, nobody is stopping you from sending your kids to private
schools. Free public schools are a form of welfare, and welfare receipients
shouldn't b(*ch about choice.

"NoEd" <> wrote in message
news:
> Information for the liberals on this group:
>
> Free to Choose
> After 50 years, education vouchers are beginning to catch on.
>

Re: Choice and Milton Friedman

That's such a BS argument, TK.

Why shouldn't people demand that the tax dollars they pay be used to get the
best education for kids possible? And if that education happens to be at
private schools, then why not use tax dollars to contract for the education
of kids in these schools? This is still some kind of democracy, ya know.
Plus, for Pete's sake, we DO use tax dollars to contract for the education
of kids in private schools at the COLLEGE and community college levels.
Works great. It deserves a chance at the secondary school level.

"TK Sung" <> wrote
> If you want choice, nobody is stopping you from sending your kids to
private
> schools. Free public schools are a form of welfare, and welfare
receipients
> shouldn't b(*ch about choice.

Re: Choice and Milton Friedman

"Elle" <> wrote in message
news:25lqe.2123$
>
> Why shouldn't people demand that the tax dollars they pay be used to get
the
> best education for kids possible?
>
That's a "nationalization" of education, an exact opposite of what
conservertives stand for. It's just like that dumb ass privatization of SS,
which is actually a nationalization of 401k.

Re: Choice and Milton Friedman

"TK Sung" <> wrote

> If you want choice, nobody is stopping you from sending your kids to
> private
> schools. Free public schools are a form of welfare, and welfare
> receipients
> shouldn't b(*ch about choice.

Where do they have "free" public schools?

Re: Choice and Milton Friedman

"TK Sung" <> wrote
> "Elle" <> wrote
> > Why shouldn't people demand that the tax dollars they pay be used to get
> the
> > best education for kids possible?
> >
> That's a "nationalization" of education, an exact opposite of what
> conservertives stand for. It's just like that dumb ass privatization of
SS,
> which is actually a nationalization of 401k.

One cannot rationally equate the risk of treasuries v. stocks to the risk of
private schools vs. public schools.

Proof of your being irrational here is that, if we follow your reasoning,
we'll do away with Pell grants and in-state tuition breaks, both of which
pit private v. public, with excellent, market results.

Re: Choice and Milton Friedman

"Elle" <> wrote

> That's such a BS argument, TK.
>
> Why shouldn't people demand that the tax dollars they pay be used to get
> the
> best education for kids possible? And if that education happens to be at
> private schools, then why not use tax dollars to contract for the
> education
> of kids in these schools?

Because public ed is just that. You want private, go for it.
Why would you be worried about it. You hate men, you will have no children.
You are here on this planet to have children, so, you are here without
purpose.

Re: Choice and Milton Friedman

"Elle" <> wrote

> Proof of your being irrational here is that,

Elle, with all due respect, you are the dumbest ass I've ever come across.
Even Herb put you in your place.

Re: Choice and Milton Friedman

"Slim" <> wrote
> "Elle" <> wrote
>
> > That's such a BS argument, TK.
> >
> > Why shouldn't people demand that the tax dollars they pay be used to get
> > the
> > best education for kids possible? And if that education happens to be at
> > private schools, then why not use tax dollars to contract for the
> > education
> > of kids in these schools?
>
> Because public ed is just that.

No it isn't. At the college level, "public ed" also means paying for kids to
go to private colleges using taxpayer dollars.

> You want private, go for it.
> Why would you be worried about it. You hate men, you will have no
children.

Also false. You're on a roll.

> You are here on this planet to have children, so, you are here without
> purpose.

Nice slam to those who are infertile.

Re: Choice and Milton Friedman

"Slim" <> wrote
> "Elle" <> wrote
>
> > Proof of your being irrational here is that,
>
> Elle, with all due respect, you are the dumbest ass I've ever come across.
> Even Herb put you in your place.

Nothing like a fifth grade girls' clique to back up an idiot's reasoning.

Re: Choice and Milton Friedman

Surely this is the most boring and irrelevant OT topic yet! Has everyone
lost interest in investing? Isn't there an education NG for all this stuff?

Elle wrote:
> "Slim" <> wrote
>
>>"Elle" <> wrote
>>
>>
>>>That's such a BS argument, TK.
>>>
>>>Why shouldn't people demand that the tax dollars they pay be used to get
>>>the
>>>best education for kids possible? And if that education happens to be at
>>>private schools, then why not use tax dollars to contract for the
>>>education
>>>of kids in these schools?
>>
>>Because public ed is just that.
>
>
> No it isn't. At the college level, "public ed" also means paying for kids to
> go to private colleges using taxpayer dollars.
>
>
>>You want private, go for it.
>>Why would you be worried about it. You hate men, you will have no
>
> children.
>
> Also false. You're on a roll.
>
>
>>You are here on this planet to have children, so, you are here without
>>purpose.
>
>
> Nice slam to those who are infertile.
>
>

Re: Choice and Milton Friedman

"Elle" <> wrote

>> Because public ed is just that.
>
> No it isn't. At the college level, "public ed" also means paying for kids
> to
> go to private colleges using taxpayer dollars.

Yes it is. We aren't talking about college sweetie.

>> You want private, go for it.
>> Why would you be worried about it. You hate men, you will have no
> children.
>
> Also false. You're on a roll.

You have no hope.

>> You are here on this planet to have children, so, you are here without
>> purpose.
>
> Nice slam to those who are infertile.

It is so obvious that you prefer women, I don't have a problem with that, I
do too.

Re: Choice and Milton Friedman

"David Wilkinson" <> wrote

> Surely this is the most boring and irrelevant OT topic yet! Has everyone
> lost interest in investing? Isn't there an education NG for all this
> stuff?

I agree, but it sure did get a lot of hits.
Sam must have died, hpoefully in the name of making the US a more beautiful
place.

Re: Choice and Milton Friedman

"Elle" <> wrote in message
news:3Nlqe.2145$
> "Slim" <> wrote
>> "Elle" <> wrote
>>
>> > Proof of your being irrational here is that,
>>
>> Elle, with all due respect, you are the dumbest ass I've ever come
>> across.
>> Even Herb put you in your place.
>
> Nothing like a fifth grade girls' clique to back up an idiot's reasoning.

You should know. Want a PhD, just say you have one.
Did that nasty cat that came under your care die? You lost that argument as
well.
You are out of your element, normal human being. You can't be better, you
were born inferior.

Re: Choice and Milton Friedman

"Elle" <> wrote

>> Because public ed is just that.
>
> No it isn't. At the college level, "public ed" also means paying for kids
> to
> go to private colleges using taxpayer dollars.

If that's true then they should put a stop to it right now!!

>> You are here on this planet to have children, so, you are here without
>> purpose.
>
> Nice slam to those who are infertile.

Fertile means nothing if you are gay. You are gay, a male hater.

Re: Choice and Milton Friedman

"Slim" <> wrote in message
news:
>
> "Elle" <> wrote
>
> > Proof of your being irrational here is that,
>
> Elle, with all due respect, you are the dumbest ass I've ever come across.
> Even Herb put you in your place.

What do you mean *even Herb*? ;-)
>
>

Re: Choice and Milton Friedman

Elle,

In this case, you are right on target.


"Elle" <> wrote in message
news:3Nlqe.2145$
> "Slim" <> wrote
>> "Elle" <> wrote
>>
>> > Proof of your being irrational here is that,
>>
>> Elle, with all due respect, you are the dumbest ass I've ever come
>> across.
>> Even Herb put you in your place.
>
> Nothing like a fifth grade girls' clique to back up an idiot's reasoning.
>
>

Re: Choice and Milton Friedman

"Elle" <> wrote in message
news:hylqe.2413$
>
> One cannot rationally equate the risk of treasuries v. stocks to the risk
of
> private schools vs. public schools.
>
Whose doing that? I'm just mocking conservatives who believe in free
market, yet want the gov to run retirement savings or education. We already
have free market for both, and gov should provide only miminum welfare, not
entitlement, for people who don't have means. Speaking of pell, I wouldn't
want to subsidize people who want ivy league education when public schools
are available at a half price.

Re: Choice and Milton Friedman

"NoEd" <> wrote in message
news:
>
> Free to Choose
> After 50 years, education vouchers are beginning to catch on.
> BY MILTON FRIEDMAN
>
Hey, here is an idea, Milton. Why don't we start charging people for
education according to their income level? Then more people with enough
means will choose better, private schools on their own w/o costing the tax
payers. That's certainly more of "capitalism and freedom", isn't it?

Re: Choice and Milton Friedman

"TK Sung" <> wrote
> > "Elle" <> wrote
> > One cannot rationally equate the risk of treasuries v. stocks to the
risk
> of
> > private schools vs. public schools.
> >
> Whose doing that?

You are.

> I'm just mocking conservatives who believe in free
> market, yet want the gov to run retirement savings or education.

The 50+% of blacks supporting vouchers are not conservatives.

> We already
> have free market for both,

It's not a free market when one is so poor one does not have the option of
choosing private school and instead has to attend violent, drug-laden,
disruptive classrooms in inner city schools.

> and gov should provide only miminum welfare, not
> entitlement, for people who don't have means. Speaking of pell, I
wouldn't
> want to subsidize people who want ivy league education when public schools
> are available at a half price.

I estimate your campaign against Pell grants, and government backed,
extremely low interest student loans is beginning around 50 years too late.

You're dumb and getting worse.

"Elle" <> wrote

> It's not a free market when one is so poor one does not have the option of
> choosing private school and instead has to attend violent, drug-laden,
> disruptive classrooms in inner city schools.

Isn't that the same as saying that there isn't a free market for Ferrari's
because not everyone can afford one? You drive what you can afford.

Re: You're dumb and getting worse.

Boo-hoo....... get your head out of the clouds, or wherever it is stuck....
you're confusing issues.

What you describe is actually part of a free market.... there are people
making money selling those drugs, and people buying them. Often, with money
gotten from stealing from people like me. If you think it is so wrong, tell
them to get their morals straightened out, get off welfare, stop using
drugs...... and get their collective hands out of my pocket.

Yes, there are good people and their are bad people and the gov't has spent
billions and billions and billions of dollars to correct 'the problem', and
it has only gotten worse.... if you really want to help, start a private,
free school in one of the areas..

Oh, and you might want to spend your next vacation in Columbia explaining to
the poor who buy food with money they get for growing drugs we want them to
stop doing it and starve..... I think you have a major problem on your
hands.

Good luck.... and did I mention we've already spent billions and billions
and billions of dollars trying to fix this? And.... it is worse now than
ever.... We've lost 'the war on drugs'....... what we have now is a policy
of containment....

Aside from the above, I wish we could help everyone get a better education
and I do wish we could stop drug trafficking.. think of all the good those
billions of dollars could do..... Too bad.

Arne


> "Elle" <> wrote
>
>> It's not a free market when one is so poor one does not have the option
>> of
>> choosing private school and instead has to attend violent, drug-laden,
>> disruptive classrooms in inner city schools.

Re: You're dumb and getting worse.

The "drug problem" is a medical problem and not a law enforcement problem.


"Arne" <> wrote in message
news:u7Aqe.651$
> Boo-hoo....... get your head out of the clouds, or wherever it is
> stuck.... you're confusing issues.
>
> What you describe is actually part of a free market.... there are people
> making money selling those drugs, and people buying them. Often, with
> money gotten from stealing from people like me. If you think it is so
> wrong, tell them to get their morals straightened out, get off welfare,
> stop using drugs...... and get their collective hands out of my pocket.
>
> Yes, there are good people and their are bad people and the gov't has
> spent billions and billions and billions of dollars to correct 'the
> problem', and it has only gotten worse.... if you really want to help,
> start a private, free school in one of the areas..
>
> Oh, and you might want to spend your next vacation in Columbia explaining
> to the poor who buy food with money they get for growing drugs we want
> them to stop doing it and starve..... I think you have a major problem on
> your hands.
>
> Good luck.... and did I mention we've already spent billions and billions
> and billions of dollars trying to fix this? And.... it is worse now than
> ever.... We've lost 'the war on drugs'....... what we have now is a policy
> of containment....
>
> Aside from the above, I wish we could help everyone get a better education
> and I do wish we could stop drug trafficking.. think of all the good those
> billions of dollars could do..... Too bad.
>
> Arne
>
>
>> "Elle" <> wrote
>>
>>> It's not a free market when one is so poor one does not have the option
>>> of
>>> choosing private school and instead has to attend violent, drug-laden,
>>> disruptive classrooms in inner city schools.
>
>

Re: You're dumb and getting worse.

