[ExI] Americans are poor drivers

Mirco Romanato painlord2k at libero.it
Sun Jul 12 13:15:09 UTC 2009

Stathis Papaioannou ha scritto:
> 2009/7/12 Mirco Romanato <painlord2k at libero.it>:

>> The real history usually is a bit different:
>> for example education was entirely private and public education was
>> introduced, by governments, to "help the poor" that could not pay and
>> send the children to school. Then they enlarged the pool to the people
>> that could pay, driving out the private providers. The fact that private
>> providers exist after a century or more is testament that free and good
>> rarely come together.

> Public education is not free, it's paid for, and it's a major drain on
> taxpayers.

It is free after the government have extorted your money from you.
The choice is "free" public education or paid (anew) private education.

But this beg the question, "Why is it a major drain for the taxpayers?"

For example ( from here
) North Carolina have 2.300.000 inhabitants under 18 years, so I suppose
they go to school. The state budget for public schools is 8 billions of
$ (37% of the state budget). So, around 2 million of students cost 8
billions every years. This is 4.000$ per head per years

Now, looking at Cato Institute paper (
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3231 ) I find that

"The most recent figures available from the U.S. Department of Education
show that in 2000 the average tuition for private elementary schools
nationwide was $3,267. Government figures also indicate that 41 percent
of all private elementary and secondary schools -- more than 27,000
nationwide -- charged less than $2,500 for tuition. Less than 21 percent
of all private schools charged more than $5,000 per year in tuition.
According to these figures, elite and very expensive private schools
tend to be the exception in their communities, not the rule."

Now, supposing the worst private school is at par of the median public
school, moving to all private schools would save North Carolina 1.8-2.0
Billions $ every year. They could repay debts (so paying less in the
long run) or lower taxes. But, as the politicos need the support of the
teacher's unions to be re-elected, this is out of question. Better raise
taxes and make people poorer.

> You mean, losing out to the communists, who maintain a tight grip on
> every aspect of their "market" economy, even to the point of arresting
> the executives of commercial rivals:
> http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25768420-601,00.html

Cheap shot.
This don't change the facts that their economy is growing faster than
ours. Why? We, in theory, have more wealth available to reinvestment, so
 Why we are not growing faster than them?


More information about the extropy-chat mailing list