Re: Are monopolies so bad? Part II?
 

Regardless of the perfect analogy, no one seems to dispute that the listed items apply to the public school systems.

Any true bleeding-heart should recognize that the system screws over everyone except for those who are wealthy enough to get out, just like a monopoly.

And in fact a given local school district is very much like a monopoly. The district has full control over the school you can use. They even have the rigth to deny you permission to leave the district, even when another district has accepted your child. This happened to a friend of mine.

So... unless you have the money and resources to get private school education, you are in the same relationship as you are with a monopoly.

There is one service provider, the state has set it up so you can only go to them and you must accept whatever they offer. You have no recourse, no input, and no options. They are not subject to meaningful competition. They are mostly composed of special interests that spend most of their time focused on increasing their stranglehold on the state rather than serving their customers.

Why would anyone want to continue this insanity is beyond me

natedogg

Re: Are monopolies so bad? Part II?
 

Well, the reason it is continued is because a privatized system would leave the poor even further behind, and the wealthy further ahead. Unless you'd like to start giving vouchers to every poor person, which of course would be reminiscent of welfare.

Re: Are monopolies so bad? Part II?
 

[ QUOTE ]

Well, the reason it is continued is because a privatized system would leave the poor even further behind, and the wealthy further ahead.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're just presuming that that would be the case.

Re: Are monopolies so bad? Part II?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Well, the reason it is continued is because a privatized system would leave the poor even further behind, and the wealthy further ahead.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're just presuming that that would be the case.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I am, just like you (I assume) would presume that it won't be.

Re: Are monopolies so bad? Part II?
 

[ QUOTE ]

Yes, I am, just like you (I assume) would presume that it won't be.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not presuming it either way, although my guess is that it would leave the very poorest further behind, but actually end up being better for the next lowest tier and all tiers above that.

A lot of factors play into something like this. I'd be cautious about making any hard and fast speculative presumptions.

Re: Are monopolies so bad? Part II?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Yes, I am, just like you (I assume) would presume that it won't be.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not presuming it either way, although my guess is that it would leave the very poorest further behind, but actually end up being better for the next lowest tier and all tiers above that.

A lot of factors play into something like this. I'd be cautious about making any hard and fast speculative presumptions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course it is just an educated guess. Essentially everything about politics/economics is educated guessing. I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

Re: Are monopolies so bad? Part II?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Of course it is just an educated guess. Essentially everything about politics/economics is educated guessing. I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd have a hard time even listing all the main factors that would be relevant if such a switch were to be implemented, so I think it is likely more a "guess" than an "educated guess", no offense intended. Really, this is a very complex scenario and I doubt if anyone on this board could predict the overall results of such a changeover with any substantial degree of accuracy.

Re: Are monopolies so bad? Part II?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Of course it is just an educated guess. Essentially everything about politics/economics is educated guessing. I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd have a hard time even listing all the main factors that would be relevant if such a switch were to be implemented, so I think it is likely more a "guess" than an "educated guess", no offense intended. Really, this is a very complex scenario and I doubt if anyone on this board could predict the overall results of such a changeover with any substantial degree of accuracy.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't hesitate much to say that private schooling across the board would negatively effect the very poor, and result in better educations for the wealthy. Do you agree?

Re: Are monopolies so bad? Part II?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't hesitate much to say that private schooling across the board would negatively effect the very poor, and result in better educations for the wealthy. Do you agree?

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that it would very likely negatively affect the very poorest. It might not negatively affect the next level of "poor", though, and conceivably might even help them. As for the very wealthy, it might easily have no effect whatsoever upon them.

Re: Are monopolies so bad? Part II?
 

no doubt about it. The rich always work over the poor, a terrible side effect of the capitalist system. It seems that this would be obvious to every one, but I'm sure all the rich guys will come and try to tell the simple folk how good it will be for them.