Vouchers and Competition: A Reflection

As a child, around the 4th of July, I was struck by the tales of the Soviet Union's limited consumer choices, a stark contrast to the abundant variety found in every aisle of our capitalist society's grocery stores. This memory prompts me to consider the debates on monopolies, such as the one surrounding Microsoft's dominance and the calls for its breakup to foster true market competition. This historical perspective raises an essential question: Should we not also question the government's extensive control over education? It's concerning that in the U.S., a single entity often monopolizes the credentialing of key professionals like doctors, lawyers, and engineers.

Such monopolistic practices risk creating systems that may not serve the best interests of the American populace. Political views aside, there's a tendency across the spectrum to tolerate monopolies when they serve one's interests. The left often views the government as a benevolent overseer, leading to resistance against introducing competition in education. Meanwhile, professionals on the right, including doctors, lawyers, and engineers, defend the exclusive rights of their institutions to grant certifications. While these bodies claim to maintain competency standards, they can also act as barriers, maintaining the status quo of power structures.

What's needed is a consistent advocacy for competition across all domains rather than a selective application based on convenience. Consider the American Medical Association's reluctance to certify foreign-trained doctors, even when many come from countries with better health outcomes than the U.S., like Great Britain, Germany, or Scandinavia. This scenario begs the question of whether the concern is genuinely about quality.

Thus, when a doctor or teacher voices opposition to immigrant professionals or educational vouchers while decrying business monopolies, their arguments deserve a critical examination. Their resistance might reflect more on protecting established privileges than on upholding quality or public interest.

Main Thesis:

"Introducing competition in sectors monopolized by government control, such as education and professional credentialing, enhances quality, accessibility, and innovation, benefiting society at large."

Objective Criteria for Measuring the Strength of Beliefs:

• Effectiveness: The degree to which competition improves outcomes in education and professional fields.
• Equity: How competition affects access to quality education and professional opportunities across different demographics.
• Quality Assurance: The ability of competitive systems to maintain or raise standards of education and professional practice.
• Economic Impact: Assessment of how competition influences costs for consumers and taxpayers.

Unstated Assumptions:

• That competition inherently leads to improved quality and efficiency.
• Government-run institutions lack the motivation to innovate and excel.
• Professional bodies might prioritize gatekeeping over the public good.

Shared and Opposing Interests:

• Shared: High-quality education and professional standards, accessibility, and public welfare.
• Opposing: Government and professional bodies may resist competition due to loss of control; private entities may prioritize profit over quality.

Underlying Issues (Root Causes):

• Lack of Incentive for Innovation: Monopolistic control can lead to complacency and resistance to change.
• Barriers to Entry: High credentialing standards can prevent qualified individuals from entering professions.
• Equity and Access: Socioeconomic disparities may be exacerbated in a competitive system without safeguards.

Key Resources for Comprehensive Understanding:

• Books: "The Beautiful Tree" by James Tooley; "Disrupting Class" by Clayton Christensen.
• Articles: "The Role of Government in Education" by Milton Friedman.
• Lectures/Debates: Debates on school choice and professional licensure on platforms like Intelligence Squared.

Top-rated Solutions:

• Voucher Systems: To promote school choice, ensuring equitable access regardless of socioeconomic status.
• Credential Recognition Programs: Simplifying the process for recognizing foreign credentials in professions.
• Public-Private Partnerships: Leveraging the strengths of both sectors to enhance educational and professional training programs.

The Truth About Problems: Phoenix Edition

Listen up, folks. We’ve all heard that age-old question: How do we solve the world's problems? Well, let's get one thing straight: we've always had problems, and Phoenix, with its water woes, is just a drop in the desert.

Order Amidst Chaos: A Thermodynamics Spin-Off

Problems, by definition, are chaotic messes waiting for a solution. Science says the universe leans toward disorder (yeah, that’s thermodynamics for you). But guess what? We humans, with our supposedly superior brains, manage to eke out little pockets of order amidst this global fiesta of chaos. And that, my friend, is life. We harness order like plants harness sunlight. But does that mean we’re angels of salvation? Not quite.

Phoenix vs. The West: A Saga of Biodiversity

Now, let's travel west. See that city, Phoenix, sitting amidst the cacti and jackrabbits? Sure, it might not boast a rainforest's biodiversity, but it's teeming with life. For the naysayers who lament, “Man ruins everything!”—take a hike (literally). Visit Phoenix, and you’ll witness a smorgasbord of life, brought in both by nature and human design. And yeah, we do pump water up, but please, spare me the lecture about how everything humans touch turns to dust.

Media Melodrama: The Aquifer Edition

There's a media frenzy around Phoenix "running out of water." Oh, the horror! But hold on a minute—while there might not be enough water for an agriculture revolution, there’s enough for the people living there. The “Phoenix is doomed” narrative? Overdramatic. If Phoenix gets pricey, people will move. Simple.

Problems, Problems Everywhere!

