Education in the United States
We have a thread devoted to academic freedom at universities, and we have a thread devoted to whether higher education should be subsidized. This thread is a landing spot for discussion of other issues related to education -- issues like school integration, pedagogy, the influence of politics on education (and vice versa), charter schools, public v. private schools, achievement gaps, and gerrymandering of school districts.
I'll start the discussion with two articles. The first deals with a major changes in the public school system in NYC.
NYC's public schools are highly segregated for such a diverse city. Last Friday, Bill DeBlasio announced the following:
Middle schools will see the most significant policy revisions. The city will eliminate all admissions screening for the schools for at least one year, the mayor said. About 200 middle schools — 40 percent of the total — use metrics like grades, attendance and test scores to determine which students should be admitted. Now those schools will use a random lottery to admit students.
In doing this, Mr. de Blasio is essentially piloting an experiment that, if deemed successful, could permanently end the city’s academically selective middle schools, which tend to be much whiter than the district overall.
DeBlasio also announced that:
New York will also eliminate a policy that allowed some high schools to give students who live nearby first dibs at spots — even though all seats are supposed to be available to all students, regardless of where they reside.
The system of citywide choice was implemented by former Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg in 2004 as part of an attempt to democratize high school admissions. But Mr. Bloomberg exempted some schools, and even entire districts, from the policy, and Mr. de Blasio did not end those carve outs.
The most conspicuous example is Manhattan’s District 2, one of the whitest and wealthiest of the city’s 32 local school districts. Students who live in that district, which includes the Upper East Side and the West Village, get priority for seats in some of the district’s high schools, which are among the highest-performing schools in the city.
No other district in the city has as many high schools — six — set aside for local, high-performing students.
Many of those high schools fill nearly all of their seats with students from District 2 neighborhoods before even considering qualified students from elsewhere. As a result, some schools, like Eleanor Roosevelt High School on the Upper East Side, are among the whitest high schools in all of New York City.
Here is the New York Times article that describes the changes:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/18/nyreg...
Obvious questions for discussion include:
- How large a priority should cities place on ensuring that city schools are representative of the city as a whole?
- Are measures like the ones that DeBlasio is implementing likely to be effective in making schools more representative?
- Will these measures have unintended (or intended) consequences that extend far beyond changing the representativeness of city schools?
There would be a civil and a criminal matter arising from that as currently, I don't understand your doubt.
But in my model the sentencing would be far harsher than in yours (high probability that person will never again be part of society of the event as described can be proven on trial).
Gratuitous violence would be punished by death
The doubt is that in your world, causing injury while driving under the influence is purely a civil matter, so I wanted to see where the line was. So, causing injury or death through gross negligence/reckless endangerment is civil, but causing injury or death "gratuitously" is criminal, correct?
Ok, now I am shooting off my fully legally owned Bazooka in a crowded area without really aiming for anyone or anything in particular, and I hit you in the kneecaps. Civil, right?
I deal in nuance, but you don't as you never even try to reason in terms of the damage caused by regulations, you only see the problem they purportedly try to solve and not the costs.
It's not like there aren't grey areas where it's unclear how to deal with a possible property right violation. There are.
It's that most regulations cause more damage than they reduce, and a lot of it is indirect, and it is almost never accounted for by people like you who like the regulatory state.
We all know what the costs of overregulation are -- wasted time, wasted money, inefficiency, potential loss of competitiveness on a global scale, etc.
Take the financial sector in the United States. Over the last forty years, money within the financial sector has tended to flow in the direction of areas that are less regulated because those are the areas where it is easiest for smart money to take advantage of dumb money, especially dumb retail money. Things run hot for a while. Then there is some sort of financial meltdown in the less regulated area. Then Congress closes the barn door after the horses have escaped and implements some sort of blunt regulation that ends up being overkill, at least as applied to some market participants. (For example, Sarbanes -Oxley arguably made sense for large public companies. It almost certainly was overkill as applied to smaller public companies.) Eventually, the financial sector starts lobbying for those regulations to be watered down until there is another meltdown.