"NoEd" <> wrote

> The "drug problem" is a medical problem and not a law enforcement problem.

You should at least wait until noon before you hit the bottle.

Re: You're dumb and getting worse.

"Ed" <> wrote in message
news:
>
> "NoEd" <> wrote
>
>> The "drug problem" is a medical problem and not a law enforcement
>> problem.
>
> You should at least wait until noon before you hit the bottle.


No no, Ed, you got it ALL wrong!
I'm the one that hits the bottle. Remember NoEd told us that?

NoEd likes:

Acapulco Gold
Buds
Cannabis
Catnip
Colombian
DICK
Doobies
Ganja
Giggle Weed
Grass
Herb
Hemp
Joints
Mari Jane
Mexican Locoweed
Rasta
Smoking Mother Nature

Re: You're dumb and getting worse.

I have never did drugs.



"Gary C" <> wrote in message
news:KWFqe.5237$
>
> "Ed" <> wrote in message
> news:
>>
>> "NoEd" <> wrote
>>
>>> The "drug problem" is a medical problem and not a law enforcement
>>> problem.
>>
>> You should at least wait until noon before you hit the bottle.
>
>
> No no, Ed, you got it ALL wrong!
> I'm the one that hits the bottle. Remember NoEd told us that?
>
> NoEd likes:
>
> Acapulco Gold
> Buds
> Cannabis
> Catnip
> Colombian
> DICK
> Doobies
> Ganja
> Giggle Weed
> Grass
> Herb
> Hemp
> Joints
> Mari Jane
> Mexican Locoweed
> Rasta
> Smoking Mother Nature
>
>
>
>

Re: You're dumb and getting worse.

"NoEd" <> wrote

>I have never did drugs.

You have never did drugs? I have never did drugs either.

Re: You're dumb and getting worse.

"NoEd" <> wrote in message
news:

>I have never did drugs.
>

You talk funny.

Re: You're dumb and getting worse.

"Ed" <> wrote in message
news:
>
> "NoEd" <> wrote
>
>>I have never did drugs.
>
> You have never did drugs? I have never did drugs either.
>

I'll bet NoEd "did" HIMSELF, many times :-)

I never did drugs either, but I have taken drugs before.
As a matter of fact, I think I just might "take" a Clonidine right now.
Gets me REALLY wasted.

But you know what ....
For me be wonder for how long him be in country because him be talk it
funny.
Maybe him be country man of me?

Re: You're dumb and getting worse.

This looks interesting:


Review:
It is the coolest Czech beer. It is the coolest beer in the whole world.

This reminds me of Yortuk and Georg Festrunk.






"Gary C" <> wrote in message
news:OwIqe.6498$
>
> "Ed" <> wrote in message
> news:
>>
>> "NoEd" <> wrote
>>
>>>I have never did drugs.
>>
>> You have never did drugs? I have never did drugs either.
>>
>
> I'll bet NoEd "did" HIMSELF, many times :-)
>
> I never did drugs either, but I have taken drugs before.
> As a matter of fact, I think I just might "take" a Clonidine right now.
> Gets me REALLY wasted.
>
> But you know what ....
> For me be wonder for how long him be in country because him be talk it
> funny.
> Maybe him be country man of me?
>
>
>

Re: You're dumb and getting worse.

Sound bites:

Re: You're dumb and getting worse.

I have a funny feeling you DO drugs. See answer to the third question:


You really are a coward.


"Gary C" <> wrote in message
news:klIqe.6395$
>
> "NoEd" <> wrote in message
> news:
>
>>I have never did drugs.
>>
>
> You talk funny.
>
>
>

Re: You're dumb and getting worse.

"NoEd" <> wrote in message
news:

> You really are a coward.

How do you figure that?
I'd kick ya right in your balls if I met you.

Re: You're dumb and getting worse.

We will probably never meet since I don't DO truck stops. In fact, I don't
DO violence, but you shouldn't assume too much of an advantage.


"Gary C" <> wrote in message
news:VMJqe.7178$
>
> "NoEd" <> wrote in message
> news:
>
>> You really are a coward.
>
> How do you figure that?
> I'd kick ya right in your balls if I met you.
>

Re: OT: Choice and Milton Friedman

NoEd wrote:

>Information for the liberals on this group:

>Free to Choose
>After 50 years, education vouchers are beginning to catch on.

Friedman is just another ivory tower theorist out of touch with the
real world. He ignores that vouchers will simply pad private school
tuitions and end up making educaton more costly to the taxpayers, just
as government subsidies have done for everything else they've
supported.

Simpletons also ignore Friedman's brilliant failures, such as indexing
the whole Brazilian economy to halt that country's hyperinflation (only
monetary discipline finally achieved that) or, far more seriously, the
rapid transformation of the Soviet Union to a market economy, which
ignored all the shortcomings of Russian society that caused Communism
to originate there in the first place. Friedman even called for a
naval blockade of Cuba in the 1980s, in complete hypocrisy to his
libertarian philosophy, and he was influential in privatizing Chile's
social security system, which caused it to pay out just half what the
old system did.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions, usually by academics
who think the whole world is a research experiement.

Re: You're dumb and getting worse.

Ed wrote:
>This looks interesting:
>www.bottledbeer.co.uk/index.html?beerid=1044

>Review:
>It is the coolest Czech beer. It is the coolest beer in
>the whole world.

Beer with flavor is simply un-American.

Re: Choice and Milton Friedman

David Wilkinson wrote:

> Surely this is the most boring and irrelevant OT topic yet!
> Has everyone lost interest in investing? Isn't there an
> education NG for all this stuff?

To get back on topic, why can't you smell your nose? After all, the
closer something is to your nose, the higher the concentration of its
odor-causing molecules, meaning your nose should smell stronger to your
nose than anything else does. BTW beer makes you think.

Re: You're dumb and getting worse.

NoEd wrote:

> We will probably never meet since I don't DO truck stops.

Only because Motel 6 is not legally part of any truck stop.

Re: Choice and Milton Friedman

In article <>,
Norm De Plume <> wrote:
>
>
>David Wilkinson wrote:
>
>> Surely this is the most boring and irrelevant OT topic yet!
>> Has everyone lost interest in investing? Isn't there an
>> education NG for all this stuff?
>
>To get back on topic, why can't you smell your nose? After all, the
>closer something is to your nose, the higher the concentration of its
>odor-causing molecules, meaning your nose should smell stronger to your
>nose than anything else does.

What does your spit taste like?

>BTW beer makes you think.
>

"Beer, beer, my favorite drink;
It helps me piss, it helps me think!"

--
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is
poetry, imagination." -- Max Planck

Re: You're dumb and getting worse.

Well, actually, it might be Polish.... Last night at the Polish National
Home, had Okocim beer, Kapuska and golabki.... great down to earth
food...... and not (too) fattening.

Arne

"Ed" <> wrote in message
news:
> This looks interesting:
>
>
> Review:
> It is the coolest Czech beer. It is the coolest beer in the whole world.
>
> This reminds me of Yortuk and Georg Festrunk.
>
>

Re: Choice and Milton Friedman

Ed wrote:

> It is so obvious that you prefer women, I don't have a
> problem with that, I do too.

There are two good magazines for women who love women: Girlfriends and
On Our Backs. I believe both are from the same publisher but are
rather opposite, the second featuring mostly women who look like Rosie
O'Donnell while the former shows Portia De Rossi types almost
exclusively.

Re: You're dumb and getting worse.

"Arne" <> wrote in message
news:jYMqe.9978$
> Well, actually, it might be Polish.... Last night at the Polish National
> Home, had Okocim beer, Kapuska and golabki.... great down to earth
> food...... and not (too) fattening.

Sounds good to me!

Translated for the ethnically challenged

Okocim - Poland's #1 beer.
Ka-pus-ta - Sour Kraut
Go-womb-key - Cabbage rolls w/ hamburger and rice inside, simmered in a
tomato sauce.

(looks like Arne is sleeping with his bedroom window OPEN!)

Re: You're dumb and getting worse.

"Norm De Plume" <> wrote in message
news:
>
> NoEd wrote:
>
>> We will probably never meet since I don't DO truck stops.
>
> Only because Motel 6 is not legally part of any truck stop.
>

snare drum, please!

Re: You're dumb and getting worse.

"NoEd" <> wrote in message
news:
> We will probably never meet since I don't DO truck stops. In fact, I
> don't DO violence, but you shouldn't assume too much of an advantage.
>
>
> "Gary C" <> wrote in message
> news:VMJqe.7178$
>>
>> "NoEd" <> wrote in message
>> news:
>>
>>> You really are a coward.
>>
>> How do you figure that?

Answer the question.

Re: You're dumb and getting worse.

"NoEd" <> wrote in message
news:

> We will probably never meet since I don't DO truck stops.

I know we won't because you're a pussy. That's why I call you
NoDick, rather than NoEd.

The last time I took a load to Ca. I told you I was heading there, told you
where I'd be, told you what highway I would travel and told you to
meet me. Did you? But I'm the coward, eh?

Re: You're dumb and getting worse.

Coward,

I have far better things to do with my time than fight loser truckers, e.g.
making well into the six figures. I told you I don't DO violence, but I
would love to mix up with guy that sits on his butt all day and gets drunk
all the time. You have proven you are a coward because you're trying to
challenge a guy to a fight on an Internet newsgroup! By the way, the
below I don't recall. Have I really "rattled your cage" so much that you
want to fight? What the F___? You're obviously unstable, as I suspected. I
will never respond to another posting of yours.

Muhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah


"Gary C" <> wrote in message
news:%ONqe.14700$
>
> "NoEd" <> wrote in message
> news:
>
>> We will probably never meet since I don't DO truck stops.
>
> I know we won't because you're a pussy. That's why I call you
> NoDick, rather than NoEd.
>
> The last time I took a load to Ca. I told you I was heading there, told
> you
> where I'd be, told you what highway I would travel and told you to
> meet me. Did you? But I'm the coward, eh?
>
>
>
>

Re: You're dumb and getting worse.

"NoEd" <> wrote in message
news:

> I have far better things to do with my time than fight loser truckers

Who said fight? I don't want to fight, I'm too lazy for that.
I just want to kick you in your balls and then have a beer or something to
eat.

> but I would love to mix up with guy

Like I have said, you talk funny.
But really, this sounds GAY.

> Have I really "rattled your cage" so much that you want to fight?

Hey rattle this. Again, WHO said fight?

> I will never respond to another posting of yours.

Oh what the fuck? Now you tell me after you ask questions.

> Muhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah

It's MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
And FYI, it's patented and copywrited. Please make a note.

Re: You're dumb and getting worse.

NoEd wrote:
> Coward,

>I have far better things to do with my time than fight
>loser truckers, e.g. making well into the six figures.

Are you one of those shallow Bushies who sits in his cheaply built mini
mansion and values men's worth according to net worth? BTW many
truckers clear over $100K, and unlike some people they do real work.

Re: You're dumb and getting worse.

NoEd wrote:

> I don't DO violence,

Your receipt for 24 hamsters and a rubber mallet says otherwise.

Re: You're dumb and getting worse.

"Ed" <> wrote in message
news:
>
> "Elle" <> wrote
>
>> It's not a free market when one is so poor one does not have the option
>> of
>> choosing private school and instead has to attend violent, drug-laden,
>> disruptive classrooms in inner city schools.
>
> Isn't that the same as saying that there isn't a free market for Ferrari's
> because not everyone can afford one? You drive what you can afford.

