Cool. Now citizens can't own property

[jrkarp]

Good catch, but you're just pointing out a different kind of screw up: lack of enforcement. I'll rephrase: show me one thing the government hasn't messed up, either through abuse or lack of action.

There is also a difference between those situations, as the government really has nothing to gain by enforcing laws against illegals. They do have something to gain by abusing the law we're talking about here.

This is true. However, must legal analysts feel that there is not going to be a huge rush by governments following this ruling, outside of a few isolated incidents. Also, several states have laws sharply restricting or even prohibiting the use of eminent domain except to reduce blight.

I wouldn't argue that. But isn't that kind of like passing a field full of cattle and bragging to your friends that the night before you fucked the prettiest cow there? It's like being valedictorian in summer school. It's true, but not really an accomplishment worth bragging about when viewed in context.

Those analogies are tempting, but they both presuppose the existence of a better alternative. Obviously it is better to **** a girl instead of a cow and it is better to be valedictorian of a regular class at a school or college. However, there are no better alternatives to our government. While it can improve, there is no currently available better government. A better analogy is being stranded on another planet with a bunch of ugly fat chicks. At least you can say to your buddy, "Well, they're all nasty, but I fucked that one and at least she's not as fat as the others, plus she has all her teeth."

/karp

 

[pttbll]

jrkarp,

Im growing tired of your thinking that this ruling is not going to be widely utilized.
Both the Mayor of my city and the nearby major city have already stated their intent on using this ruling.
The Mayor of the city I live in stated this will allow them to get rid of "delapitated" homes to go forward with commercial construction. The Mayor of the nearby major city is going to be romoving homes to accomodate the new football stadium.

Dont be so nieve jrkarp, it is and will be utilized-I am witness to it already.

 

[jrkarp]

jrkarp,

Im growing tired of your thinking that this ruling is not going to be widely utilized.
Both the Mayor of my city and the nearby major city have already stated their intent on using this ruling.
The Mayor of the city I live in stated this will allow them to get rid of "delapitated" homes to go forward with commercial construction. The Mayor of the nearby major city is going to be romoving homes to accomodate the new football stadium.

Dont be so nieve jrkarp, it is and will be utilized-I am witness to it already.

I'm getting tired of people not reading what I'm saying, not reading the court's opinion, not reading up on the law to understand what is going on, not realizing that there is still due process provided under the 14th Amendment which means that homeowners still have an opportunity to be heard in court and contest the seizure, and not realizing that there is still just compensation (as determined by a court) provided under the 5th Amendment. ALL the ruling says is that it is still "public use" even if the land goes to private entities. THAT IS ALL IT SAYS. It DOES NOT give cities carte blanche to take what they want.

You are not witness to it already. You are witness to a couple of politicians spouting off. If and when the homes are taken and bulldozed, then you will be witness to it. And in any case, two mayors (or even ten) expressing mere interest in using eminent domain after this ruling hardly makes it widespread.

And finally, if you don't like my opinons, don't read them.

/karp

 

[Bigfishy]

Well I guess I should jump in and start swinging. From an economic stand point this new policy seems like a decent idea, if applied correctly. One of the problems with our governements "takings" applications is that the government would give poor people a couple bucks, rip down their house, and then look the other way. The problem is that many of these poor communities are very old, with families who have occupied the same house for a long time. In this situation the market value of the house is not enough for these long time occupants to restablish themselves somewhere else, not to mention that a huge chunk of low income housing was just destroyed, raising the demand and therefore the price of low-income housing. So what do we have... a bunch of pissed off, dissplaced, poor people, who can't afford a place to live and a new super freeway. Well since we just put in a freeway the cities economy starts to rev-up a bit creating new buisness, and yes you guessed it... NEW JOBS. The theory is that these poor people would ride this up-turn in the economy (trickle-down) finding new opportunities which previously didn't exsist. In doing this the city would have not only eliminated a ghetto, but created more economic opportunity for everyone. And this works! Everybody does indeed get richer when the economy improves both rich and poor. The only problem is that if these displaced poor people don't get back on there feet quickly they will become part of an "underclass" which is the poorest of the poor, who have no ability to climb the socio-economic ladder. Now to the new policy. If this new policy is used for urban renewal purposes it could indeed improve all of our lives. If you bulldozed a few houses in a poor area and built a manufacturing plant you would create jobs for many of the poor inhabitants. Now that some jobs were created other jobs will need to be created to cater to those who now have money to spend, creating more jobs and more money etc. All of a sudden a previously poor area has money flowing though it and has been revived. As long as the governement has programs in place to care for and get the few people dissplaced back on there feet (bottom-up approach) its a winning strategy. In essence you have made urban renewal much more poor people friendly. Lastly, if somebody tried to take my house he would have to do so over my dead body, but i'm not below the poverty line and therefore not concerned.

 

[CDB]

This is true. However, must legal analysts feel that there is not going to be a huge rush by governments following this ruling, outside of a few isolated incidents. Also, several states have laws sharply restricting or even prohibiting the use of eminent domain except to reduce blight.

The do indeed. Read that book I recommended and see how loosly "blight" is defined. Cases of blight have been defined as simply as cars with only one car garages, or yards that weren't big enough. Then the houses are bulldozed and higher priced housing or commercial development takes their places.

Maybe we have a difference of perspective. I read pretty much libertarian journals and the most conservative sites on the internet, and they're hot as hell on this issue. Incident after incident, abuse after abuse is reported. As far as i'm concerned abuse of these laws is already at epidemic levels. Do searches at places like lewrockwell.com, mises.org and anti-state.com. Article after article detailing massive abuses. Do searches at the regular papers' sites and you'll see a similar cache of articles, all couched in progrovernment sieze language for the most part. When I first did this I was amazed at how many articles there were, how many land grabs a year, how many people's homes were being ripped down.

 

[jrkarp]

I will check those out, although before even doing so I have to say that you can't exactly take information from sites that lean hard one way or another at face value. That's like going to a PETA site for information on cooking steak.