Problems? They're everywhere. Phoenix has its water issues, but every city, every place, every person on this planet has a problem to grapple with. Yet, what's with this endless tirade of doomsday articles? Why are we constantly bombarded with the gloomiest, doomiest scenarios?

The Media's Obsession with Fear

Face it, fear sells. Our brains are hardwired to sniff out danger, and the media exploits that. What we get? A myopic view. We don't need a bunch of talking heads emphasizing every bleak possibility without giving us the bigger picture.

Reorganizing the Chaos

So here's the proposal: Let’s create a digital space that lays out the pros and cons for every major issue. No more skimming the surface. We need detailed evidence, arguments, and counterarguments—freed from the fear-fueled propaganda. Let’s democratize knowledge, not sensationalize it.

Check it out at www.groupintel.org/home, where we’re trying to make sense of it all, one problem at a time. And for the techies, the magic happens here: github.com/myklob/ideastockexchange. Dive deep into the algorithms that make it happen.

Conclusion: Break the Propaganda Machine

We need to stop being a society that’s pushed around by fear. Let’s tackle each problem head-on, with clarity and rationality. Instead of buying into a narrative, let's create one that’s based on reason, collaboration, and genuine understanding. Check out my podcast here where we dive into these issues and more.

Remember: the world might have its problems, but they’re not unsolvable. What we need is less fear and more informed discussions.

The issue of the tail wagging the dog in political parties:

The fundamental problem with political parties lies in their approach. They often begin with predetermined, partisan answers, neglecting the essential first step of formulating the right questions. Instead of focusing on the pragmatic query of how they can provide the most benefits for their country with the least cost, the prevailing concern becomes self-centered and short-sighted. Politicians repeatedly ask themselves, "How can I get elected by stirring up outrage at the other side?" This misguided emphasis diverts attention from the greater good, leading to a polarized and unproductive political environment.

Competition and Education Reform

 Ed Reform Considerations:

• Darwin's Influence: Teachers often discuss Darwin's theories, teaching that life evolved through competition, or "survival of the fittest." This, in essence, promotes the idea that competition is a vital catalyst for improvement and growth.
• Teaching by Example: The most effective method of teaching is through example. However, the lack of competition among teachers may inadvertently lead them to teach their students not to compete or thrive in the real world. This could result in preparing students for a world that is very different from the reality they will face.
• Free Market in Schools: There's a disparity in what we pay for different quality products in various sectors, such as dining at The Olive Garden versus McDonald's. So why shouldn't better teachers be paid more? Why not set up a system that maintains quality and allows individuals to use their money to hire better teachers? The current system doesn't necessarily reward excellence or encourage competition among educators.

Reasons to Agree:

1. Encouraging Excellence: A competitive environment could push teachers to constantly improve, enhancing the overall quality of education.
2. Alignment with Real World: Since competition is an inherent part of the real world, teaching students to engage in healthy competition may better prepare them for their future careers.
3. Choice and Quality: Allowing a free-market system in education might give parents and students more choices and control over their education quality, similar to other consumer choices.

Reasons to Disagree:

1. Potential Inequality: Creating a free-market system might widen the gap between wealthy and underprivileged students, as higher income families could afford better teachers.
2. Undue Pressure: Intense competition among teachers might lead to unhealthy rivalry, burnout, or an overemphasis on certain subjects or methods at the expense of a holistic education.
3. Conflict with Collaboration: Education often benefits from collaboration, shared resources, and mutual support among teachers. A competitive system might undermine this cooperative culture.

Alternative ways of saying the same thing:

1. Educational improvement relies on competitive practices:
2. The free market should govern educational quality, allowing better teachers to earn more:
3. The survival of the fittest principle should apply to teaching, inspiring excellence:

Objective Criteria for Assessing the Validity of this Belief:

1. Effectiveness of Competition in Improving Quality: Pro: 7, Con: 4
2. Impact on Teacher Morale and Collaboration: Pro: 3, Con: 8
3. Equity and Access to Quality Education: Pro: 2, Con: 7

Unstated Assumptions:

1. That competition inherently leads to quality improvement.
2. That market principles can be directly applied to education.

Shared Interests:

1. Desire to improve educational standards.
2. Need to ensure all students have access to quality education.

Underlying Issues:

1. Differences in opinion on the role of competition in human development and learning.
2. Conflicts between market-driven approaches and educational philosophies.

Top-rated Solutions:

1. Developing a hybrid model that incorporates competitive incentives without undermining collaboration and inclusivity.
2. Regular performance evaluations tied to incentives.

Key Resources:

• Books:
  • "The Smartest Kids in the World" by Amanda Ripley
  • "Creative Schools: The Grassroots Revolution That's Transforming Education" by Sir Ken Robinson
• Articles:
  • "Competition and the Reform of Teacher Education" in the Journal of Teacher Education
• Debates:
  • Debates surrounding the No Child Left Behind Act and its emphasis on competition.
• Lectures:
• TED Talk by Sir Ken Robinson on transforming education

Alternative Solution

1. Exactly copying what is working in other countries, not trying to re-invent the wheel.