That's hilarious.

Brent D. Gardner, ChFC
Chartered Financial Consultant

Re: Choice and Milton Friedman

On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 02:25:26 GMT, "Elle"
<> wrote:

>"TK Sung" <> wrote
>> > "Elle" <> wrote
>> > One cannot rationally equate the risk of treasuries v. stocks to the
>risk
>> of
>> > private schools vs. public schools.
>> >
>> Whose doing that?
>
>You are.
>
>> I'm just mocking conservatives who believe in free
>> market, yet want the gov to run retirement savings or education.
>
>The 50+% of blacks supporting vouchers are not conservatives.
>
>> We already
>> have free market for both,
>
>It's not a free market when one is so poor one does not have the option of
>choosing private school and instead has to attend violent, drug-laden,
>disruptive classrooms in inner city schools.

Some people don't have the option of buying a Cadillac because of
their income level. Should we not have a free market for cars?
>
>> and gov should provide only miminum welfare, not
>> entitlement, for people who don't have means. Speaking of pell, I
>wouldn't
>> want to subsidize people who want ivy league education when public schools
>> are available at a half price.
>
>I estimate your campaign against Pell grants, and government backed,
>extremely low interest student loans is beginning around 50 years too late.
>

Re: Choice and Milton Friedman

On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 00:06:45 GMT, "TK Sung" <>
wrote:

>
>"NoEd" <> wrote in message
>news:
>>
>> Free to Choose
>> After 50 years, education vouchers are beginning to catch on.
>> BY MILTON FRIEDMAN
>>
>Hey, here is an idea, Milton. Why don't we start charging people for
>education according to their income level? Then more people with enough
>means will choose better, private schools on their own w/o costing the tax
>payers. That's certainly more of "capitalism and freedom", isn't it?
>


Nice spin attempt but he clearly said he agreed with compulsory
education and public financing. Many high quality private schools cost
less in tuition than what the taxpayers have to pay per public school
stufent. The public schools are a disaster, with the actual job of
education nowhere on their agenda.

His point that teachers are rank-and-file labor rather than the
professionals they used to be is spot on.

Re: Choice and Milton Friedman

"Oliver Costich" <> wrote
> <> wrote:
> >"TK Sung" <> wrote
> >> > "Elle" <> wrote
> >> > One cannot rationally equate the risk of treasuries v. stocks to the
> >risk
> >> of
> >> > private schools vs. public schools.
> >> >
> >> Whose doing that?
> >
> >You are.
> >
> >> I'm just mocking conservatives who believe in free
> >> market, yet want the gov to run retirement savings or education.
> >
> >The 50+% of blacks supporting vouchers are not conservatives.
> >
> >> We already
> >> have free market for both,
> >
> >It's not a free market when one is so poor one does not have the option
of
> >choosing private school and instead has to attend violent, drug-laden,
> >disruptive classrooms in inner city schools.
>
> Some people don't have the option of buying a Cadillac because of
> their income level. Should we not have a free market for cars?

Your rebuttal is fair but I'm sure we both know there are certain
inalienable rights that all possess, regardless of income.

E.g. the right to be treated in an ER when one is critically wounded in an
accident; the right to a lawyer in criminal prosecutions; the right to have
a say in how one's tax dollars are spent.

So AFAIC it becomes a question of "how inalienable" is the right to a good
education.

By your reasoning, we could go back to the days when only the wealthy
received any kind of education. If that's your desire, fine, but I disagree
that this serves our communities, and so you individually, well.

Re: Choice and Milton Friedman

"Oliver Costich" <> wrote in message
news:
> On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 00:06:45 GMT, "TK Sung" <>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"NoEd" <> wrote in message
> >news:
> >>
> >> Free to Choose
> >> After 50 years, education vouchers are beginning to catch on.
> >> BY MILTON FRIEDMAN
> >>
> >Hey, here is an idea, Milton. Why don't we start charging people for
> >education according to their income level? Then more people with enough
> >means will choose better, private schools on their own w/o costing the
tax
> >payers. That's certainly more of "capitalism and freedom", isn't it?
> >
>
>
> Nice spin attempt but he clearly said he agreed with compulsory
> education and public financing. Many high quality private schools cost
> less in tuition than what the taxpayers have to pay per public school
> stufent.

I was impressed until I got to the next sentence:

> The public schools are a disaster, with the actual job of
> education nowhere on their agenda.

Inner city public schools tend to be a disaster.

Suburban public schools tend to do a better job than parochial schools and
produce around as many students (though of course not percentage-wise) that
go to the "best" colleges, too.

> His point that teachers are rank-and-file labor rather than the
> professionals they used to be is spot on.

It's the parents, stupid...

(A play on Jame's Carville's winning 1992 campaign slogan, "It's the
economy, stupid... ")

Re: Choice and Milton Friedman

"Elle" <> wrote

>> Some people don't have the option of buying a Cadillac because of
>> their income level. Should we not have a free market for cars?
>
> Your rebuttal is fair but I'm sure we both know there are certain
> inalienable rights that all possess, regardless of income.

Private school isn't one of them.

> E.g. the right to be treated in an ER when one is critically wounded in an
> accident; the right to a lawyer in criminal prosecutions; the right to
> have
> a say in how one's tax dollars are spent.
>
> So AFAIC it becomes a question of "how inalienable" is the right to a
> good
> education.

An education is as good as the student wants it to be. Some very smart,
brilliant even, people came out of the pulic school system, in if they were
in inner cities.

> By your reasoning, we could go back to the days when only the wealthy
> received any kind of education. If that's your desire, fine, but I
> disagree
> that this serves our communities, and so you individually, well.

Now you are just being stupid Elle. You really hate to lose gdon't you.
Especially to one from the superior sex.

Re: Choice and Milton Friedman

"Oliver Costich" <> wrote in message
news:
>
> Nice spin attempt but he clearly said he agreed with compulsory
> education and public financing.
>
Who cares what he agrees with? public financing is incompatible with
"capitalism and freedom" he espouses to begin with. Then, there is better
way to publicly finance it, so that I don't have to subsidize a guy with 4
kids when he can afford the education himself: just charge tuition and then
offer minimum grants to underprivileged kids according to their financial
needs. Then, if you want to send your kid to a more expensive school, you
make up the difference.

Re: Choice and Milton Friedman

"TK Sung" <> wrote in message
news:uf6te.4604$
>
> "Oliver Costich" <> wrote in message
> news:
> >
> > Nice spin attempt but he clearly said he agreed with compulsory
> > education and public financing.
> >
> Who cares what he agrees with? public financing is incompatible with
> "capitalism and freedom" he espouses to begin with. Then, there is better
> way to publicly finance it, so that I don't have to subsidize a guy with 4
> kids when he can afford the education himself: just charge tuition and
then
> offer minimum grants to underprivileged kids according to their financial
> needs. Then, if you want to send your kid to a more expensive school, you
> make up the difference.

So to hell with equality of opportunity? Don't we, as a society, have a
right to choose a different outcome, despite what the market would decide?
Are there better things to spend your tax money on?

-herb
>
>

Re: Choice and Milton Friedman

"Herb" <> wrote in message
news:0f9te.336707$
>
> "TK Sung" <> wrote in message
> news:uf6te.4604$
>>
>> "Oliver Costich" <> wrote in message
>> news:
>> >
>> > Nice spin attempt but he clearly said he agreed with compulsory
>> > education and public financing.
>> >
>> Who cares what he agrees with? public financing is incompatible with
>> "capitalism and freedom" he espouses to begin with. Then, there is
>> better
>> way to publicly finance it, so that I don't have to subsidize a guy with
>> 4
>> kids when he can afford the education himself: just charge tuition and
> then
>> offer minimum grants to underprivileged kids according to their financial
>> needs. Then, if you want to send your kid to a more expensive school,
>> you
>> make up the difference.
>
> So to hell with equality of opportunity? Don't we, as a society, have a
> right to choose a different outcome, despite what the market would decide?
> Are there better things to spend your tax money on?
>
> -herb

There is really no such thing as equal opportunity. Thomas Jefferson
reconginzed this fact in the this statement:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that
among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --


Men's equality is the unalinable rights endowed by their creator. None of
these are equal opportunity. In a sense, equal opportunity is an outcome,
and no free society can really guarantee outcomes. John Kerry and George
Bush had more opportunity than either of us.



>>
>>
>
>

Re: Choice and Milton Friedman

Oliver Costich wrote:

>Some people don't have the option of buying a Cadillac because of
>their income level. Should we not have a free market for cars?

Upper income people are not prohibited from buying Cadillacs, provided
they completely lack good taste.

Re: Choice and Milton Friedman

Elle wrote:

Oliver Costich" <> wrote in message
news:

>Inner city public schools tend to be a disaster.

>Suburban public schools tend to do a better job than parochial
>schools and produce around as many students (though of course
>not percentage-wise) that go to the "best" colleges, too.

I'd be surprised if a lower percentage of students from parochial
schools than surburban public schools ended up in the best colleges,
unless you're counting paraochial schools run by the churches that
dislike higher education the most (almost always those that discredit
evolution).

>>His point that teachers are rank-and-file labor rather than the
>>professionals they used to be is spot on.

>It's the parents, stupid...

I know someone who sponsors supplemental education for many
lower-income teens. He originally thought he would be helping kids who
came from the worst social backgrounds, but he learned their families
tend to be the best ones in their neighborhoods, at least as far as
divorce, employment, and parental education are concerned. Slum
families who send their children to paraochial schools are similar, so
it does seem to be the parents that matter most. On the other hand his
supplemental education is providing teens with better opportunities
than than they'd have without it.

Re: Choice and Milton Friedman

"R. Anton Rave" <> wrote
> Elle wrote:
>
> Oliver Costich" <> wrote
> >Inner city public schools tend to be a disaster.
>
> >Suburban public schools tend to do a better job than parochial
> >schools and produce around as many students (though of course
> >not percentage-wise) that go to the "best" colleges, too.
>
> I'd be surprised if a lower percentage of students from parochial
> schools than surburban public schools ended up in the best colleges,

This is what I was trying to say above in the parentheses. Namely, a
Catholic high school may graduate five kids into the Ivy leagues out of 100.
A public school may graduate five kids into the Ivies, but out of 500.

I think the public schools tend to get a much wider spectrum of
abilities/interests (e.g. more vocational students go to public schools)
among their student populations, though, so the 5/100 isn't really
comparable to the 5/500.

> unless you're counting paraochial schools run by the churches that
> dislike higher education the most (almost always those that discredit
> evolution).

I suspect the number of parochial schools that fall into the category you
describe directly above is minuscule. Catholic schools surely predominate by
far, among all parochial schools, and are not like what you describe above.

> >>His point that teachers are rank-and-file labor rather than the
> >>professionals they used to be is spot on.
>
> >It's the parents, stupid...
>
> I know someone who sponsors supplemental education for many
> lower-income teens. He originally thought he would be helping kids who
> came from the worst social backgrounds, but he learned their families
> tend to be the best ones in their neighborhoods, at least as far as
> divorce, employment, and parental education are concerned.

Is there some sort of post-o above?

If the teens are low-income, then demographics indicate that employment and
parental education should both be lower.

> Slum
> families who send their children to paraochial schools are similar, so
> it does seem to be the parents that matter most. On the other hand his
> supplemental education is providing teens with better opportunities
> than than they'd have without it.

No doubt.

Re: Choice and Milton Friedman

"Herb" <> wrote in message
news:0f9te.336707$
>
> So to hell with equality of opportunity?
>
Isn't public education an equality of opportunity enough? I went to a
public school and look how well I turned out.

Re: Choice and Milton Friedman

"TK Sung" <> wrote in message
news:m_Cte.31058$
>
> "Herb" <> wrote in message
> news:0f9te.336707$
> >
> > So to hell with equality of opportunity?
> >
> Isn't public education an equality of opportunity enough? I went to a
> public school and look how well I turned out.