This is an overgeneralization, but that's often the ebb and flow in the United States. I have a fair bit of experience learning about all the bullshit that goes on in a financial sector that is too lightly regulated (and how costly overregulation can be). What you want to do is eliminate virtually all regulation. I feel very certain that the consequences in the financial sector would be disastrous. Frankly, that's why even the Jamie Dimons of the world have no interest in your libertopia.
More generally, I don't know why you assume that I support every new regulation that is implemented. I don't have to be some sort of regulation zealot in order to believe that your vision for the world is juvenile.
Guys, I think I might have solved the energy crisis. We just put Luciom and Victor in the same room, and when they annihilate, they'll produce enough energy to power London, NYC and Tokyo for the next decade.
We all know what the costs of overregulation are -- wasted time, wasted money, inefficiency, potential loss of competitiveness on a global scale, etc.
Take the financial sector in the United States. Over the last forty years, money within the financial sector has tended to flow in the direction of areas that are less regulated because those are the areas where it is easiest for smart money to take advantage of dumb money, especially dumb retail money. Things run hot for a while. Then there is
Imagine not realizing regulation actually caused (was one of the causes of) the GFC.
There is no federal mortgage guarantee nor a federal deposit guarantee without regulations, which means mega-booms predicated on "this time is different" can't last that long and risk can't pile up that much, it implodes much sooner and the dumb, lazy and ignorant are departed from their money so they aren't around causing more crises later on.
The Jamie dimons of the world are the top experts at regulatory capture roflmao, they want as much regulation as possible and then carve outs for them, that's how they make money.
Imagine not realizing regulation actually caused (was one of the causes of) the GFC.
There is no federal mortgage guarantee nor a federal deposit guarantee without regulations, which means mega-booms predicated on "this time is different" can't last that long and risk can't pile up that much, it implodes much sooner and the dumb, lazy and ignorant are departed from their money so they aren't around causing more crises later on.
The Jamie dimons of the world are the top experts at regulatory captur
Please explain how federal deposit guarantees contributed to the financial crisis of 2008.
As an aside, I love it when posts begin with "Imagine believing" or "Imagine thinking". It's such a compelling way to convey that the person you are talking to is too stupid to recognize the blindingly obvious. It's just a devastating rhetorical device. I really should remember to use it more often. And not just on the internet. I probably should use it more in face-to-face conversations as well.
As an aside, I love it when posts begin with "Imagine believing" or "Imagine thinking". It's such a compelling way to convey that the person you are talking to is too stupid to recognize the blindingly obvious. It's just a devastating rhetorical device. I really should remember to use it more often. And not just on the internet. I probably should use it more in face-to-face conversations as well.
It's not rethoric, I just try to imagine that.
Because it's so far away from the way I look at the world, yet so common among people with your techno-centrist political view of society, that I try to imagine that. I admit I often fail because my mind isn't built to believe unsubstantiated stuff
As an aside, I love it when posts begin with "Imagine believing" or "Imagine thinking". It's such a compelling way to convey that the person you are talking to is too stupid to recognize the blindingly obvious. It's just a devastating rhetorical device. I really should remember to use it more often. And not just on the internet. I probably should use it more in face-to-face conversations as well.
When you're an expert on every topic, it gets tiresome having to explain these self-evident concepts to the plebs. I, for one, feel that a small measure of condescension is a reasonable price to pay for the benefit of Luciom's wisdom in these matters.
Let's get back to the substance. How did federal deposit guarantees cause the financial crisis of 2008?
It's not rethoric, I just try to imagine that.
Because it's so far away from the way I look at the world, yet so common among people with your techno-centrist political view of society, that I try to imagine that. I admit I often fail because my mind isn't built to believe unsubstantiated stuff
Have you ever considered, and bear with me on this as it's a bit left field, but have you ever considered that you might be wrong about something?
The doubt is that in your world, causing injury while driving under the influence is purely a civil matter, so I wanted to see where the line was. So, causing injury or death through gross negligence/reckless endangerment is civil, but causing injury or death "gratuitously" is criminal, correct?