/karp

 

[BodyWizard]

...or like going to a lawyer for advice on reforming the legal system

 

[jrkarp]

In a lot of cases, you are correct.

People with vested interests in a system should not be the only ones in charge of reforming it. Same goes for teachers, doctors, etc.

/karp

 

[nodgodbod]

welcome to globalisation - I hate to say it - but i do believe that within a century our entire planet will be governed by a handful of large corporations that have the financial and economic assets to sway the government of any country. I can hear the politicians already: "You people should give up your houses and look at the bigger picture - imagine how many jobs will be created by the wallmart/large store/ whatever that's going be built where your house is right now". Take the oil industry for example - some of todays major US political figureheads just happen to sit on the boards of companies like Enron etc etc. Is it any wonder bush pulled out of the Kyoto agreement? or that no mass produceable hydrogen fuelled cars exist? Money rules everything and everyone - Dark times ahead

 

[VanillaGorilla]

I never said that.

What I said was that there is compensation.

You get fair market value, as determined by a court.

And the politicians can't decide to take your house just for Wal-Mart. The case specifically says that property cannot be taken to benefit one specific private entity.

The problem is " fair" is a relative term. The reality is 9 times out of 10 you are going to get screwed. In other words if you could get 300.000 for you house you would be given a "fair price" of 150,000.

 

[Matthew D]

In a lot of cases, you are correct.

People with vested interests in a system should not be the only ones in charge of reforming it. Same goes for teachers, doctors, etc.

/karp

Disagree with you on the teachers and reform.. it is the adminstrators that have a hard time with reform.. which in the case of most of the school in my area, ex-football coaches

 

[jrkarp]

The problem is " fair" is a relative term. The reality is 9 times out of 10 you are going to get screwed. In other words if you could get 300.000 for you house you would be given a "fair price" of 150,000.

"Fair" is a relative term, but "fair market value" is not. It comes from appraisals by court approved real estate appraisers.

The FMV determined by the court is usually an accurate estimation of what a home or business would sell for. The problem is that compensating people by giving them just the FMV of their home is not just, since it does not take into account moving expenses and money invested in improvements that were made to the house but that do not increase the FMV very much. I have always believed that in order to give people "just compensation" as required by the 5th Amendment, we need to give them more than just the FMV of the property confiscated.

/karp

 

[jrkarp]

Disagree with you on the teachers and reform.. it is the adminstrators that have a hard time with reform.. which in the case of most of the school in my area, ex-football coaches

I think it's both sides. I've seen far too many incompetent, ineffective teachers that held on to their jobs because they were protected by tenure. Talk about getting rid of tenure and see how teachers react.

/karp

 

[Brooklyn]

Here we go again.

However, there are no better alternatives to our government. While it can improve, there is no currently available better government.

Of course there are better governments, or ways in which to run a government. We're just not employing them.

You get fair market value, as determined by a court.

Wow, those courts sure are objective. I really believe that the typical local/county court is going to award a true fair market value to someone that has no choice or recourse in which to save their land. Right. It's like going to trial without a lawyer. You may be just as innocent as you would be with a lawyer, but the court is going to perceive you as if you just committed the crime in front of them. When your house is already lost, why would they decide to be fair about compensation? Since when does the government play fair?

From an economic stand point this new policy seems like a decent idea, if applied correctly.

Huh? ::Scratches head:: You're kidding, right?

One of the problems with our governements "takings" applications is that the government would give poor people a couple bucks, rip down their house, and then look the other way. The problem is that many of these poor communities are very old, with families who have occupied the same house for a long time. In this situation the market value of the house is not enough for these long time occupants to restablish themselves somewhere else, not to mention that a huge chunk of low income housing was just destroyed, raising the demand and therefore the price of low-income housing. So what do we have... a bunch of pissed off, dissplaced, poor people, who can't afford a place to live and a new super freeway.

Ok, I'm with you so far.

Well since we just put in a freeway the cities economy starts to rev-up a bit creating new buisness, and yes you guessed it... NEW JOBS. The theory is that these poor people would ride this up-turn in the economy (trickle-down) finding new opportunities which previously didn't exsist. In doing this the city would have not only eliminated a ghetto, but created more economic opportunity for everyone. And this works!

Wha...? Is this a propaganda paper for Reaganomics? This has to be one of the most absurd and far-fetched economic theories I've ever heard. "Trickle-down" doesn't work, it's an idea hatched by the rich to make poor people believe that by supporting big business, they will eventually benefit and find their financial situation drastically improved. It's a joke! Since Reagan, big business is richer than ever, and the poor are poorer. The middle class is eroding. No, the middle classers did not get too rich to qualify as middle class anymore. They got too damn poor. This does NOT work.

If this new policy is used for urban renewal purposes it could indeed improve all of our lives. If you bulldozed a few houses in a poor area and built a manufacturing plant you would create jobs for many of the poor inhabitants. Now that some jobs were created other jobs will need to be created to cater to those who now have money to spend, creating more jobs and more money etc. All of a sudden a previously poor area has money flowing though it and has been revived.

Wow. *Poof* and Presto change-o, we have a brave new world. A nice fantasy, but there's no reality to it. Most properties which are confiscated in this manner are destroyed to make room for retail businesses, road construction or entertainment complexes. Factories are made in places like Korea and China. Most "eminent domain" reclamation does not make new jobs, or if there are new jobs, they are minimum wage jobs which only adds to the blight of the community. Your suggestion is to take the people's houses and then give them jobs at the new Wal Mart. That's urban improvement!

As long as the governement has programs in place to care for and get the few people dissplaced back on there feet (bottom-up approach) its a winning strategy. In essence you have made urban renewal much more poor people friendly.

Yeah, it's real friendly when the cops come to your door and tell you you have to leave the house you worked your ass off all your life to afford and invested your blood, sweat and tears into because the government just doesn't make enough money off you. That's people friendly!