As did I.

I realize that you were probably being facetious, but I thought I heard you
advocating letting parents pay to educate their kids and not burdening you
(and me) with the cost.

As bad as public education may be (and it's not always bad, obviously) it IS
an investment that pays large returns to society. You can't say that about
most of what the government spends our money on.

-herb

Re: Choice and Milton Friedman

"TK Sung" <> wrote
> "Herb" <> wrote
> > So to hell with equality of opportunity?
> >
> Isn't public education an equality of opportunity enough? I went to a
> public school and look how well I turned out.

Do you think you would have turned out as well if you'd attended an inner
city public school, with over half black and/or hispanic kids from low
income homes?

Public school should teach people to step outside their own experiences...

But shucks, private and parochial schools do not, so...

Re: Choice and Milton Friedman

Elle,

I wonder if either TK or Herb owns a foreign car? I also wonder how
indifferent they would be if forced to buy an AMC Pacer and told that if
competition were allowed, money would be taken away from the workers who
build Pacers.




"Elle" <> wrote in message
news:CQFte.7086$
> "TK Sung" <> wrote
>> "Herb" <> wrote
>> > So to hell with equality of opportunity?
>> >
>> Isn't public education an equality of opportunity enough? I went to a
>> public school and look how well I turned out.
>
> Do you think you would have turned out as well if you'd attended an inner
> city public school, with over half black and/or hispanic kids from low
> income homes?
>
> Public school should teach people to step outside their own experiences...
>
> But shucks, private and parochial schools do not, so...
>
>

Re: Choice and Milton Friedman

"NoEd" <> wrote

> I wonder if either TK or Herb owns a foreign car?

What's a foreign car?

> I also wonder how indifferent they would be if forced to buy an AMC Pacer
> and told that if competition were allowed, money would be taken away from
> the workers who build Pacers.

There is no AMC. Competition was allowed. The Pacer will be 30 this year if
you own one.

Re: Choice and Milton Friedman

Herb wrote:
> "TK Sung" <> wrote in message
> news:m_Cte.31058$
> >
> > "Herb" <> wrote in message
> > news:0f9te.336707$
> > >
> > > So to hell with equality of opportunity?
> > >
> > Isn't public education an equality of opportunity enough? I went to a
> > public school and look how well I turned out.
>
> As did I.
>
> I realize that you were probably being facetious, but I thought I heard you
> advocating letting parents pay to educate their kids and not burdening you
> (and me) with the cost.
>
> As bad as public education may be (and it's not always bad, obviously) it IS
> an investment that pays large returns to society.

Huge. Higher positive return than just about any other even road
building (once you price in the environmental and safety costs of new
roads). This extends to post secondary education as well: at the high
end, research has a return of something like 4X dollars spent (high
energy physics has one of the highest returns, and of course the vast
majority of drugs are derived from government funded science). But at
the low end as well: GI Bill, Pell Grants, community colleges etc.
Even manufacturing companies like the Japanese car transplants are
emphatic that what they want are well educated employees who are more
flexible and easier to train.

If you look at the most successful economies in the world they are also
those with the highest literacy rates, highest rates of high school
completion and entry into post secondary education, etc.

You can't say that about
> most of what the government spends our money on.

The worst example being agricultural subsidies and various tax
subsidies to different forms of business. Where you can actually show
in some cases you are *reducing* GDP by those programmes.

Defence and healthcare are the next most difficult to show value for
money. And parts of law and order (the War on Drugs is particularly
suspect in this regard).

Re: Choice and Milton Friedman

I know even you understand my point.


"Ed" <> wrote in message
news:
>
> "NoEd" <> wrote
>
>> I wonder if either TK or Herb owns a foreign car?
>
> What's a foreign car?
>
>> I also wonder how indifferent they would be if forced to buy an AMC Pacer
>> and told that if competition were allowed, money would be taken away from
>> the workers who build Pacers.
>
> There is no AMC. Competition was allowed. The Pacer will be 30 this year
> if you own one.
>
>

Re: Choice and Milton Friedman

On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 17:40:30 GMT, "Elle"
<> wrote:

>
>"Oliver Costich" <> wrote in message
>news:
>> On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 00:06:45 GMT, "TK Sung" <>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"NoEd" <> wrote in message
>> >news:
>> >>
>> >> Free to Choose
>> >> After 50 years, education vouchers are beginning to catch on.
>> >> BY MILTON FRIEDMAN
>> >>
>> >Hey, here is an idea, Milton. Why don't we start charging people for
>> >education according to their income level? Then more people with enough
>> >means will choose better, private schools on their own w/o costing the
>tax
>> >payers. That's certainly more of "capitalism and freedom", isn't it?
>> >
>>
>>
>> Nice spin attempt but he clearly said he agreed with compulsory
>> education and public financing. Many high quality private schools cost
>> less in tuition than what the taxpayers have to pay per public school
>> stufent.
>
>I was impressed until I got to the next sentence:
>
>> The public schools are a disaster, with the actual job of
>> education nowhere on their agenda.
>
>Inner city public schools tend to be a disaster.

Yes, and so do a lot of others.
>
>Suburban public schools tend to do a better job than parochial schools and
>produce around as many students (though of course not percentage-wise) that
>go to the "best" colleges, too.

Some suburban schools are better than some parochial schools. American
school K-12 are a disaster. Look at the skills of the graduates
overall.

Colleges now have to offer remedial courses to repair the omissions of
the high schools. High school algebra, for example, is routinely
offered in colleges whereas 30 years ago it was not. One reason the US
universities produce so few scientists and engineers, other than
foreign ones, is that the students are so ill prepared.

>
>> His point that teachers are rank-and-file labor rather than the
>> professionals they used to be is spot on.
>
>It's the parents, stupid...

What's the parents? The lack of interest in their childrens'
education? Wouldn't matter if the schools did their job. When teachers
were professionals and administrators were few and far between, these
issues were insignificant.

>
>(A play on Jame's Carville's winning 1992 campaign slogan, "It's the
>economy, stupid... ")
>

Re: Choice and Milton Friedman

On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 14:56:20 GMT, "Elle"
<> wrote:

>"R. Anton Rave" <> wrote
>> Elle wrote:
>>
>> Oliver Costich" <> wrote
>> >Inner city public schools tend to be a disaster.
>>
>> >Suburban public schools tend to do a better job than parochial
>> >schools and produce around as many students (though of course
>> >not percentage-wise) that go to the "best" colleges, too.
>>
>> I'd be surprised if a lower percentage of students from parochial
>> schools than surburban public schools ended up in the best colleges,
>
>This is what I was trying to say above in the parentheses. Namely, a
>Catholic high school may graduate five kids into the Ivy leagues out of 100.
>A public school may graduate five kids into the Ivies, but out of 500.

Where do you get any data about this?
>
>I think the public schools tend to get a much wider spectrum of
>abilities/interests (e.g. more vocational students go to public schools)
>among their student populations, though, so the 5/100 isn't really
>comparable to the 5/500.

Then you'd think wrong. I know of many Catholic high schools with
vocational programs, and good ones.

>
>> unless you're counting paraochial schools run by the churches that
>> dislike higher education the most (almost always those that discredit
>> evolution).
>
>I suspect the number of parochial schools that fall into the category you
>describe directly above is minuscule. Catholic schools surely predominate by
>far, among all parochial schools, and are not like what you describe above.


>
>> >>His point that teachers are rank-and-file labor rather than the
>> >>professionals they used to be is spot on.
>>
>> >It's the parents, stupid...
>>
>> I know someone who sponsors supplemental education for many
>> lower-income teens. He originally thought he would be helping kids who
>> came from the worst social backgrounds, but he learned their families
>> tend to be the best ones in their neighborhoods, at least as far as
>> divorce, employment, and parental education are concerned.
>
>Is there some sort of post-o above?
>
>If the teens are low-income, then demographics indicate that employment and
>parental education should both be lower.
>
>> Slum
>> families who send their children to paraochial schools are similar, so
>> it does seem to be the parents that matter most. On the other hand his
>> supplemental education is providing teens with better opportunities
>> than than they'd have without it.


>
>No doubt.
>

Re: Choice and Milton Friedman

On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 04:11:06 GMT, "TK Sung" <>
wrote:

>
>"Oliver Costich" <> wrote in message
>news:
>>
>> Nice spin attempt but he clearly said he agreed with compulsory
>> education and public financing.
>>
>Who cares what he agrees with? public financing is incompatible with
>"capitalism and freedom" he espouses to begin with. Then, there is better
>way to publicly finance it, so that I don't have to subsidize a guy with 4
>kids when he can afford the education himself: just charge tuition and then
>offer minimum grants to underprivileged kids according to their financial
>needs. Then, if you want to send your kid to a more expensive school, you
>make up the difference.
>

How is that inconsistent with his statement? Moreover, compuslory
education and public financing of it are what provides the labor for
the capitalist ventures. Advocating "capitalism and freedom" doesn't
require one to be stupid and short sighted.

Re: Choice and Milton Friedman

On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 07:35:24 GMT, "Herb" <> wrote:

>
>"TK Sung" <> wrote in message
>news:uf6te.4604$
>>
>> "Oliver Costich" <> wrote in message
>> news:
>> >
>> > Nice spin attempt but he clearly said he agreed with compulsory
>> > education and public financing.
>> >
>> Who cares what he agrees with? public financing is incompatible with
>> "capitalism and freedom" he espouses to begin with. Then, there is better
>> way to publicly finance it, so that I don't have to subsidize a guy with 4
>> kids when he can afford the education himself: just charge tuition and
>then
>> offer minimum grants to underprivileged kids according to their financial
>> needs. Then, if you want to send your kid to a more expensive school, you
>> make up the difference.
>
>So to hell with equality of opportunity? Don't we, as a society, have a
>right to choose a different outcome, despite what the market would decide?
>Are there better things to spend your tax money on?

Given the quality of the output from the public schools today, there
probably is.
>
>-herb
>>
>>
>

Re: Choice and Milton Friedman

On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 18:08:04 GMT, "Herb" <> wrote:

>
>"TK Sung" <> wrote in message
>news:m_Cte.31058$
>>
>> "Herb" <> wrote in message
>> news:0f9te.336707$
>> >
>> > So to hell with equality of opportunity?
>> >
>> Isn't public education an equality of opportunity enough? I went to a
>> public school and look how well I turned out.
>
>As did I.
>
>I realize that you were probably being facetious, but I thought I heard you
>advocating letting parents pay to educate their kids and not burdening you
>(and me) with the cost.
>
>As bad as public education may be (and it's not always bad, obviously) it IS
>an investment that pays large returns to society. You can't say that about
>most of what the government spends our money on.
>

The problem is that the cost keps going up and the quality of the
product keeps going down.

>-herb
>

Re: Choice and Milton Friedman

On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 17:38:00 GMT, "Elle"
<> wrote:

>"Oliver Costich" <> wrote
>> <> wrote:
>> >"TK Sung" <> wrote
>> >> > "Elle" <> wrote
>> >> > One cannot rationally equate the risk of treasuries v. stocks to the
>> >risk
>> >> of
>> >> > private schools vs. public schools.
>> >> >
>> >> Whose doing that?
>> >
>> >You are.
>> >
>> >> I'm just mocking conservatives who believe in free
>> >> market, yet want the gov to run retirement savings or education.
>> >
>> >The 50+% of blacks supporting vouchers are not conservatives.
>> >
>> >> We already
>> >> have free market for both,
>> >
>> >It's not a free market when one is so poor one does not have the option
>of
>> >choosing private school and instead has to attend violent, drug-laden,
>> >disruptive classrooms in inner city schools.
>>
>> Some people don't have the option of buying a Cadillac because of
>> their income level. Should we not have a free market for cars?
>
>Your rebuttal is fair but I'm sure we both know there are certain
>inalienable rights that all possess, regardless of income.


