Such mismanaged financial behemoths as AIG, Bear Stearns, and Goldman Sachs were deemed "too big to fail" by the combination of a licentious Federal Reserve Board and an acquiescent Congress. It appears that this perplexing doctrine, one that contradicts the natural laws of incentive, has been applied to state and local governments- only this time without the guidance of the Fed's economic "experts".
The State Fiscal Stabilization Fund, perhaps the most abominable in a panoply of nefarious provisions found in the Economic Stimulus Act, has reserved $79 Billion to implement an unabashedly socialist system to help the 46 states which were unable to balance their 2010 budgets.
So let's give Wyoming, West Virginia, Montana and North Dakota a hand for conducting their government "business" as it should be conducted: at a feasible level considering available resources. Or we could skip the applause. Together the four might be able to lobby a pat on the back out of Washington before their surplus is vouchsafed (along with a harsh verbal reprimand) to less responsible states via the Economic Stimulus Act.
Proponents of the redistributive fund argue that the 46 fiscal failures will be forced to cut spending from "vital programs", primarily public education. My response? Awesome. Soon to be a product of an inefficient and oppressive public school system whose primary function seems to be to stifle the creative expression, utilization of ability, and philosophical development of its unfortunate students, I shed no tears over more prudent investments than those which enable the perpetuation of such a counterproductive institution.
In fact, with economic decline threatening the productive capacities of the country, appropriate and personalized methods of learning are now more important than ever- and vastly preferable to the impersonal routine of standardized learning. School districts attempting to send 100% of students to college should realize that each individual must forge a niche in the economic machinery of their country, not all of which are facilitated by courses in English literature and advanced calculus. Eliminating public education would enhance the efficiency of vocational training and education, while maximizing the efficacy of traditional class room oriented systems through invariably more capable private institutions.
Since the federal government has justified the maintenance of large, inefficient companies through compulsory charity with the "too big to fail line", they seem to have bit of a bit more than they can chew, as contended by Fortune Magazine with the following corporate/cinematic metaphor
"In a scenario reminiscent of an old Hollywood classic, a deeply distressed insurance giant [AIG] is turning into a guest the federal government can't get rid of"
We've accepted that the federal government can't keep their hands off the free market, but following our decision to choose "hope over fear," why does Congress ignore the negative results of bailout policies, and apply them to another arena, decreasing the incentives of responsibility their as well?
Although AIG may remain a larger presence at Washinton's banquet table, Montana had better get cooking, becuase California looks pretty hungry.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Ahh! Holy hedge fund, your blog looks awesome. I love the banner. I haven't read any posts since the superbowl, but I felt compelled to comment and celebrate your blog's prettiness with my exuberance. So, if you'll indulge me...
ReplyDelete"ALL HAIL SUPER LIBERTARIAN AND ITS PRETTINESS!"
Yeah, I was actually just hailing it. I bet there are a ton of us Superlibertarian hailers out there. I mean, this is the best blog I've seen since Justice of Liberty
ReplyDeleteCouldn't agree more, ole' chap. I especially like this Luke Lea character. He seems to always end with a sharp flourish. Comical, maybe; but salient, too. Me encanta.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I'm not informed enough to critique your appraisal of the EEUU's present economics, I can say that I could feel your autodidacticsm oozing out of every line (or maybe you're just that good at bullshitting). Nevertheless, I'm very impressed.
But Jesus! Your abhorrance of the public school system is unforgiving. About your theory: What guarantee is there that the proliferation of vocational schools will be the panacea you're looking for? Will it be cumpolsory, too? Wouldn't it have to be, unless you wanted the further mental degredation of society's students? Instead of going to school, I'm sure many would choose the option of going for a low-wage job in order to support their families or just for a quick buck. Would these students be left with no time for an education and no hope of upward mobility? And would there be a minimum wage for them in Libertarian World? And in a free market, would it be so deregulated that it would be permissible to hire a child of twelve to work eight-hour shifts? Well, I suppose, that misfortune would ultimately be self-derived. However, I feel that students who would want to attend private schools but didn't have the money would be forced to go to vocational schools and be left intellectually unfulfilled. I know there would be competition between the private schools, but there is in today's world, too, and that's not making Hapeth Hall, Ensworth or MBA more affordable. All of their tuitions are on the rise. I know the state of the public school system is deplorable (especially the standardized testing aspect), but I don't feel like it should be abandoned; it should be done correctly, like in Finland or Ireland. Or, it could be inspired by the efficacious American models, like in Boston or New York or Irving, CA.
(I think I got kind of over excited, but it was really fun! I'm glad you provoked me to right this. I only wrote por un rato, so don't excoriate me too badly! I wish I had time to write something impregnable... oh, well. maybe later.... in the summer... BUT ANSWER ME DAMMIT!)
I think the crux of your argumentation is based upon your support for public education (We take ironic stances on this argument considering the status of our current schools), so I would like to focus on that.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, you seem to base your criticisms on a few false premises.
To answer your initial question, elimination of the compulsory enrollment is an apodictic effect of privatization, as a government mandate without the neccessary provisions is nonsensical. Additionally, many parents and students recognize the value of education and would compelled to enroll regardless of legality, so a "mental degradation" is unlikely to ensue.
The alternative, entering the workforce at a young age, is hardly a less desirable option. Many workers whose jobs require no educational experience will be able to get more real world experience, and advance more quickly in corporations, or enhance their prestige as freelance or contracted services.Many economic environments favor longevity and experience over preperative qualifications, so "upward mobility" is not dependent upon excessive stints in educational institutions.
There will certainly be no minimum wage in my paradise of freedom, from hence forth referred to as "Libertopia". Minimum wage is never as high as a living wage, so arguments that families cannot be supported by any decreased income are invalid. Additionally, minimum wage decreases unemployment, so families would be able to supplement their income through additional workers were minimum wage repealed.
Children have the right to work, and the government should not interfere with that if their ability is sufficient to be employed. Few twelve year olds would choose to work an eight hour shift, however, and would not seek employment that required such strenuous labor.
Also, the abolition of public education would effect the growth of a new market for low-cost private schools. Many public school teachers and administrators would be employed there. Tuition would be met by the reduced taxes from public schools.
Be happy I refrained from excoriation