Lastly, if somebody tried to take my house he would have to do so over my dead body, but i'm not below the poverty line and therefore not concerned.

Well I'm glad to see that other people giving up their hard-earned property is ok, but just not for you. Or are you saying that you'd take the meager amount of money the government would give you and buy another house, since you're obviously filthy rich in order to afford doing so? Tell me, what happens when they decide your new house is on land they want as well? Why is it that no one cares until the problem comes home to their doorstep? Try giving a damn now, before it's too late.

"When the Nazis came for the communists, I did not speak out because I was not a communist. When they came for the trade unionists, I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist. When they came for the Catholics, I did not speak out because I was a not a Catholic. When they came for the Jews, I did not speak out because I was a not a Jew. Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me." - Pastor Martin Niemoller

"Fair" is a relative term, but "fair market value" is not. It comes from appraisals by court approved real estate appraisers.

The court could appoint Mr. Magoo as the real estate appraiser for your property. The court thinks like a District Attorney does, conviction minded. Courts will find appraisers who appraise at the lowest possible prices for the property. This saves valuable tax dollars, which are necessary in running a business. You see, you're being kicked out of your home because you weren't profitable enough to the USA. If you had contributed more in property taxes than the next owner, you'd still be living there. This is the problem. Money is worth more then people.

This is not something which will be wisely and sparingly used. It's already being done. Kansas City is a great example of eminent domain laws being loosely interpreted and many people being forced out of homes regularly because the government has some wacky idea or other about making more money one way or another. Let's see the politicians give up their homes to put a Target there, or a new arena.

 

[Matthew D]

I think it's both sides. I've seen far too many incompetent, ineffective teachers that held on to their jobs because they were protected by tenure. Talk about getting rid of tenure and see how teachers react.
/karp

People that don't teach don't realize that it is easy to get rid of a teacher that is not doing their job but the trick is getting the principals to document what is going on. Most principals don't have tenure now, so things are getting to be very different in the game. I would really like to hear more about the incompetent teachers you had... I have been in the game for a while and I have seen a few but I have seen much more that are great at their jobs and all they do is catch the **** from those that think they know what they are doing... ie politicians and others...

 

[Matthew D]

Awesome post Brooklyn

 

[jrkarp]

Here we go again.


Of course there are better governments, or ways in which to run a government. We're just not employing them.

I never said there were better possible governments. All I said is that there are no better governments now.

Wow, those courts sure are objective. I really believe that the typical local/county court is going to award a true fair market value to someone that has no choice or recourse in which to save their land. Right. It's like going to trial without a lawyer. You may be just as innocent as you would be with a lawyer, but the court is going to perceive you as if you just committed the crime in front of them. When your house is already lost, why would they decide to be fair about compensation? Since when does the government play fair?

By this logic the entire judicial system is a sham and we might as well trash it. I guarantee that there are many judges out there that are as disgusted and outraged by this ruling as the people in this thread. You cannot impute to every judge the desire to abuse power, even though so many of them have the potential to abuse it.

The court could appoint Mr. Magoo as the real estate appraiser for your property. The court thinks like a District Attorney does, conviction minded. Courts will find appraisers who appraise at the lowest possible prices for the property. This saves valuable tax dollars, which are necessary in running a business. You see, you're being kicked out of your home because you weren't profitable enough to the USA. If you had contributed more in property taxes than the next owner, you'd still be living there. This is the problem. Money is worth more then people.

This is not something which will be wisely and sparingly used. It's already being done. Kansas City is a great example of eminent domain laws being loosely interpreted and many people being forced out of homes regularly because the government has some wacky idea or other about making more money one way or another. Let's see the politicians give up their homes to put a Target there, or a new arena.

Appraisers have to be certified and licensed. Again, by your logic, our judicial system is a sham and our due process rights don't mean anything. This I refuse to believe. While it is true that power corrupts, it does not corrupt everyone. I know that you think that everything is a conspiracy, so of course you will say that the court is not going to appoint a competent appraiser.

Is there anything that you don't see as a conspiracy?

/karp

 

[jrkarp]

People that don't teach don't realize that it is easy to get rid of a teacher that is not doing their job but the trick is getting the principals to document what is going on. Most principals don't have tenure now, so things are getting to be very different in the game. I would really like to hear more about the incompetent teachers you had... I have been in the game for a while and I have seen a few but I have seen much more that are great at their jobs and all they do is catch the **** from those that think they know what they are doing... ie politicians and others...

Maybe the problem is the principals then.

When I said that earlier, I didn't mean that incompetent teachers were the norm. In fact, I have had and known a lot of excellent teachers, and I think that bad ones are the exception, rather than the rule. But for examples, I could start with the two teachers I had who were, despite being a few years short of retirement, showing quite obvious signs of senility (to the point where I would hear other teachers commenting on it). I've had teachers who knew students were cheating and ignored it. But the most common example is the teachers who simply cannot teach. Teaching is an art, not a science, and some people are wonderful at it, and some people, no matter what good people they are, are terrible at it. Like I said, it doesn't make them bad people, but you have to admit that teachers enjoy a lot of job security that many other people simply do not have.

Part of the problem is that teachers are not paid well enough, and a lot of people who would make good teachers pursue other vocations, partly because they want to make more money. My mother used to be a teacher, and I have the utmost respect for them. They put up with an incredible amount of bullshit for far less pay than they deserve.

/karp

 

[Matthew D]

That I can understand, but you and I can't seem to get it trough some peoples heads that teaching is an art... it does have a science component to it, but that comes from research on why good teachers are good.. IMO.. and you are right, the pay is BS for teachers.. but that will not change anytime soon... you should have seen the fight in my state about funding a 6% pay raise.. it was crazy..