I agree that there are such rights. The problem is who gets to decide
what they are. People with more money can buy better education for
their children and better cars. That's how it works in our culture and
economy.
>
>E.g. the right to be treated in an ER when one is critically wounded in an
>accident; the right to a lawyer in criminal prosecutions; the right to have
>a say in how one's tax dollars are spent.

Why are these inalienable? If they are why did it take until late in
the 19th century to get them? Or were the founding fathers too stupid
to know about these "rights".


>
>So AFAIC it becomes a question of "how inalienable" is the right to a good
>education.
>
>By your reasoning, we could go back to the days when only the wealthy
>received any kind of education. If that's your desire, fine, but I disagree
>that this serves our communities, and so you individually, well.

That's hardly my reasoning. The public schools served me quite well,
but that was when education was the schools' priority and teachers
were professionals. We need to fix the public education system by
getting back to educating.
>

Re: Choice and Milton Friedman

On 20 Jun 2005 00:43:26 -0700, "R. Anton Rave" <>
wrote:

>
>
>Oliver Costich wrote:
>
>>Some people don't have the option of buying a Cadillac because of
>>their income level. Should we not have a free market for cars?
>
>Upper income people are not prohibited from buying Cadillacs, provided
>they completely lack good taste.

While I'm not likely to buy one, out of preference, not cost, some of
the recent ones seem to be decent vehicles if you don't mind world
class depreciation.

Re: Choice and Milton Friedman

"Oliver Costich" <> wrote
E wrote
> >Inner city public schools tend to be a disaster.
>
> Yes, and so do a lot of others.

Inner city public schools and some rural schools IIRC take the prize,
though.

> >Suburban public schools tend to do a better job than parochial schools
and
> >produce around as many students (though of course not percentage-wise)
that
> >go to the "best" colleges, too.
>
> Some suburban schools are better than some parochial schools. American
> school K-12 are a disaster. Look at the skills of the graduates
> overall.

The graduates overall continue to fill colleges and universities. SAT scores
(unadjusted) continue to rise. I don't know what you mean.

> Colleges now have to offer remedial courses to repair the omissions of
> the high schools. High school algebra, for example, is routinely
> offered in colleges whereas 30 years ago it was not.

Students taking this are the exception, not the rule; typically don't get
credit for this course; typically are in community college.

> One reason the US
> universities produce so few scientists and engineers, other than
> foreign ones, is that the students are so ill prepared.

I think it's more that it's a hard major. When one can be a business major
and have similar starting pay, guess what the American kid is going to
choose?

Also, I don't think undergraduate engineering enrollment is predominantly
foreigh. It's at the graduate school level, where assistantships galore are
available, that the foreign students start predominating.

> >> His point that teachers are rank-and-file labor rather than the
> >> professionals they used to be is spot on.
> >
> >It's the parents, stupid...
>
> What's the parents? The lack of interest in their childrens'
> education?

Yes.

Re: Choice and Milton Friedman

E
O
> >This is what I was trying to say above in the parentheses. Namely, a
> >Catholic high school may graduate five kids into the Ivy leagues out of
100.
> >A public school may graduate five kids into the Ivies, but out of 500.
>
> Where do you get any data about this?

Anecdotal reading and knowledge of the fact that public schools have kids of
a wider range of abilities.

> >I think the public schools tend to get a much wider spectrum of
> >abilities/interests (e.g. more vocational students go to public schools)
> >among their student populations, though, so the 5/100 isn't really
> >comparable to the 5/500.
>
> Then you'd think wrong. I know of many Catholic high schools with
> vocational programs, and good ones.

If so, they're the exception.

Re: Choice and Milton Friedman

"Oliver Costich" <> wrote
snip
> >By your reasoning, we could go back to the days when only the wealthy
> >received any kind of education. If that's your desire, fine, but I
disagree
> >that this serves our communities, and so you individually, well.
>
> That's hardly my reasoning. The public schools served me quite well,

I'm betting your success is due moreso to your and other parents'
involvement in their kids' lives.

Had you uninvolved parents and attended an inner city public school, would
you as likely be as well off today?

> but that was when education was the schools' priority and teachers
> were professionals. We need to fix the public education system by
> getting back to educating.

What does this mean? Be specific.

Re: Choice and Milton Friedman

"Elle" <> wrote in message
news:szvye.3935$
> I'm betting your success is due moreso to your and other parents'
> involvement in their kids' lives.

She speaks from experience -- on the opposite end of this particular
spectrum.

Brent D. Gardner, ChFC
Chartered Financial Consultant


"Building a deck is NOT as hard as you think! I've watched TV personality
Bob Vila do it many times, and he is a regular 'do-it-yourselfer' just like
you, except that he has knowledge, skill, an unlimited budget and a large
staff of experts." -- Dave Barry

Re: Choice and Milton Friedman

"Oliver Costich" <> wrote in message
news:
> On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 07:35:24 GMT, "Herb" <> wrote:
>
> >
> >"TK Sung" <> wrote in message
> >news:uf6te.4604$
> >>
> >> "Oliver Costich" <> wrote in message
> >> news:
> >> >
> >> > Nice spin attempt but he clearly said he agreed with compulsory
> >> > education and public financing.
> >> >
> >> Who cares what he agrees with? public financing is incompatible with
> >> "capitalism and freedom" he espouses to begin with. Then, there is
better
> >> way to publicly finance it, so that I don't have to subsidize a guy
with 4
> >> kids when he can afford the education himself: just charge tuition and
> >then
> >> offer minimum grants to underprivileged kids according to their
financial
> >> needs. Then, if you want to send your kid to a more expensive school,
you
> >> make up the difference.
> >
> >So to hell with equality of opportunity? Don't we, as a society, have a
> >right to choose a different outcome, despite what the market would
decide?
> >Are there better things to spend your tax money on?
>
> Given the quality of the output from the public schools today, there
> probably is.

More probably not. It's been years since I was up on the literature but
early studies seemed to indicate that even bad investment in education paid
huge dividends down the line. The only question was how huge. Few
government programs pay any return at all. Some (like this war in Iraq)
only generate futher costs in the future.

-herb

Re: Choice and Milton Friedman

"Oliver Costich" <> wrote in message
news:
> On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 18:08:04 GMT, "Herb" <> wrote:
>
> >
> >"TK Sung" <> wrote in message
> >news:m_Cte.31058$
> >>
> >> "Herb" <> wrote in message
> >> news:0f9te.336707$
> >> >
> >> > So to hell with equality of opportunity?
> >> >
> >> Isn't public education an equality of opportunity enough? I went to a
> >> public school and look how well I turned out.
> >
> >As did I.
> >
> >I realize that you were probably being facetious, but I thought I heard
you
> >advocating letting parents pay to educate their kids and not burdening
you
> >(and me) with the cost.
> >
> >As bad as public education may be (and it's not always bad, obviously) it
IS
> >an investment that pays large returns to society. You can't say that
about
> >most of what the government spends our money on.
> >
>
> The problem is that the cost keps going up and the quality of the
> product keeps going down.

I agree. But, shouldn't we then address the quality of the product rather
than believing in some magic bullet that will solve all the problems in one,
simple stroke?

-herb

Re: Choice and Milton Friedman

"Elle" <> wrote in message
news:Ovvye.3933$
> "Oliver Costich" <> wrote
> E wrote
> > >Inner city public schools tend to be a disaster.
> >
> > Yes, and so do a lot of others.
>
> Inner city public schools and some rural schools IIRC take the prize,
> though.

I'm pretty sure some working-class suburbs can compete for this prize and
lots of inner-city publics schools do an excellent job. It's not
impossible, it's just not happening often enough.

>
> > >Suburban public schools tend to do a better job than parochial schools
> and
> > >produce around as many students (though of course not percentage-wise)
> that
> > >go to the "best" colleges, too.
> >
> > Some suburban schools are better than some parochial schools. American
> > school K-12 are a disaster. Look at the skills of the graduates
> > overall.
>
> The graduates overall continue to fill colleges and universities. SAT
scores
> (unadjusted) continue to rise. I don't know what you mean.

That's not my impression. SAT scores, today, in include the letter "R" to
let you know that the score has been readjusted upward to keep the average
stable over time.

>
> > Colleges now have to offer remedial courses to repair the omissions of
> > the high schools. High school algebra, for example, is routinely
> > offered in colleges whereas 30 years ago it was not.
>
> Students taking this are the exception, not the rule; typically don't get
> credit for this course; typically are in community college.

I'm not sure about this. Harvard requires all freshmen to take a writing
course. How did they get into Harvard if they couldn't already write. I
had a professor at the Ed School who was also a physics professor at MIT.
He got involved in education because of the lack of math skills he found
among his freshman students.

>
> > One reason the US
> > universities produce so few scientists and engineers, other than
> > foreign ones, is that the students are so ill prepared.
>
> I think it's more that it's a hard major. When one can be a business major
> and have similar starting pay, guess what the American kid is going to
> choose?
>
> Also, I don't think undergraduate engineering enrollment is predominantly
> foreigh. It's at the graduate school level, where assistantships galore
are
> available, that the foreign students start predominating.
>
> > >> His point that teachers are rank-and-file labor rather than the
> > >> professionals they used to be is spot on.
> > >
> > >It's the parents, stupid...
> >
> > What's the parents? The lack of interest in their childrens'
> > education?
>
> Yes.
>
>

Re: Choice and Milton Friedman

"Herb" <> wrote in message
news:nzzye.390028$
>
> "Elle" <> wrote in message
> news:Ovvye.3933$
> > "Oliver Costich" <> wrote
> > E wrote
> > > >Inner city public schools tend to be a disaster.
> > >
> > > Yes, and so do a lot of others.
> >
> > Inner city public schools and some rural schools IIRC take the prize,
> > though.
>
> I'm pretty sure some working-class suburbs can compete for this prize

Possibly but not probably, from my reading.

> lots of inner-city publics schools do an excellent job.

From my reading, not likely.

> It's not
> impossible, it's just not happening often enough.

It seems to me that a rational person would be willing to agree that many
public schools do a fine job; that the better public schools are more likely
to be in the suburbs; that lack of parental involvement is a large part of
the explanation of why some public schools do a terrible job.

> > > >Suburban public schools tend to do a better job than parochial
schools
> > and
> > > >produce around as many students (though of course not
percentage-wise)
> > that
> > > >go to the "best" colleges, too.
> > >
> > > Some suburban schools are better than some parochial schools. American
> > > school K-12 are a disaster. Look at the skills of the graduates
> > > overall.
> >
> > The graduates overall continue to fill colleges and universities. SAT
> scores
> > (unadjusted) continue to rise. I don't know what you mean.
>
> That's not my impression. SAT scores, today, in include the letter "R" to
> let you know that the score has been readjusted upward

The readjustment part is true.

> to keep the average stable over time.

I don't think this sound bite fairly explains the motive behind the
readjustment.

It sounds like you think the College Board did the readjustment to, say,
hide students' stupidity. That's not my understanding. My understanding is
there were valid statistical reasons for the adjustment.

> > > Colleges now have to offer remedial courses to repair the omissions of
> > > the high schools. High school algebra, for example, is routinely
> > > offered in colleges whereas 30 years ago it was not.
> >
> > Students taking this are the exception, not the rule; typically don't
get
> > credit for this course; typically are in community college.
>
> I'm not sure about this. Harvard requires all freshmen to take a writing
> course. How did they get into Harvard if they couldn't already write.

I'd have to see details on this to comment intelligently. I really don't
understand, or can't believe, that Harvard requires a course that teaches
rudimentary writing skills.

> I
> had a professor at the Ed School who was also a physics professor at MIT.
> He got involved in education because of the lack of math skills he found
> among his freshman students.

Herb, the MIT students' math skills may not have been up to his standards,
but the average math SAT scores (and other standardized math test scores for
admission) at MIT are through the roof. I can't believe his freshman
students were not the very cream of the crop as far as math skills were
concerned.

