I am not pro-market or anti-market.
There is no market.
What do I mean "there is no market"?
Well I mean mainly that there is no market.
I also mean there is no market in the sense of an abstract concept of "exchange mechanism".
At a vegetable market the man could give away all his tomatoes for free, and no one could buy any of them anyway even if he put a price on them.
There are people and the environment.
What happens between them is determined entirely by people - the only possible agents.
Je répète - "economics" is politics.
-----------------------
I read the article by the Professor of Economics at Oxford University in The Independent today about secondary education in "Britain".
(http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/paul-collier-private-v-state-heres-how-to-bridge-the-educational-divide-1867073.html)
He said:
A private school which offered only slightly better quality than a state school would attract no customers: if the basic model of a car was available for free, nobody would pay full price for the next model up the range. A market in purchased cars would still exist, but it would be confined to the luxury models whose rich purchasers were willing to forego the free basic model.
Some points about this are:
1) "nobody would pay" - people are free to pay or not pay so this is strictly nonsense. People are obviously free beings.
2) Even were this accepted, human behaviour is the subject of psychology and not "economics".
3) A "market" "would still exist" - what's a market? Does it mean a demand and a supply? Both of these are created by humans and demand is something that could disappear at any moment.....
4)......
He also writes:
Britain has its education system upside-down. Where the state should be providing universal, free schooling there is subsidised market provision. But where the state is providing universal, free schooling of a quality such that those with sufficient money choose to opt out, there should be subsidised market provision. If we did that it would raise the quality of the average while narrowing differences: but, of course, it isn't even on the political menu.
Firstly, if it is accepted that the state should provide universal free schooling in any context at all (which it is), then that is the end of the debate. If such education exists it should be of the highest standard. Hence no other education would be necessary. This may sound in some way "fundamentalist" but it is quite correct.
Secondly, "Britain" does not exist in this question strictly speaking.
Thirdly, where is the programme to put something better on the political menu?
Why the resignation?
One of the reasons for the ridiculous English education system is the "class culture". Not economics. "Public" Schools/Independent Schools are a cultural institution like the monarchy.
And like the Monarchy they are an institution that holds England back.
--------------------------------------
Do not misinterpret me!
Take my old school - Brentwood School in Essex.
Contrary to popular belief - and it is news to me too! - my old school was EFFECTIVELY a kind of State School for a big chunk of its very long and noble history.
The School Statutes of 1622 - written by John Donne - once Dean of Saint Paul's - state that the school is to educate the poor and the young in general of the surrounding area. There is certainly no mention of vast sums of money to be paid!
1n 1976 its County Council Direct Grant Status was ended by a Labour Government.
This was enforced AGAINST the will of the School Governors and AGAINST the will of Essex County Council. So much for local democracy!
Worse still - 3 years later under the Tories it was forced to become almost entirely fee-paying and a so-called "Independent School".
Is this a eupemism for business - rather than an a educational foundation?
I think we must not get blinded by labels. This applies to so many things!
Basically - I think Brentwood should in essence no longer charge fees - just like I think that Cambridge University should in essence no longer charge fees!
-----
My parents - even with the mythical "large middle-class wage packet" at their disposal - and even though I had a government Assisted Place - found it extremely hard to pay the fees even back then in the 70s and 80s.
They nearly bankrupted themselves and even had to go to backstreet money lenders!
Incidentally, government Assisted Places were introduced by a Tory government and abolished by Tony Blair I think.
...........
There is no market.
What do I mean "there is no market"?
Well I mean mainly that there is no market.
I also mean there is no market in the sense of an abstract concept of "exchange mechanism".
At a vegetable market the man could give away all his tomatoes for free, and no one could buy any of them anyway even if he put a price on them.
There are people and the environment.
What happens between them is determined entirely by people - the only possible agents.
Je répète - "economics" is politics.
-----------------------
I read the article by the Professor of Economics at Oxford University in The Independent today about secondary education in "Britain".
(http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/paul-collier-private-v-state-heres-how-to-bridge-the-educational-divide-1867073.html)
He said:
A private school which offered only slightly better quality than a state school would attract no customers: if the basic model of a car was available for free, nobody would pay full price for the next model up the range. A market in purchased cars would still exist, but it would be confined to the luxury models whose rich purchasers were willing to forego the free basic model.
Some points about this are:
1) "nobody would pay" - people are free to pay or not pay so this is strictly nonsense. People are obviously free beings.
2) Even were this accepted, human behaviour is the subject of psychology and not "economics".
3) A "market" "would still exist" - what's a market? Does it mean a demand and a supply? Both of these are created by humans and demand is something that could disappear at any moment.....
4)......
He also writes:
Britain has its education system upside-down. Where the state should be providing universal, free schooling there is subsidised market provision. But where the state is providing universal, free schooling of a quality such that those with sufficient money choose to opt out, there should be subsidised market provision. If we did that it would raise the quality of the average while narrowing differences: but, of course, it isn't even on the political menu.
Firstly, if it is accepted that the state should provide universal free schooling in any context at all (which it is), then that is the end of the debate. If such education exists it should be of the highest standard. Hence no other education would be necessary. This may sound in some way "fundamentalist" but it is quite correct.
Secondly, "Britain" does not exist in this question strictly speaking.
Thirdly, where is the programme to put something better on the political menu?
Why the resignation?
One of the reasons for the ridiculous English education system is the "class culture". Not economics. "Public" Schools/Independent Schools are a cultural institution like the monarchy.
And like the Monarchy they are an institution that holds England back.
--------------------------------------
Do not misinterpret me!
Take my old school - Brentwood School in Essex.
Contrary to popular belief - and it is news to me too! - my old school was EFFECTIVELY a kind of State School for a big chunk of its very long and noble history.
The School Statutes of 1622 - written by John Donne - once Dean of Saint Paul's - state that the school is to educate the poor and the young in general of the surrounding area. There is certainly no mention of vast sums of money to be paid!
1n 1976 its County Council Direct Grant Status was ended by a Labour Government.
This was enforced AGAINST the will of the School Governors and AGAINST the will of Essex County Council. So much for local democracy!
Worse still - 3 years later under the Tories it was forced to become almost entirely fee-paying and a so-called "Independent School".
Is this a eupemism for business - rather than an a educational foundation?
I think we must not get blinded by labels. This applies to so many things!
Basically - I think Brentwood should in essence no longer charge fees - just like I think that Cambridge University should in essence no longer charge fees!
-----
My parents - even with the mythical "large middle-class wage packet" at their disposal - and even though I had a government Assisted Place - found it extremely hard to pay the fees even back then in the 70s and 80s.
They nearly bankrupted themselves and even had to go to backstreet money lenders!
Incidentally, government Assisted Places were introduced by a Tory government and abolished by Tony Blair I think.
...........