 

[CDB]

Part of the problem is that teachers are not paid well enough, and a lot of people who would make good teachers pursue other vocations, partly because they want to make more money. My mother used to be a teacher, and I have the utmost respect for them. They put up with an incredible amount of bullshit for far less pay than they deserve.
/karp

The problem is the government controls nearly the entire educational system. This is at the root of every problem, from nonaccountability when it comes to budgets, to costs that seem to be going ever upward with none of the every increasing funds ever ending up in teacher's pockets. The problem with giving teachers more money is the system that allows the bad teachers to get the same jobs and job security as the good ones is what you'd be putting that money into. It's not just the good ones who get a raise, it's all of them, which works out to a net loss in the end. But, try and tie raises to performance, who fights it first? The teachers. Try and get rid of tensure and who fights it first? The teachers. Worse, try and introduce a free market idea into the system so people will have a choice what schools and teachers they give their money to, who fights it first? The whole educational establishment. I always found it laughable the special, magical thinking people have when it comes to certain topics. The free market can drive down the price of every good and service on the market to the point where almost anyone can afford them, but somehow education and healthcasre are immune to those same market forces.

I'm always amazed when people start talking about giving teachers more money, or the educational system more money in general. What they should be doing is asking the government why the hell they're getting so little for the money they're already putting into the system.

 

[BigVrunga]

I'm always amazed when people start talking about giving teachers more money, or the educational system more money in general. What they should be doing is asking the government why the hell they're getting so little for the money they're already putting into the system.

Amen to that! I'd also like to ask the government why Im getting ass-raped every payday, and why Im getting so little for the money that I put into 'the government' in general.

BV

 

[VanillaGorilla]

Fair" is a relative term, but "fair market value" is not. It comes from appraisals by court approved real estate appraisers.

The FMV determined by the court is usually an accurate estimation of what a home or business would sell for. The problem is that compensating people by giving them just the FMV of their home is not just, since it does not take into account moving expenses and money invested in improvements that were made to the house but that do not increase the FMV very much. I have always believed that in order to give people "just compensation" as required by the 5th Amendment, we need to give them more than just the FMV of the property confiscated.

The fact is the person will not get near the price for the home if they sold it themselves. I know someone who recently got a divorcé and had to give half of the value of the house to her ex husband. The house was valued at 360,000. The problem is that there are houses half the size of hers that are selling for more than 400,000. If she put the house on the market she could probably get 500,000 for it. Now, lets say that someone bought her house for 500 k and a year later the town decides that for the "greater good" ( more tax revenues for the town) they want to bulldoze the area and put in a golf course, million dollar homes, and a large corporation. The town says that the "fair price" is 360,000. That leaves them with a 140,000 dollar debt. In the SJC Connecticut case someone owned around three properties and was making a money renting them out. Now that person is screwed. You want to leave what is "fair" up to judges? I sure don't. You are playing roulette with the out come. There are some pretty wacky judges out there. Here for example, a transsexual held a screw driver to a child's throat and molested him. The judge gave the molester house arrest. I have no faith in the legal system.

 

[CDB]

There are some pretty wacky judges out there. Here for example, a transsexual held a screw driver to a child's throat and molested him. The judge gave the molester house arrest. I have no faith in the legal system.

Bet you the next case was a drug possession offense where the person got 30 years and had no violent history.

 

[Matthew D]

I am always amazed at the amount of time and extra money that most of the teachers I know put into educating someone else child and usually don't complain that much about it. Or the amount of extra money they have to pay to go back to add more degree because it is required of them or the amount of extra time that is put in every summer at their school because they want to have things read for the upcoming year. Or all the other extra stuff that goes into making a successful year in any grade.. but that is never brought out to the public, they are EXPECTED to do that but if you were asked to do that for your job you would be having ripping duck about it because "HEY! I don't get paid enough for that!" and don't give the crap that it is not expected because it is.. and for the most part, it is gladly suffered but at the same time we don't want to unholy amount of crap from people that think that they know what is going on... just try stepping into a classroom for one semester at a elementry, junior high, or high school level at some of the schools in any state in this union and you MIGHT get a small idea of what is happening. Does the few teachers that don't do their jobs and don't work they way they are supposed to piss me off... Hell yes but at the same time, I know not to lump things into one big stinking basket, by saying that the free market model needs to be applied.. because with education it just will not work, you will end up with a huge class of have nots and a small group of haves... and like I have said before, the tenure laws are not the problem... it is the documentation that needs to be done, any job this day and age it needs to be done... there are way to many times, I have seen other teachers bummed into the way that adminstration wants to do things and if they tenure laws were not there then they would have been let go over a stupid disagreement on how things were to do be done.. and most of the time, it is your good teachers that are going to say something.. NOT the half ass teachers... the half stepping teachers are the ones that lay low and don't say anything but at the same time, don't do anything either. Merit pay has its advantages but the thing I worry abotu is how, what do you base the pay increase on? There are so many intangibles in teaching, and before you think it, it can't be tied to standardized testing... those things are the devil, for the most part only provide a bad snapshot of the student's overall ability at a given time. Do I have the answers.. nope but I will keep looking for something and still keep railing against the system that is in place now.... CDB, I quoted you but I am not trying to single you out and I hope that you don't take any of this personally.. because it is not meant that way... I have just heard all of these arguements for so long and I know that for the most part... they are good questions but not solutions... if you want to look up some things, try looking up the success of charter schools or teaching before the tenure laws.. I have family that can tell me about the last one and they were abused more than a good teacher is now...

The problem is the government controls nearly the entire educational system. This is at the root of every problem, from nonaccountability when it comes to budgets, to costs that seem to be going ever upward with none of the every increasing funds ever ending up in teacher's pockets. The problem with giving teachers more money is the system that allows the bad teachers to get the same jobs and job security as the good ones is what you'd be putting that money into. It's not just the good ones who get a raise, it's all of them, which works out to a net loss in the end. But, try and tie raises to performance, who fights it first? The teachers. Try and get rid of tensure and who fights it first? The teachers. Worse, try and introduce a free market idea into the system so people will have a choice what schools and teachers they give their money to, who fights it first? The whole educational establishment. I always found it laughable the special, magical thinking people have when it comes to certain topics. The free market can drive down the price of every good and service on the market to the point where almost anyone can afford them, but somehow education and healthcasre are immune to those same market forces.