Re: Choice and Milton Friedman

"Elle" <> wrote in message
news:u7Aye.1412$
>
> "Herb" <> wrote in message
> news:nzzye.390028$
> >
> > "Elle" <> wrote in message
> > news:Ovvye.3933$
> > > "Oliver Costich" <> wrote
> > > E wrote
> > > > >Inner city public schools tend to be a disaster.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, and so do a lot of others.
> > >
> > > Inner city public schools and some rural schools IIRC take the prize,
> > > though.
> >
> > I'm pretty sure some working-class suburbs can compete for this prize
>
> Possibly but not probably, from my reading.
>
> > lots of inner-city publics schools do an excellent job.
>
> From my reading, not likely.
>
> > It's not
> > impossible, it's just not happening often enough.
>
> It seems to me that a rational person would be willing to agree that many
> public schools do a fine job; that the better public schools are more
likely
> to be in the suburbs; that lack of parental involvement is a large part of
> the explanation of why some public schools do a terrible job.

Agreed. Rather than "suburban" I would be more comfortable saying
"upscale." I also tend to blame the parents but there is little that public
policy can do about that. The task is to find ways to overcome the deficit.
I manged to get buy with very little involvement on my parents' part.

>
> > > > >Suburban public schools tend to do a better job than parochial
> schools
> > > and
> > > > >produce around as many students (though of course not
> percentage-wise)
> > > that
> > > > >go to the "best" colleges, too.
> > > >
> > > > Some suburban schools are better than some parochial schools.
American
> > > > school K-12 are a disaster. Look at the skills of the graduates
> > > > overall.
> > >
> > > The graduates overall continue to fill colleges and universities. SAT
> > scores
> > > (unadjusted) continue to rise. I don't know what you mean.
> >
> > That's not my impression. SAT scores, today, in include the letter "R"
to
> > let you know that the score has been readjusted upward
>
> The readjustment part is true.
>
> > to keep the average stable over time.
>
> I don't think this sound bite fairly explains the motive behind the
> readjustment.
>
> It sounds like you think the College Board did the readjustment to, say,
> hide students' stupidity. That's not my understanding. My understanding is
> there were valid statistical reasons for the adjustment.

Yes. The reason was falling scores over time. Find a student with a fresh
copy of his/her results. They explain this right on the form.

>
> > > > Colleges now have to offer remedial courses to repair the omissions
of
> > > > the high schools. High school algebra, for example, is routinely
> > > > offered in colleges whereas 30 years ago it was not.
> > >
> > > Students taking this are the exception, not the rule; typically don't
> get
> > > credit for this course; typically are in community college.
> >
> > I'm not sure about this. Harvard requires all freshmen to take a
writing
> > course. How did they get into Harvard if they couldn't already write.
>
> I'd have to see details on this to comment intelligently. I really don't
> understand, or can't believe, that Harvard requires a course that teaches
> rudimentary writing skills.

Actually two writing courses are required. A young friend of mine was about
to opt out of the freshman course because he got an 800 on the SAT II
Writing exam. He had to take the next one (I forget if it was sophomore or
junior year).

>
> > I
> > had a professor at the Ed School who was also a physics professor at
MIT.
> > He got involved in education because of the lack of math skills he found
> > among his freshman students.
>
> Herb, the MIT students' math skills may not have been up to his standards,
> but the average math SAT scores (and other standardized math test scores
for
> admission) at MIT are through the roof. I can't believe his freshman
> students were not the very cream of the crop as far as math skills were
> concerned.

Probably true but nonetheless inadequte by his lights. He was spending too
much time teaching high school math to freshman physics students leaving
less time for physics. He certainly felt there was a downward trend over
time, yes, even at MIT. He has actually written extensively about
rethinking the whole way we teach mathematics, especially using emerging
technologies. Google Judah Schwartz if you are really interested.

-herb

Re: Choice and Milton Friedman

On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 13:02:19 GMT, "Elle"
<> wrote:

>E
>O
>> >This is what I was trying to say above in the parentheses. Namely, a
>> >Catholic high school may graduate five kids into the Ivy leagues out of
>100.
>> >A public school may graduate five kids into the Ivies, but out of 500.
>>
>> Where do you get any data about this?
>
>Anecdotal reading and knowledge of the fact that public schools have kids of
>a wider range of abilities.

I meant data on students going to better colleges from different
categories of schools.

>
>> >I think the public schools tend to get a much wider spectrum of
>> >abilities/interests (e.g. more vocational students go to public schools)
>> >among their student populations, though, so the 5/100 isn't really
>> >comparable to the 5/500.
>>
>> Then you'd think wrong. I know of many Catholic high schools with
>> vocational programs, and good ones.
>
>If so, they're the exception.

Based on what? Catholic schools in the inner cities have them.
>

Re: Choice and Milton Friedman

On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 17:30:07 GMT, "Herb" <> wrote:

>
>"Oliver Costich" <> wrote in message
>news:
>> On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 18:08:04 GMT, "Herb" <> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"TK Sung" <> wrote in message
>> >news:m_Cte.31058$
>> >>
>> >> "Herb" <> wrote in message
>> >> news:0f9te.336707$
>> >> >
>> >> > So to hell with equality of opportunity?
>> >> >
>> >> Isn't public education an equality of opportunity enough? I went to a
>> >> public school and look how well I turned out.
>> >
>> >As did I.
>> >
>> >I realize that you were probably being facetious, but I thought I heard
>you
>> >advocating letting parents pay to educate their kids and not burdening
>you
>> >(and me) with the cost.
>> >
>> >As bad as public education may be (and it's not always bad, obviously) it
>IS
>> >an investment that pays large returns to society. You can't say that
>about
>> >most of what the government spends our money on.
>> >
>>
>> The problem is that the cost keps going up and the quality of the
>> product keeps going down.
>
>I agree. But, shouldn't we then address the quality of the product rather
>than believing in some magic bullet that will solve all the problems in one,
>simple stroke?


Hardly anything governmental can be fixed at all, much less with a
single stroke. A return to a simpler approach focusing on basics would
be a good start. And get rid of 90% of the administrators.
>

Re: Choice and Milton Friedman

On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 13:04:24 GMT, "Elle"
<> wrote:

>"Oliver Costich" <> wrote
>snip
>> >By your reasoning, we could go back to the days when only the wealthy
>> >received any kind of education. If that's your desire, fine, but I
>disagree
>> >that this serves our communities, and so you individually, well.
>>
>> That's hardly my reasoning. The public schools served me quite well,
>
>I'm betting your success is due moreso to your and other parents'
>involvement in their kids' lives.

Bad bet. I did well because I liked to learn and worked at it. My
effort created my success.
>
>Had you uninvolved parents and attended an inner city public school, would
>you as likely be as well off today?

Yes. My parents were not involved other than to say I had to go to
school and behave. The schools were on the edge of the city. Why
should the inner city be any different? Are the kids inherently
dumber?

But you are partially correct. Parental involvement today seems to
mean threatening to sue the school for sending their ill behaved
offspring home for being disruptive. I believe that access to
education is a basic right that should be provided. I also believe
that their is an obligation on the part of students to not interfere
with the educational process at the risk of being denied further
access.
>
>> but that was when education was the schools' priority and teachers
>> were professionals. We need to fix the public education system by
>> getting back to educating.
>
>What does this mean? Be specific.

Way too many nonacademic programs. E.g., a video course is not a
substitute for literature. Since retiring, I teach part time at a
local college. It's astounding that the math course with the most
sections offered is elementary algebra, and most of the students can't
add. One student recently asked me how I knew that there were 60
inches in 5 feet.

Specifically, students on a large scale are not getting adequate
education in reading, writing, and arithmetic. They get heavy doses of
political correctness and social passing. Ther is a reason why the US
lags other nations in critical areas of education so we have fewer
students capable of pursuing degrees in science and engineering.

So focus on basics and see that the students get it. One fly in the
ointment is that today's teachers aren't really strong in basic skills
either. Don't pass students that haven't mastered the current level.
Get administrators, politicians, and the polictical correctness bozos
out of the teachers' way.
>

Re: Choice and Milton Friedman

On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 13:00:30 GMT, "Elle"
<> wrote:

>"Oliver Costich" <> wrote
>E wrote
>> >Inner city public schools tend to be a disaster.
>>
>> Yes, and so do a lot of others.
>
>Inner city public schools and some rural schools IIRC take the prize,
>though.
>
>> >Suburban public schools tend to do a better job than parochial schools
>and
>> >produce around as many students (though of course not percentage-wise)
>that
>> >go to the "best" colleges, too.
>>
>> Some suburban schools are better than some parochial schools. American
>> school K-12 are a disaster. Look at the skills of the graduates
>> overall.
>
>The graduates overall continue to fill colleges and universities. SAT scores
>(unadjusted) continue to rise. I don't know what you mean.

Because high schools no longer adequately prepare them, there are
fewer jobs for high school graduates and they pay less (the factories
are gone), and more incentives (loans, grants) are available. SAT
scoring was shifted upward a while back because scores were dropping.
Don't forget that SATs are only for those bound for the better
colleges. Many public universities have stopped requiring them.

What I mean is that the US used to lead the world in education
achievenent, but has slipped a lot.
>
>> Colleges now have to offer remedial courses to repair the omissions of
>> the high schools. High school algebra, for example, is routinely
>> offered in colleges whereas 30 years ago it was not.
>
>Students taking this are the exception, not the rule; typically don't get
>credit for this course; typically are in community college.

Credit or not it is there, and in many public colleges, it has a
growing enrollment over the years. Exception perhaps, but it's not
unusual for a high school graduates to have eked out passing grades in
just basic algebra and geometry. Math and language skills of high
school graduates are lower than they were 25 years ago.

Results of the Third International Mathematics and Science Study
(TIMSS) involving a half-million students in 41 countries shows 24
countries where 8th grade level students have higher aptitudes that in
the US. Reading literacy at age 15 is higher in 15 countries thatn in
the US.
>
>> One reason the US
>> universities produce so few scientists and engineers, other than
>> foreign ones, is that the students are so ill prepared.
>
>I think it's more that it's a hard major. When one can be a business major
>and have similar starting pay, guess what the American kid is going to
>choose?

It's hard because they are not prepared. And that engineering pays
less than business major jobs is just wrong. Unless you go to a top
flight MBA program business jobs aren't all that lucrative, and
getting in one of those is hard too.
>
>Also, I don't think undergraduate engineering enrollment is predominantly
>foreigh. It's at the graduate school level, where assistantships galore are
>available, that the foreign students start predominating.

And the undergraduate programs are becoming that way too. At the
graduate level 60% of the students are foreign.
>
>> >> His point that teachers are rank-and-file labor rather than the
>> >> professionals they used to be is spot on.
>> >
>> >It's the parents, stupid...
>>
>> What's the parents? The lack of interest in their childrens'
>> education?
>
>Yes.

That's hardly an excuse for the school system to capitulate to the
parents demands that students be so untaxed as to not have to learn
anything.

Go see the movie "Coach Carter" for an example of where public
education in America is today.


>

Re: Choice and Milton Friedman

On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 17:37:23 GMT, "Herb" <> wrote:

>
>"Elle" <> wrote in message
>news:Ovvye.3933$
>> "Oliver Costich" <> wrote
>> E wrote
>> > >Inner city public schools tend to be a disaster.
>> >
>> > Yes, and so do a lot of others.
>>
>> Inner city public schools and some rural schools IIRC take the prize,
>> though.
>
>I'm pretty sure some working-class suburbs can compete for this prize and
>lots of inner-city publics schools do an excellent job. It's not
>impossible, it's just not happening often enough.
>
>>
>> > >Suburban public schools tend to do a better job than parochial schools
>> and
>> > >produce around as many students (though of course not percentage-wise)
>> that
>> > >go to the "best" colleges, too.
>> >
>> > Some suburban schools are better than some parochial schools. American
>> > school K-12 are a disaster. Look at the skills of the graduates
>> > overall.
>>
>> The graduates overall continue to fill colleges and universities. SAT
>scores
>> (unadjusted) continue to rise. I don't know what you mean.
>
>That's not my impression. SAT scores, today, in include the letter "R" to
>let you know that the score has been readjusted upward to keep the average
>stable over time.
>
>>
>> > Colleges now have to offer remedial courses to repair the omissions of
>> > the high schools. High school algebra, for example, is routinely
>> > offered in colleges whereas 30 years ago it was not.
>>
>> Students taking this are the exception, not the rule; typically don't get
>> credit for this course; typically are in community college.
>
>I'm not sure about this. Harvard requires all freshmen to take a writing
>course. How did they get into Harvard if they couldn't already write. I
>had a professor at the Ed School who was also a physics professor at MIT.
>He got involved in education because of the lack of math skills he found
>among his freshman students.