Ok, now I am shooting off my fully legally owned Bazooka in a crowded area without really aiming for anyone or anything in particular, and I hit you in the kneecaps. Civil, right?
In addition to Rococo's enquiry, I never received a response for this either. My Bazooka, my property, my rights, correct?
Have you ever considered, and bear with me on this as it's a bit left field, but have you ever considered that you might be wrong about something?
Yes and I changed my mind in time about various things (rarely qualitatively, as that deep inside is predicated by subjective preferences, but often quantitatively about the size of an effect or lack thereof), but at any given point in time I am fairly convinced about what I talk about and that persuasion comes as the summing up of all my thinking, reading and so on about the subject.
And it's not like I have an opinion on everything, but I simply avoid talking about most of the things I don't feel knowledgeable about.
Btw I think the above is true for everyone starting from you, you don't look like someone who is here to change his mind either
Public property is property, and the property owners (or they delegates) can decide what is allowed or not in that property.
That isn't regulation, that's property rights.
Regulation is about telling you what you cannot or have to do with your property and time
Deregulation and the 2008 Financial Crisis In the 25 years leading up to the financial crisis of 2007-2008, financial industry deregulation permitted—some might even say encouraged—U.S. financial services firms to take bigger and bigger gambles, and lend in riskier ways than ever before. The result was an epic bubble in the U.S. housing sector that wrecked the banking industry and crashed stock markets at home and abroad, driving the worst global recession seen in generations. 4. The Volcker Rule In the lead-up to the financial crisis, banks were creating and then trading highly risky derivatives, such as credit default swaps, most of which became such huge liabilities that they bankrupted entire financial institutions, such as the notorious case of AIG. Restrictions on the opening of bank branches in different states that had been in place since the McFadden Act of 1927 were removed under the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994. …. As banks became bigger, their financial services and products became more complex. Banks started to offer new products like derivatives. They also started packaging traditional financial assets like mortgages and selling them to investors through the process of securitization. Banking Regulation Following the Global Financial Crisis of 2008 While more regulation led to a long period of financial stability, banks began losing business to more innovative financial institutions, resulting in a move toward deregulation in the 1980s and 1990s. But it wasn't long before the mortgage meltdown of 2007 and the most severe economic crisis since the Great Depression led to a call for re-regulation and to the passage of the Dodd-Frank financial reforms of 2010.
Wtf lol…
It’s the opposite ..
Regulators didn’t do their damn jobs and many regulations got abolished before the gfc that made it worst ….
https://www.forbes.com/advisor/investing....
The Volcker Rule prevents banks from engaging in speculative trading activities. Named after former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, the rule bars banks from engaging in proprietary trading, meaning agents or units of a bank cannot buy or sell securities, derivatives, commodity futures or options in the banks’ accounts.
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/in...
12
The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 repealed significant aspects of the Glass-Steagall Act as well as the Bank Holding Act of 1956, both of which had served to sever investment banking and insurance services from commercial banking.
13
From 1999 onward, banks could now offer commercial banking, securities, and insurance services under one roof.
The subprime mortgage meltdown beginning in 2007, the ensuing global financial crisis, and the need to bail out banks deemed "too big to fail" caused the government to rethink the financial regulatory framework. In response to the crisis, Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act in 2010.
Public property is property, and the property owners (or they delegates) can decide what is allowed or not in that property.
That isn't regulation, that's property rights.
Regulation is about telling you what you cannot or have to do with your property and time
That doesn't answer my question. Is it a criminal matter or not?
Yes and I changed my mind in time about various things (rarely qualitatively, as that deep inside is predicated by subjective preferences, but often quantitatively about the size of an effect or lack thereof), but at any given point in time I am fairly convinced about what I talk about and that persuasion comes as the summing up of all my thinking, reading and so on about the subject.
And it's not like I have an opinion on everything, but I simply avoid talking about most of the things I don't fe
Can you give an example of something you've changed your mind about?