I'm always amazed when people start talking about giving teachers more money, or the educational system more money in general. What they should be doing is asking the government why the hell they're getting so little for the money they're already putting into the system.

 

[jrkarp]

The fact is the person will not get near the price for the home if they sold it themselves. I know someone who recently got a divorcé and had to give half of the value of the house to her ex husband. The house was valued at 360,000. The problem is that there are houses half the size of hers that are selling for more than 400,000. If she put the house on the market she could probably get 500,000 for it. Now, lets say that someone bought her house for 500 k and a year later the town decides that for the "greater good" ( more tax revenues for the town) they want to bulldoze the area and put in a golf course, million dollar homes, and a large corporation. The town says that the "fair price" is 360,000. That leaves them with a 140,000 dollar debt. In the SJC Connecticut case someone owned around three properties and was making a money renting them out. Now that person is screwed. You want to leave what is "fair" up to judges? I sure don't. You are playing roulette with the out come. There are some pretty wacky judges out there. Here for example, a transsexual held a screw driver to a child's throat and molested him. The judge gave the molester house arrest. I have no faith in the legal system.

Hey man, as for the value of the home, you are preaching to the choir. My personal belief is that the compensation paid should be in the amount that will put the person as close as possible to the position that he or she would be in if their property had not been seized; that includes moving expenses, the fair market value of the home, considering the neighborhood and school district, compensation for improvements made that are not reflected in the fair market value, and compensation for the loss of the sentimental value of the home. However, again, the town does not say what the fair market value is. The court determines it based on what a licensed real estate appraiser appraises it for.

As for judges, like I said before, there are good and bad in every profession.

/karp

 

[CDB]

by saying that the free market model needs to be applied.. because with education it just will not work, you will end up with a huge class of have nots and a small group of haves... ..

Would you rather an entire group of have nots? Could you please tell me specifically why the free market can put a state of art television within the grasp of almost everyone in this country cost-wise, but somehow magically education is 'different'? Then could you explain why a private education system wouldn't work when it did work for quite some time? The government system will not work because it is inherently flawed. You can pour the entire federal budget into it and nothing would change. All you get is rising costs for little or no return, decreasing quality of services, stagnating or decreasing pay for teachers and higher and higher taxes for everyone.

I'll say it again, it's laughable that market forces don't apply to these 'special' things like education and health care. And then people turn around and look at the screwups and problems with the government system and blame the free market. It makes no sense. Big class or not, you can bet your ass that if their pay depended on it the administrators and teachers would find a way to teach those kids, because if they didn't they wouldn't get paid. With the government system it's the exact opposite. Failures and problems are used to justify an increased budget. It's the old perverse incentive structure and it's been shown time an again to not work.

What's more, as more and more people turn to a 'free' public education it decreases the pool of people that private education can marketed to, which generally leads to a rise in price for that service putting out of the reach of most people. Also, because of the pervese incentives to give more money to recitfy failure and the increasing pool of people demanding a 'free' public education, you can be guaranteed that the needed tax revenue to fund the educaitonal system will skyrocket regardless of increased or decreased performance on the part of the schools.

There's a reason why so many homes have high quality televisions, computers, cars, toys, video game systems and furniture, but a lot of the kids in those homes are getting substandard educations. Through competition, economies of scale and discovery of new more effective processes the market drives the price of those commodities down so that almost anybody can afford them. Education has not been subject to market forces for a long time, and as a result there has been no accountability for quality or cost. The result is typical. But of course, it's 'special'. There's something inherently 'special' about it that stops the normal rules of the economy from working on it. Exactly what that special characteristic is has yet to be identified though.

 

[Nullifidian]

CDB, if the private market is so great for education and would result in decreased cost then why does the cost of college tuition increase each year at more than twice the rate of inflation?

There's plenty of competition between colleges to get students and to get good reputations etc. Yet they continuously increase the cost of tuition. Do you know why? Because everyone else does. i.e. they can get away with it. Because people expect it now. As a result, a smaller and smaller percentage of the populace is getting higher education. It is slowly reverting back to the time when college education was only for the richest 1% of the US population. We are already at a state where most people going to college really can't afford it and more than half drop out after the first year. Many that stay on to complete their degree go so far into debt that their parents are literally bankrupted by it.

You do the same thing to highschools and the same thing will happen; fewer and fewer people will be able to afford a highschool education. The end result is an even dumber population.

Would you rather an entire group of have nots? Could you please tell me specifically why the free market can put a state of art television within the grasp of almost everyone in this country cost-wise, but somehow magically education is 'different'? Then could you explain why a private education system wouldn't work when it did work for quite some time? The government system will not work because it is inherently flawed. You can pour the entire federal budget into it and nothing would change. All you get is rising costs for little or no return, decreasing quality of services, stagnating or decreasing pay for teachers and higher and higher taxes for everyone.

I'll say it again, it's laughable that market forces don't apply to these 'special' things like education and health care. And then people turn around and look at the screwups and problems with the government system and blame the free market. It makes no sense. Big class or not, you can bet your ass that if their pay depended on it the administrators and teachers would find a way to teach those kids, because if they didn't they wouldn't get paid. With the government system it's the exact opposite. Failures and problems are used to justify an increased budget. It's the old perverse incentive structure and it's been shown time an again to not work.

What's more, as more and more people turn to a 'free' public education it decreases the pool of people that private education can marketed to, which generally leads to a rise in price for that service putting out of the reach of most people. Also, because of the pervese incentives to give more money to recitfy failure and the increasing pool of people demanding a 'free' public education, you can be guaranteed that the needed tax revenue to fund the educaitonal system will skyrocket regardless of increased or decreased performance on the part of the schools.