I "unretired" to teach math part time at a local college because of
the same observation. Education is too important to be left to the
educators as they are today.
>
>>
>> > One reason the US
>> > universities produce so few scientists and engineers, other than
>> > foreign ones, is that the students are so ill prepared.
>>
>> I think it's more that it's a hard major. When one can be a business major
>> and have similar starting pay, guess what the American kid is going to
>> choose?
>>
>> Also, I don't think undergraduate engineering enrollment is predominantly
>> foreigh. It's at the graduate school level, where assistantships galore
>are
>> available, that the foreign students start predominating.
>>
>> > >> His point that teachers are rank-and-file labor rather than the
>> > >> professionals they used to be is spot on.
>> > >
>> > >It's the parents, stupid...
>> >
>> > What's the parents? The lack of interest in their childrens'
>> > education?
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>>
>

Re: Choice and Milton Friedman

On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 18:15:54 GMT, "Elle"
<> wrote:

>
>"Herb" <> wrote in message
>news:nzzye.390028$
>>
>> "Elle" <> wrote in message
>> news:Ovvye.3933$
>> > "Oliver Costich" <> wrote
>> > E wrote
>> > > >Inner city public schools tend to be a disaster.
>> > >
>> > > Yes, and so do a lot of others.
>> >
>> > Inner city public schools and some rural schools IIRC take the prize,
>> > though.
>>
>> I'm pretty sure some working-class suburbs can compete for this prize
>
>Possibly but not probably, from my reading.

Then how about some data?

>
>> lots of inner-city publics schools do an excellent job.
>
>From my reading, not likely.
>
>> It's not
>> impossible, it's just not happening often enough.
>
>It seems to me that a rational person would be willing to agree that many
>public schools do a fine job; that the better public schools are more likely
>to be in the suburbs; that lack of parental involvement is a large part of
>the explanation of why some public schools do a terrible job.

Parents in the suburbs work jobs that require more hours that the
hourly wage parents in the city. They have les stime to get involved
and by and large don't unless Johnny isn't getting grades high enough
to get into Harvard and then they go to blame the teachers.
>
>> > > >Suburban public schools tend to do a better job than parochial
>schools
>> > and
>> > > >produce around as many students (though of course not
>percentage-wise)
>> > that
>> > > >go to the "best" colleges, too.
>> > >
>> > > Some suburban schools are better than some parochial schools. American
>> > > school K-12 are a disaster. Look at the skills of the graduates
>> > > overall.
>> >
>> > The graduates overall continue to fill colleges and universities. SAT
>> scores
>> > (unadjusted) continue to rise. I don't know what you mean.
>>
>> That's not my impression. SAT scores, today, in include the letter "R" to
>> let you know that the score has been readjusted upward
>
>The readjustment part is true.
>
>> to keep the average stable over time.
>
>I don't think this sound bite fairly explains the motive behind the
>readjustment.


It's exactly why the readjustment is done. Do some research.
>
>It sounds like you think the College Board did the readjustment to, say,
>hide students' stupidity. That's not my understanding. My understanding is
>there were valid statistical reasons for the adjustment.

Like the averages were going down? Yes, the students were getting
dumber, or at least had lower performance.

>
>> > > Colleges now have to offer remedial courses to repair the omissions of
>> > > the high schools. High school algebra, for example, is routinely
>> > > offered in colleges whereas 30 years ago it was not.
>> >
>> > Students taking this are the exception, not the rule; typically don't
>get
>> > credit for this course; typically are in community college.
>>
>> I'm not sure about this. Harvard requires all freshmen to take a writing
>> course. How did they get into Harvard if they couldn't already write.

They do it beacuse students out of high school, even those who get
into Harvard, don't write as well as they used to.
>
>I'd have to see details on this to comment intelligently. I really don't
>understand, or can't believe, that Harvard requires a course that teaches
>rudimentary writing skills.


>
>> I
>> had a professor at the Ed School who was also a physics professor at MIT.
>> He got involved in education because of the lack of math skills he found
>> among his freshman students.
>
>Herb, the MIT students' math skills may not have been up to his standards,
>but the average math SAT scores (and other standardized math test scores for
>admission) at MIT are through the roof. I can't believe his freshman
>students were not the very cream of the crop as far as math skills were
>concerned.

That's where you are disconnected. Today's best have deficiencies
compared to what they used to get. We spend a bigger percentage of GDP
on education than any other country (and that's huge because our GDP
is huge) yet get results well below the other nations because our
policies and approaches to education have been corrupted.
>

Re: Choice and Milton Friedman

"Herb" <> wrote
E wrote
> > It seems to me that a rational person would be willing to agree that
many
> > public schools do a fine job; that the better public schools are more
> likely
> > to be in the suburbs; that lack of parental involvement is a large part
of
> > the explanation of why some public schools do a terrible job.
>
> Agreed. Rather than "suburban" I would be more comfortable saying
> "upscale." I also tend to blame the parents but there is little that
public
> policy can do about that. The task is to find ways to overcome the
deficit.
> I manged to get buy with very little involvement on my parents' part.

Have you ever considered what your parents did for you compared to what,
say, a single mother in the inner city was able to do for her kids?

Did you attend a suburban public school? That by itself indicates a certain
amount of interest by your parents in your being brought up well.

As much as I might complain about my upbringing, the bottom line is that my
folks moved to an upper middle class suburb with the best public schools in
the area, specifically with their kids in mind. I never faced serious,
regular violence in my schools. The social pressures were the usual baloney
but nothing like I think the enormous sexual pressure was, for one, in lower
income schools. It was extremely rare for a high school girl to get
pregnant, for one. There are other examples, I bet. I'm really surprised you
seem to be talking like TK: 'Well I'm a public school product. I'm doing
okay so all public schools must be just fine.'

I doubt TK, you, or I would be where we are today if we were raised in
poverty in a single parent home attending an inner city public school with
metal detectors and averaging several deaths and/or drug arrests each year.

snipping a lot, something you should try
> Yes. The reason was falling scores over time. Find a student with a
fresh
> copy of his/her results. They explain this right on the form.

Sorry, but I am confident you are mistaken or at least not capturing the
true gist of why the scores were readjusted.

I'd google and prove it but I am tired of doing your homework for you.

People can believe me or not. You've produced no evidence, either.

Same for your assertions about Harvard requiring its students to take some
sort of basic writing course.

> Probably true but nonetheless inadequte by his lights. He was spending
too
> much time teaching high school math to freshman physics students leaving
> less time for physics. He certainly felt there was a downward trend over
> time, yes, even at MIT. He has actually written extensively about
> rethinking the whole way we teach mathematics, especially using emerging
> technologies. Google Judah Schwartz if you are really interested.

I have no sympathy for college professors who actually have to teach these
days.

For years IMO primary and secondary school teachers had to shoulder the
burden, teaching kids how to teach themselves. God knows most professors at
serious colleges can't; they still think just talking at students (lecture
format) imbues an education. (Oh really? Then why don't we just videotape
their damned courses, run them for a few years until research indicates the
upper level tapes need freshening up, and save a ton of money.)

Re: Choice and Milton Friedman

"Elle" <> wrote

> Did you attend a suburban public school? That by itself indicates a
> certain
> amount of interest by your parents in your being brought up well.

It does nothing of the kind.

> People can believe me or not. You've produced no evidence, either.

So you're both wasting our time. Thanks for admitting that.

Re: Choice and Milton Friedman

"Oliver Costich" <> wrote

> Parents in the suburbs work jobs that require more hours that the
> hourly wage parents in the city. They have les stime to get involved

Sorry, don't agree. Hourly wage parents in the city usually need two jobs
and/or all the overtime they can get just to make ends meet.

Re: Choice and Milton Friedman

"Elle" <> wrote in message
news:KMIye.13515$
> "Herb" <> wrote
>
> Have you ever considered what your parents did for you compared to what,
> say, a single mother in the inner city was able to do for her kids?

Yes. My parents never went to my school and never knew what their "egghead"
son was up to. They did encourage me in the vague, philosophical sense but
they had no concept of what a college was or how to get there.

>
> Did you attend a suburban public school? That by itself indicates a
certain
> amount of interest by your parents in your being brought up well.

I went to a very bad high school in a working-class suburb. In those days
it was considered just to track students so a hundred or so of us got good
educations while the rest were baby-sat by political hacks.

>
> As much as I might complain about my upbringing, the bottom line is that
my
> folks moved to an upper middle class suburb with the best public schools
in
> the area, specifically with their kids in mind. I never faced serious,
> regular violence in my schools. The social pressures were the usual
baloney
> but nothing like I think the enormous sexual pressure was, for one, in
lower
> income schools. It was extremely rare for a high school girl to get
> pregnant, for one. There are other examples, I bet. I'm really surprised
you
> seem to be talking like TK: 'Well I'm a public school product. I'm doing
> okay so all public schools must be just fine.'


That is a straw man. I am very critical of public education. I just don't
accpet, as you seem to, that it can never be fixed.

>
> I doubt TK, you, or I would be where we are today if we were raised in
> poverty in a single parent home attending an inner city public school with
> metal detectors and averaging several deaths and/or drug arrests each
year.

We had lots of teen pregnancies and lost a class member each year, usually
to industrial accidents.

>
> snipping a lot, something you should try
> > Yes. The reason was falling scores over time. Find a student with a
> fresh
> > copy of his/her results. They explain this right on the form.
>
> Sorry, but I am confident you are mistaken or at least not capturing the
> true gist of why the scores were readjusted.

Is this the epistemology you learned at your wonderful, suburban school? I
am confident that you don't know what you are talking about.

Furthermore, your faith in the SAT as a measure of a student's ability to
master material at the college level is misplaced. I know you engineers
like to fix on a metric and pretend that it tells you everything you need to
know. Perhaps it does in engineering but not when it is human potential you
are measuring.

>
> I'd google and prove it but I am tired of doing your homework for you.
>
> People can believe me or not. You've produced no evidence, either.

I told you exactly where to find the College Board's explanation of
"re-centered" scores. I'm sorry if Google doesn't go there.

>
> Same for your assertions about Harvard requiring its students to take some
> sort of basic writing course.

See and believe:



Writing Requirement
Degree candidates admitted as freshmen must enroll during their first year
of residence in a prescribed half-course in Expository Writing offered by
the Committee on Expository Writing. A final grade of D- or better in
Expository Writing 20 ordinarily fulfills the writing requirement; however,
the Director of the Expository Writing Program may require particular
students to do additional work during the following term in order to satisfy
the requirement. Neither courses taken on a Pass/Fail basis nor Harvard
Summer School courses in expository or creative writing may be used to
fulfill the Harvard College writing requirement.

All transfer students are expected to satisfy the same writing requirement
as students admitted as freshman unless they have demonstrated superior
writing ability in the English language before they arrive at Harvard. Fall
term transfer students who seek exemption from the writing requirement must
provide the Director of the Expository Writing Program with a substantial
sample of their own written work in the summer before matriculation at
Harvard; spring term transfer students must submit a writing sample by
December 1 before matriculating at Harvard. Such a sample should include at
least twenty double-spaced, typewritten pages. Papers submitted to and
evaluated by a faculty member at the College the student attended before
coming to Harvard constitute an appropriate sample. The Director will judge
the papers and decide if an exemption should be granted.

Any student who fails to complete the writing requirement during the first
year of residence must enroll in an appropriate Expository Writing course
during each subsequent term of residence until the requirement is met.