As for me, I have very few deeply held beliefs as you seem to, so my mind is pretty open on most matters. I concede that I won't change my mind on two things: religion, and Trump and his supporters. Everything else is open for business.
Public property is property, and the property owners (or they delegates) can decide what is allowed or not in that property.
That isn't regulation, that's property rights.
Regulation is about telling you what you cannot or have to do with your property and time
Great. Now answer my question. How did federal deposit guarantees cause the financial crisis of 2008? This should be an easy question to answer. After all, you had to use your imagination to even conceive of someone not understanding this point.
Great. Now answer my question. How did federal deposit guarantees cause the financial crisis of 2008? This should be an easy question to answer. After all, you had to use your imagination to even conceive of someone not understanding this point.
GFC was about banks mot trusting each other and markets freezing completely after b stearns demise because bad actors where capable of accruing risk significantly without other market agents caring. The lack of due diligence was predicated on explicit and implicit public guarantees.
If you are absolutely sure you go broke if your financial counterpart has clay feet, you care about counterparty risk and you check it continuously, market participants can't accumulate too much risk before they get discovered by counterparties.
Depositor guarantee removes due diligence by customers , and not only the small fishes actually covered.
You saw what happened with the recent bank **** up: 0 due diligence by corporate customers who had "unsecured" huge deposits because of the existence of the depositor guarantee and the implicit guarantee of ALL deposits (which actual came out to be a true guarantee).
So, it looks to me as absolutely obvious that the existence of explicit and implicit government guarantees (including the fed "put") distorts makers participant behaviors wet due diligence making it FAR easier for risk to build up massively before it inevitably explodes.
In general what you would see is LOWER frequency of **** ups, but much bigger size of ****ups, instead of an actual reduction of risk as predicated by the financial regulation lovers.
Wait, so the government guaranteeing retail deposits up to 250k made financial institutions mis-assess counterparty risk in multi-billion dollar transactions coz... coz... I think I might be missing a causal link here?
Wait, so the government guaranteeing retail deposits up to 250k made financial institutions mis-assess counterparty risk in multi-billion dollar transactions coz... coz... I think I might be missing a causal link here?
The implicit guarantee on top of the explicit guarantee by law is the missing link.
And the implicit guarantee is actually true, check what they did with silicon valley bank.
When is the last time unsecured depositors went broke in the USA?
The implicit guarantee on top of the explicit guarantee by law is the missing link.
And the implicit guarantee is actually true, check what they did with silicon valley bank.
When is the last time unsecured depositors went broke in the USA?
Ah, so the massively obvious thing that we're all foolish to have missed here is that there is an "implicit guarantee" (i.e. not a law, not a regulation) that the government will bail out a failing financial institution, which is also somehow linked to the explicit depositor insurance fund (I guess because both have the word "guarantee" in them). Got it.
Also, the financial crisis of 2008 had nothing to do with retail bank deposits, and everything to do with investment banks trading OTC derivatives. But I assume you knew that.
Ah, so the massively obvious thing that we're all foolish to have missed here is that there is an "implicit guarantee" (i.e. not a law, not a regulation) that the government will bail out a failing financial institution, which is also somehow linked to the explicit depositor insurance fund (I guess because both have the word "guarantee" in them). Got it.
An implicit guarantee known by all market participants linked to the explicit guarantee and to the behavior of regulators for decades.
The guarantee is that the gvmnt will bail out some specific CREDITORS of financial institutions btw, not necessarily all, and not necessarily the financial institution itself
An implicit guarantee known by all market participants linked to the explicit guarantee and to the behavior of regulators for decades.
The guarantee is that the gvmnt will bail out some specific CREDITORS of financial institutions btw, not necessarily all, and not necessarily the financial institution itself
Except that implicit guarantee (not even a regulation), that exists only in your imagination, kicked in only when there was risk of systemic collapse. The government let Bear Sterns go bust and would have let AIG go bust, but they couldn't let the whole system collapse.
In any case, I don't see how implicit guarantees have anything to do with your ranting against regulations. If it's implicit, it wasn't a regulation, was it?