There's a reason why so many homes have high quality televisions, computers, cars, toys, video game systems and furniture, but a lot of the kids in those homes are getting substandard educations. Through competition, economies of scale and discovery of new more effective processes the market drives the price of those commodities down so that almost anybody can afford them. Education has not been subject to market forces for a long time, and as a result there has been no accountability for quality or cost. The result is typical. But of course, it's 'special'. There's something inherently 'special' about it that stops the normal rules of the economy from working on it. Exactly what that special characteristic is has yet to be identified though.

 

[BigVrunga]

You forgot to add what a bitch it is to get a job once you get out of school in today's job market. I know so many people with their Master's degrees and little real-world experience working the same jobs they worked during school, well after they've graduated becaue they can't find work in their field.

College is such a load of bullshit. You have to have it, but when it comes down to it there are plenty of other ways to make money. All the crap I learned in 4 years of school I seriously could have learned in a year...its such a scam.

BV

 

[Jeff]

there's nothing sweeter than an on-target political hoax!

http://www.freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty2.html

The Kelo decision may have a very immediate, very personal effect on one of the justices who voted for it.

Press Release

For Release Monday, June 27 to New Hampshire media
For Release Tuesday, June 28 to all other media

Weare, New Hampshire (PRWEB) Could a hotel be built on the land owned by Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter? A new ruling by the Supreme Court which was supported by Justice Souter himself itself might allow it. A private developer is seeking to use this very law to build a hotel on Souter's land.

Justice Souter's vote in the "Kelo vs. City of New London" decision allows city governments to take land from one private owner and give it to another if the government will generate greater tax revenue or other economic benefits when the land is developed by the new owner.

On Monday June 27, Logan Darrow Clements, faxed a request to Chip Meany the code enforcement officer of the Towne of Weare, New Hampshire seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road. This is the present location of Mr. Souter's home.

Clements, CEO of Freestar Media, LLC, points out that the City of Weare will certainly gain greater tax revenue and economic benefits with a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road than allowing Mr. Souter to own the land.

The proposed development, called "The Lost Liberty Hotel" will feature the "Just Desserts Café" and include a museum, open to the public, featuring a permanent exhibit on the loss of freedom in America. Instead of a Gideon's Bible each guest will receive a free copy of Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged."

Clements indicated that the hotel must be built on this particular piece of land because it is a unique site being the home of someone largely responsible for destroying property rights for all Americans.

"This is not a prank" said Clements, "The Towne of Weare has five people on the Board of Selectmen. If three of them vote to use the power of eminent domain to take this land from Mr. Souter we can begin our hotel development."

Clements' plan is to raise investment capital from wealthy pro-liberty investors and draw up architectural plans. These plans would then be used to raise investment capital for the project. Clements hopes that regular customers of the hotel might include supporters of the Institute For Justice and participants in the Free State Project among others.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

The court determines it based on what a licensed real estate appraiser appraises it for.

Her house was appraised by a licensed realtors and the value was 360,000. As I said before a extremely small house goes for 400,000 in the area. The real value of the house is some where around 500,000. What would happen if for some reason they wanted to seize her house? She would probably get 360,000 for it which is about 140,000 less than what she could get if she sold it on her own. So in other words with the new ruling people get screwed. Fair and greater good are relative terms. To the town it's fair to give someone less money for their house and serves the greater good to collect more tax revenue. To the public there is a different story. The scj is out of control with recent rulings of not allowing states use the death penalty in anyone under 18 and citing the option of the world in their decision. The eminent domain decision falls into the same category. There is a difference between putting in a high way that is needed and seizing property so the town can get move revenue.

 

[BigVrunga]

there's nothing sweeter than an on-target political hoax!

http://www.freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty2.html

The Kelo decision may have a very immediate, very personal effect on one of the justices who voted for it.

Ha! That's beautiful. I doubt it will go through, but I really hope it does.

BV

 

[CDB]

CDB, if the private market is so great for education and would result in decreased cost then why does the cost of college tuition increase each year at more than twice the rate of inflation?

Well gee, about a billion government regulations to comply with adding to the cost? As I said in previous post, you can't look at the problems within a system that's subject to unending government tampering and regulation and blame the problems on the free market. Almost all schools receive public funds on some level and are tightly regulated. Another reason is it's hard to compete with public universities because their costs are defrayed among tons of taxpayers. The 'lower' cost, or more accurately the unseen cost, make public universities more appealing to people. The more that go in there, the smaller the market for private schools. The smaller and more exclusive the market, the higher the price for the service.

Large scale government subsidies lead to productivity declines. In higher education professors are doing far less work now than they did in the sixties, and there's also been a sharp rise the amount of nonteaching staff employed at universities which adds to the cost even more. You have endless layers of administration to deal with and 'competition' in the form of public universities that's impossible to beat. So they joined them. Signficant chunks of all universities' funding come from the state with all the requisit strings attached, including the economic problems.

There's plenty of competition between colleges to get students and to get good reputations etc. Yet they continuously increase the cost of tuition. Do you know why? Because everyone else does. i.e. they can get away with it. Because people expect it now.

Can you please explain why no other industry has caught on to this piece of ecnomic brilliance? Oh that's right, they did already! It's called cartelization. Problem is it's only possible when the government enforces the cartel. Otherwise they fall apart from internal and external competition. If you honestly believe what you said here Null, you've got a lot more economics homework to do. You honestly think that all a bunch of industry leaders have to do is meet somewhere and decide to raise prices, and they can? Please tell me what, other than the government, can stop someone else who is not a part of the cartel from coming in and undercutting the rising prices, forcing them downward again? Such cartels and formal/informal rate hiking agreements have been tried in every industry from railroads to steel to banking, and they've always failed absent government enforcement of the cartel.

You do the same thing to highschools and the same thing will happen; fewer and fewer people will be able to afford a highschool education. The end result is an even dumber population.