> I have no sympathy for college professors who actually have to teach these
> days.
>
> For years IMO primary and secondary school teachers had to shoulder the
> burden, teaching kids how to teach themselves. God knows most professors
at
> serious colleges can't; they still think just talking at students (lecture
> format) imbues an education. (Oh really? Then why don't we just videotape
> their damned courses, run them for a few years until research indicates
the
> upper level tapes need freshening up, and save a ton of money.)

If you can't teach yourself, you don't belong in college. Videotaped
lectures would hardly suffice with students who think deeply about their
subjects and who are capable of interacting with their professors. For
students whose questions are mainly: "I don't get it," perhaps they need to
go back to high school until they can contribute more to a seminar.


Actually, Judah Schwartz is a pioneer in developing alternative,
technological teaching methods. In our course he generally just showed us
some computer program he was involved with and let us play around with it.

Re: Choice and Milton Friedman

"Herb" <> wrote in message
news:SeVye.393369$
>
> "Elle" <> wrote in message
> news:KMIye.13515$
> > "Herb" <> wrote
> >
> > Have you ever considered what your parents did for you compared to what,
> > say, a single mother in the inner city was able to do for her kids?
>
> Yes. My parents never went to my school and never knew what their
"egghead"
> son was up to. They did encourage me in the vague, philosophical sense
but
> they had no concept of what a college was or how to get there.

But you had two parents, right? With a good work ethic between them, right
(that is, they didn't drink to excess and didn't beat you)? And three
squares a day, right? And what paid for the things you used to feed your
eggheadedness? And why did the parents pay for these things?

Are you really asserting that your parents are like the impoverished black
(or hispanic) parent who raises a kid alone in a blighted part of an inner
city?

But hey, feel sorry for yourself all you want. Assert that you're where you
are today not because of luck, but because you're so special.

That just tells me that, indeed, _your_ public school was not much about
which one could brag.

> > Did you attend a suburban public school? That by itself indicates a
> certain
> > amount of interest by your parents in your being brought up well.
>
> I went to a very bad high school in a working-class suburb. In those days
> it was considered just to track students so a hundred or so of us got good
> educations while the rest were baby-sat by political hacks.
>
> >
> > As much as I might complain about my upbringing, the bottom line is that
> my
> > folks moved to an upper middle class suburb with the best public schools
> in
> > the area, specifically with their kids in mind. I never faced serious,
> > regular violence in my schools. The social pressures were the usual
> baloney
> > but nothing like I think the enormous sexual pressure was, for one, in
> lower
> > income schools. It was extremely rare for a high school girl to get
> > pregnant, for one. There are other examples, I bet. I'm really surprised
> you
> > seem to be talking like TK: 'Well I'm a public school product. I'm doing
> > okay so all public schools must be just fine.'
>
>
> That is a straw man. I am very critical of public education. I just
don't
> accpet, as you seem to, that it can never be fixed.

Huh. You have yet to propose a realistic way to fix inner city public
schools.

> > I doubt TK, you, or I would be where we are today if we were raised in
> > poverty in a single parent home attending an inner city public school
with
> > metal detectors and averaging several deaths and/or drug arrests each
> year.
>
> We had lots of teen pregnancies and lost a class member each year, usually
> to industrial accidents.
>
> >
> > snipping a lot, something you should try
> > > Yes. The reason was falling scores over time. Find a student with a
> > fresh
> > > copy of his/her results. They explain this right on the form.
> >
> > Sorry, but I am confident you are mistaken or at least not capturing the
> > true gist of why the scores were readjusted.
>
> Is this the epistemology you learned at your wonderful, suburban school?

I think you better look up "epistemology."

Along with your weak-ego'd insults about engineers, it makes you look
stupid.

> I
> am confident that you don't know what you are talking about.

Herb, the information on why SAT scores were readjusted is available on the
net.

You never google. I'm not doing your work for you anymore, particularly when
you are showing a real lack of reasoning skill lately.

I don't post to exchange my comments, based on much reading, with others who
post crap off the top of their heads, based on dated or no reading and
certainly no effort to learn more.

snip
What's the point?

Re: Choice and Milton Friedman

"Elle" <> wrote in message
news:KMIye.13515$
>
> "Herb" <> wrote
> >

> Did you attend a suburban public school? That by itself indicates a
> certain amount of interest by your parents in your being brought up well.

I grew up and attended public school in the city. My parents chose to live
in the city and not the suburbs for exactly one reason - better educational
opportunities; going to a suburban public school would have been an
indication of *lack of interest* on their part.

> snipping a lot, something you should try
> > Yes. The reason was falling scores over time. Find a student with
> > a fresh copy of his/her results. They explain this right on the form.
>
> Sorry, but I am confident you are mistaken or at least not capturing the
> true gist of why the scores were readjusted.

The ultimate cause for the scores being readjusted was indeed falling
scores. The CEEB itself says that after a "famous decline" in SAT scores,
there was a need to adjust the scores - the decline had created a number of
deficiencies in the scoring.

The CEEB's requirements for a well-designed score system effectively
necessitates a bell-shaped curve, centered at 500. Since scores had
declined to 424V/476M by 1990, this called for an upward adjustment. Had
scores not declined, verbal and math scores would be comparable (another of
the many deficiencies caused by the falling scores).

One may lament all the statistical deficiencies created by the falling
scores, but that's missing the forest (falling scores) for the trees
(consequential statistical anomalies).

I'd provide a citation,
> [...] but I am tired of doing your homework for you.

Anyone interested is welcome to email me for a URL for the 27 page CEEB
report, which notes that the "R" designation that Herb advised you to look
for was removed a few years after they started making the adjustments
(striking me as a bit Orwellian).

--
Mark Freeland

Re: Choice and Milton Friedman

"Elle" <> wrote in message
news:X2Yye.1785$
>
> I think you better look up "epistemology."
>

Everyone knows that is when the doctor slices your snatch
during delivery, so the baby's head doesn't rip you a new asshole.

Re: Choice and Milton Friedman

"Elle" <> wrote in message
news:X2Yye.1785$
>
> "Herb" <> wrote in message
> news:SeVye.393369$
> >
> > "Elle" <> wrote in message
> > news:KMIye.13515$
> > > "Herb" <> wrote
> > >
> > > Have you ever considered what your parents did for you compared to
what,
> > > say, a single mother in the inner city was able to do for her kids?
> >
> > Yes. My parents never went to my school and never knew what their
> "egghead"
> > son was up to. They did encourage me in the vague, philosophical sense
> but
> > they had no concept of what a college was or how to get there.
>
> But you had two parents, right? With a good work ethic between them, right
> (that is, they didn't drink to excess and didn't beat you)? And three
> squares a day, right? And what paid for the things you used to feed your
> eggheadedness? And why did the parents pay for these things?
>
> Are you really asserting that your parents are like the impoverished black
> (or hispanic) parent who raises a kid alone in a blighted part of an inner
> city?
>
> But hey, feel sorry for yourself all you want. Assert that you're where
you
> are today not because of luck, but because you're so special.
>
> That just tells me that, indeed, _your_ public school was not much about
> which one could brag.

You seem to have a lot of anger toward those who disagree with you. FWIW,
my father was an emotionally disturbed alcoholic and my mother a parnoid
psychoprhenic (if you believe what doctors say). They did their best but it
WAS a struggle and the meals weren't always very square.

>
> > > Did you attend a suburban public school? That by itself indicates a
> > certain
> > > amount of interest by your parents in your being brought up well.
> >
> > I went to a very bad high school in a working-class suburb. In those
days
> > it was considered just to track students so a hundred or so of us got
good
> > educations while the rest were baby-sat by political hacks.
> >
> > >
> > > As much as I might complain about my upbringing, the bottom line is
that
> > my
> > > folks moved to an upper middle class suburb with the best public
schools
> > in
> > > the area, specifically with their kids in mind. I never faced serious,
> > > regular violence in my schools. The social pressures were the usual
> > baloney
> > > but nothing like I think the enormous sexual pressure was, for one, in
> > lower
> > > income schools. It was extremely rare for a high school girl to get
> > > pregnant, for one. There are other examples, I bet. I'm really
surprised
> > you
> > > seem to be talking like TK: 'Well I'm a public school product. I'm
doing
> > > okay so all public schools must be just fine.'
> >
> >
> > That is a straw man. I am very critical of public education. I just
> don't
> > accpet, as you seem to, that it can never be fixed.
>
> Huh. You have yet to propose a realistic way to fix inner city public
> schools.

I suggested Essential schools. You never told me what you thought of them.

>
> > > I doubt TK, you, or I would be where we are today if we were raised in
> > > poverty in a single parent home attending an inner city public school
> with
> > > metal detectors and averaging several deaths and/or drug arrests each
> > year.
> >
> > We had lots of teen pregnancies and lost a class member each year,
usually
> > to industrial accidents.
> >
> > >
> > > snipping a lot, something you should try
> > > > Yes. The reason was falling scores over time. Find a student with
a
> > > fresh
> > > > copy of his/her results. They explain this right on the form.
> > >
> > > Sorry, but I am confident you are mistaken or at least not capturing
the
> > > true gist of why the scores were readjusted.
> >
> > Is this the epistemology you learned at your wonderful, suburban school?
>
> I think you better look up "epistemology."

I am confident that you are wrong about that.

>
> Along with your weak-ego'd insults about engineers, it makes you look
> stupid.

No, it's the engineers who seem stupid when they attempt to apply
engineering principles to the humanities.

>
> > I
> > am confident that you don't know what you are talking about.
>
> Herb, the information on why SAT scores were readjusted is available on
the
> net.
>
> You never google. I'm not doing your work for you anymore, particularly
when
> you are showing a real lack of reasoning skill lately.

Here is a table from the College Board for converting SAT scores to
Recentered SAT scores



Do you really not see that they are adding points? Do you really think they
do this because the scores are rising?

>
> I don't post to exchange my comments, based on much reading, with others
who
> post crap off the top of their heads, based on dated or no reading and
> certainly no effort to learn more.


Yes you do. Like our resident troll, you can't seem to stop yourself.

You need to read better. You make astounding claims based on reading that
you never cite then get all upset because people disagree with your false
conclusions.


>
> snip
> What's the point?
>
>

Re: Choice and Milton Friedman

bgardner20 wrote:

> "Building a deck is NOT as hard as you think! I've watched TV personality
> Bob Vila do it many times, and he is a regular 'do-it-yourselfer' just like
> you, except that he has knowledge, skill, an unlimited budget and a large
> staff of experts." -- Dave Barry

Why would anybody hire an incompetent like Bob Vila to build something?

Re: Choice and Milton Friedman

Oliver Costich wrote:
> On 20 Jun 2005 00:43:26 -0700, "R. Anton Rave" <>
> wrote:

>> Upper income people are not prohibited from buying
>> Cadillacs, provided they completely lack good taste.
>
> While I'm not likely to buy one, out of preference, not
> cost, some of the recent ones seem to be decent vehicles
> if you don't mind world class depreciation.

They look like typical GM taste -- 19th century locomotive and Terry
Gilliam's Brazil motifs combined. Soon each Cadillac will even include
a "Salesman of the Month" plaque.

Re: Choice and Milton Friedman

"Johnny Hageyama" <> wrote in message
news:
>> "Building a deck is NOT as hard as you think! I've watched TV personality
>> Bob Vila do it many times, and he is a regular 'do-it-yourselfer' just
>> like
>> you, except that he has knowledge, skill, an unlimited budget and a large
>> staff of experts." -- Dave Barry
>
> Why would anybody hire an incompetent like Bob Vila to build something?

Who suggested anyone hire him? I only see...you!?!?! ROFLMAO

Brent D. Gardner, ChFC
Chartered Financial Consultant


"Building a deck is NOT as hard as you think! I've watched TV personality
Bob Vila do it many times, and he is a regular 'do-it-yourselfer' just like
you, except that he has knowledge, skill, an unlimited budget and a large
staff of experts." -- Dave Barry