I find that funny, because when we do the same thing with anything else the price goes down. Once more, what's that special something, that indefinable thing, the it, the stuff, that undetectable special thing that makes education immune to the same market forces that apply to every other good and service on the planet?

 

[joecski]

I find that funny, because when we do the same thing with anything else the price goes down. Once more, what's that special something, that indefinable thing, the it, the stuff, that undetectable special thing that makes education immune to the same market forces that apply to every other good and service on the planet?

That special thing as you call it is necessity. We need to go to college today just to get a job. So, the schools have us as a captive market and can charge tuition at will. Same goes for other necessities, such as electric and natural gas, which are actually price regulated by the government. If they were not, there would be a lot more people living in the dark with no heat.

Education is a tough problem to crack, but it does seem that our current policy of tying property taxes to school funding is flawed. Too many school districts, too much bureaucracy, and tool little attention to the actual needs of teachers and students.

 

[Brooklyn]

Weare, New Hampshire (PRWEB) Could a hotel be built on the land owned by Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter? A new ruling by the Supreme Court which was supported by Justice Souter himself itself might allow it. A private developer is seeking to use this very law to build a hotel on Souter's land.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Now, Justice Souter, please vacate your home, we're building a Motel 6!! LOL!!
:rofl: :saw: :thumbsup:

 

[Matthew D]

SWEET... now that has got to be a great one

 

[CDB]

That special thing as you call it is necessity. We need to go to college today just to get a job. So, the schools have us as a captive market and can charge tuition at will. Same goes for other necessities, such as electric and natural gas, which are actually price regulated by the government. If they were not, there would be a lot more people living in the dark with no heat.

Food is a necessity, and funnily enough that industry hasn't caught on to that economic principle. Clothing is a necessity, and funnily enough they haven't caught on to that economic principle. They haven't because it's flat out wrong. Whether something is considered a necessity or not has nothing to do with the economic forces that govern it, because as I've said, absent government supression of competition, no matter how necessary something is all you need is a bunch of people who want to buy it and bunch of people who want to sell it in competition with one another. Be it power, food, heat, clothing, cars, education, whatever. There are any number of other services or goods that could be labeled necessities that are cheap and plentiful because the the economy has driven the prices down. Try again.

I also find it funny that in this wonderful government regulated power market you seem to love, somehow in the twentieth century with amazing technology available we still have rolling blackouts and massive power outages. I know a few people nearby who are part of energy cooperatives and/or on a private grid of some sort. I don't recall them ever having to deal with a rolling blackout or an outage. Must be magic.

Education is a tough problem to crack, but it does seem that our current policy of tying property taxes to school funding is flawed. Too many school districts, too much bureaucracy, and tool little attention to the actual needs of teachers and students.

As long as it's publically funded that's what you'll get, because there is no accountability. No matter how it's funded, if things are screwed up it'll be used as a justification for more funding. In the private market if someone sells you a product that doesn't work or is of low value, you have the choice to go elsewhere and the seller suffers for it. That's the key difference.

 

[joecski]

Food is a necessity, and funnily enough that industry hasn't caught on to that economic principle. Clothing is a necessity, and funnily enough they haven't caught on to that economic principle.

Before I start, I thought it was a little funny to hear you say that I love anything about the government controlling anything. This would ruin my rep as a libertarian! :icon_lol:

OK, food and clothing are necessities, but I can buy a can of tuna fish for $1 that is as nutritious as a filet mignon for $15. I could also go to the thrift/discount store and get a pair of jeans for $5 that will keep me as warm as a pair of designer jeans for $400. While food and clothing are necessities, a person can make do with the cheapest of either and still be as well off as the person who spends top dollar.

Apply this to education, and you get a whole new perspective. Do you think a parent who can only afford $500 year for their child's education is going to get the same education for their child as a person who is willing to spend $1500? Of course not. So, what we will end up with is a society dominated by those who have money to spend on education - and it becomes a generational problem because people can never get the education they need. In our society, education is seen as a 'level playing field' for all our children. If someone can afford a private school, that will put their child ahead. However, if you can not afford to pay for a private school, your child will still get the same education as the majority of Americans in a public school. So many segments of our society are geared towards the benefit of the wealthy and keeping the lower class poor. I would hate to see education go down this road as well.

The beginning of this thread had to do with private companies being allowed to develop other privately owned land with the governments consent. A perfect example of bilking the common people for the benefit of the rich.

 

[CDB]

Before I start, I thought it was a little funny to hear you say that I love anything about the government controlling anything. This would ruin my rep as a libertarian! :icon_lol:

OK, food and clothing are necessities, but I can buy a can of tuna fish for $1 that is as nutritious as a filet mignon for $15. I could also go to the thrift/discount store and get a pair of jeans for $5 that will keep me as warm as a pair of designer jeans for $400. While food and clothing are necessities, a person can make do with the cheapest of either and still be as well off as the person who spends top dollar.

Thanks for proving my point. Nothing you just said anything to do with the economics of the situation. The reason that can of tuna is so cheap is because the government isn't jacking up the price of it too much with billions of regulations on the industry. So what would you rather have with food: everyone eating tuna and only a few getting access to the steak, and diminishing quality when it comes to both over time; or having a myriad of options available to all people at all price levels, with prices driven down through competition to make all levels of food accessible to as many people as possible? The same applies to education. It doesn't matter how necessary something is. The price is determined by much more than how many people want something.

You can't legislate economic inequalities out of existence because it's just the way the world is. What the market does is ensure that if somebody wants something, be it a tv, some food or an education, and somebody can deliver it to them at a price that makes it worth it for everyone involved, it will be delivered. It also ensures, as long as the government doesn't step in and screw things up, that the general trend in prices will be downward because of increasing efficiency, new technologies and methods, economies of scale, etc. When you put the government in the picture those things are eliminated. Inefficiency and efficiency are rewarded equally or innefficiency gets more of a reward. New technologies and methods are much slower to work their way into the system so people don't see the benefits as soon as they could, if at all. Everything that would be of benefit to those who aren't rich is wiped out. All you end up with is a system with no accountability, no profit incentive, no need to increase its productivity, political decision made for people, rather than them making decisions for themselves, etc, etc, etc.

That, in my mind, is a much worse situation than some people not being able to afford the best of everything. A car is a necessity in modern society too, but that doesn't entitle everyone to a Lexus. Somehow the majority of us seem to get along with Hondas and Fords, even though some have access to a Lexus or even their own limos.

 

[joecski]

That, in my mind, is a much worse situation than some people not being able to afford the best of everything.

I think we may have to agree to disagree here. I agree that a market based economy has benefits that far outweigh any centrally controlled economy. Look at China as the prime example and see how they are flourishing as a result of taking baby steps into the market. However, we are not talking about a cars, we are talking about education. If you get a Mercedes worth of education, and I get a Hyundais worth, how can I compete with you? What about if I can only afford public transportation? Marketing education in this manner would only serve to widen the gap in society between the 'haves' and the 'have nots.'
Education is not something to be bought and sold, it is a social contract we make as a citizens of this country so we can continue to grow as a nation. If the scenario you presented came into being, and people were given breaks on their property taxes (which will never happen), how would the average low income family which lives in an apartment fund their children going to school? Would their rent be reduced? Do these children not go to school? Do they go to a 'special school'? Even more thorny is the issue of measuring success in a school system with no oversight from the government. Imagine schools where every child got straight A's and none were 'left behind'. Schools would become nothing more than the commercials we see now on TV for Sylvan Learning Center. Every child with enough cash to make it to the school would be a success, regardless of achievement. You can spin anything you sell, make any numbers look good, and schools would be run by - salesmen.

 

[CDB]

I think we may have to agree to disagree here. I agree that a market based economy has benefits that far outweigh any centrally controlled economy. Look at China as the prime example and see how they are flourishing as a result of taking baby steps into the market. However, we are not talking about a cars, we are talking about education. If you get a Mercedes worth of education, and I get a Hyundais worth, how can I compete with you? What about if I can only afford public transportation? Marketing education in this manner would only serve to widen the gap in society between the 'haves' and the 'have nots.'

How does that happen with a greater variety of products/services along the whole grade of quality? You'll also notice the quality and reliability of other products and services tends to increase in the market too. The free market would close those gaps because instead of being forced to choose between a 'free' Yugo or paying for a Rolls Royce there would be a myriad of choices in between. You should also notice with cars the gap of quality between high end cars and every day drivers like Hondas has decreased, not increased. I think it was the CEO of Nissan that admitted not too long ago that the quality gap between the Infinity and Nissan brands would not justify the difference in cost in most people's eyes. Once more, economic inequalities will exist all the time no matter what. State intervention makes them worse because more and more 'poor' people, and more and more people who aren't poor but want something for 'free' start to rely on the system, taxing it beyond what it can stand, leading to higher costs. It's the nature of government interventionism that it can only make problems worse because there is no built in incentive to make them better. Quite the contrary: the worse things get, the more money gets poured into the system. This keeps happening until people flat out refuse to pay more because the hidden costs are blatantly exposed, but the demand on the system keeps increasing and eventually it collapses.

Education is not something to be bought and sold, it is a social contract we make as a citizens of this country so we can continue to grow as a nation. If the scenario you presented came into being, and people were given breaks on their property taxes (which will never happen), how would the average low income family which lives in an apartment fund their children going to school? Would their rent be reduced? Do these children not go to school? Do they go to a 'special school'?

You'll never know until you try. Right now it's possible to put all the lecture courses of an entire college career's worth of study on one DVD. If they want an education someone will find a way to deliver it. You can bet the ending of property taxes would take a huge burden off their shoulders. This part of the issue encompasses a whole bunch of other topics, like continual devaluation of the currency so real wages never really rise as they should, and a tax burden that's ever increasing for various other reasons, taking an ever greater chunk of people's money which could otherwise be spent on education and other good and services.

Even more thorny is the issue of measuring success in a school system with no oversight from the government. Imagine schools where every child got straight A's and none were 'left behind'. Schools would become nothing more than the commercials we see now on TV for Sylvan Learning Center. Every child with enough cash to make it to the school would be a success, regardless of achievement. You can spin anything you sell, make any numbers look good, and schools would be run by - salesmen.

Good. Salesmen have to keep their clients happy. If they were in education no matter how much they spun things if the kids weren't doing well out of school it wouldn't take too long to catch on. The market tends to weed out poor products and services to the point where they are not worth the price being charged. Also, why are the people involved with the government school system somehow benevolent angels while those involved in a private system would be scummy salesmen?

I have to ask what it is about the motives of the government drones that makes them so beyond reproach, do you honestly think they're any less self interested than a saleman on the private market? Is that why teacher's unions and education administrators always oppose any and all changes to the system that would put more accountability on them, and instead simply demand more and more money even though private schools deliver a better service for a much lower cost per student? They do so even when you account for special needs such as students with mental disabilities and similar costs. The difference between the two is in the public sector they get to rape the system any which way they want with little or no accountability. Then they get to demand more money when their incompetencies and mistakes cause problems. In the private sector they can only get away with such things for only so long before people catch on and take their money elsewhere. And at least in the private sector that's an option for people.

The key difference is in the private sector you get more choices at prices that continually go down over time, and in the public sector you get one choice with prices that continually rise over time. I know which option is better, because it's served to bring every other good and service into their lives at a reasonable price. Once more, there is nothing magical about education that makes it immune from market forces that lower the cost of every other good and service on the planet. All I see here is people offerring aesthetic reasons why people thing education should be treated special. I've yet to see one person pose one inherent characteristic about education that would make it somehow act differently than other goods and services on the market. I also refuse to believe I'm the only one who notices that whenever costs keep skyrocketing and services suck, that somewhere in the wood work, usually not too deep, is the government happily fucking things up for everyone.