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?
Is this supposed to be an analogy to something that actually happened in this forum?
Also, does the person in your example continue to insist that Hitler was from France even after someone points out his error?
Yes i tried to explain why federal creditor guarantees had a crucial role in allowing risk build up mentioning the FDIC begin with, as the "original sin" of federal guarantees (the most on paper justified one) and I only got addressed on that and not on the overarching argument
Yes i tried to explain why federal creditor guarantees had a crucial role in allowing risk build up mentioning the FDIC begin with, as the "original sin" of federal guarantees (the most on paper justified one) and I only got addressed on that and not on the overarching argument
Bro, you didn't have an overarching argument. Well, not one that anyone disagreed with, anyway. You were just belaboring the blindingly ****ing obvious.
You think that criticizing the weak points in an argument is lazy? Is it lazier than making the weak points in the first place?
lol yeah. If someone’s trying to sell me a chain that’s 90% steel and 10% paper I’m probably gonna ask about the paper parts. Guess that’s just laziness though. Should be asking about the carbon content of the parts that will never fail.
lol yeah. If someone trying to sell me a chain that’s 90% steel and 10% paper I’m probably gonna ask about the paper parts. Guess that’s just laziness though. Should be asking about the carbon content of the parts that will never fail.
There's a very old Russian/Soviet joke to that effect:
Market trader is selling rabbit stew.
Customer comes up and says "is this 100% rabbit"?
Market guy says "yeah, for sure"
"No horse in it?"
"Well, maybe a little horse, we all have to make a profit"
"Ok, how much horse?"
"Well, maybe 1:1"
"What, 1kg rabbit to 1kg horse?"
"No, one rabbit to one horse"
Can you answer the question? Why not respond to the strong points?
If you can't, is it because they are too strong and because you know you're wrong?
if I make a thesis and half of it it’s based on bs, why shouldn’t I be discredit ?
Aren’t I being disingenuous by trying to build a strong thesis using bs arguments ?
If you have such strong arguments to begin with like you said , why add all the craps ?
It shouldn’t be needed right ?
If 2+2= 4 , why would I need to add 1+3.5= 4 too ?
if I make a thesis and half of it it’s based on bs, why shouldn’t I be discredit ?
Aren’t I being disingenuous by trying to build a strong thesis using bs arguments ?
If you have such strong arguments to begin with like you said , why add all the craps ?
It shouldn’t be needed right ?
If 2+2= 4 , why would I need to add 1+3.5= 4 too ?
Nobody said half was bs. 95% was great. 5% had issues
Which strong points do you want me to respond to? Did I contest what you believe to be the strong points? What if I disagree with the weaker points and agree (or at least don't disagree) with the stronger points? Am I supposed to argue about the stronger points in order to give myself cover to point out that the weaker points are, in fact, weaker?
Bro, you didn't have an overarching argument. Well, not one that anyone disagreed with, anyway. You were just belaboring the blindingly ****ing obvious.
If it is "****ing obvious" that it was regulations and the state to allow the build up of too much risk in the system then where are the posts saying "yes luciom you are right the state was the source of the problem much more than its solution so it is morally imperative to vastly reduce the power of the regulatory state for existential risk is caused by it, not solved by it, and anyone supporting the regulatory state is a direct threat society".
If it is ****ing obvious that libertarianism is right about finance where is the widespread agreement about it in this forum? Because I didn't see any
Which strong points do you want me to respond to? Did I contest what you believe to be the strong points? What if I disagree with the weaker points and agree (or at least don't disagree) with the stronger points? Am I supposed to argue about the stronger points in order to give myself cover to point out that the weaker points are, in fact, weaker?
Well if you in fact agree that the regulatory system caused the worst financial crisis in 60 years it would be nice for you to say so yes, then we can move on how to reduce that problem (who to vote for example).
There's a very old Russian/Soviet joke to that effect:
Market trader is selling rabbit stew.
Customer comes up and says "is this 100% rabbit"?
Market guy says "yeah, for sure"
"No horse in it?"
"Well, maybe a little horse, we all have to make a profit"
"Ok, how much horse?"
"Well, maybe 1:1"
"What, 1kg rabbit to 1kg horse?"
"No, one rabbit to one horse"
Wait rabbit meat costs less than horse meat in italy
Well if you in fact agree that the regulatory system caused the worst financial crisis in 60 years it would be nice for you to say so yes, then we can move on how to reduce that problem (who to vote for example).
As I have said to you in the past, I am probably more sympathetic to your views than most other posters here. I'm probably the definition of "a conservative" if that definition involves having some brains. You are really not doing anything that is sufficiently persuasive to get me on your side of the aisle.
If it is "****ing obvious" that it was regulations and the state to allow the build up of too much risk in the system then where are the posts saying "yes luciom you are right the state was the source of the problem much more than its solution so it is morally imperative to vastly reduce the power of the regulatory state for existential risk is caused by it, not solved by it, and anyone supporting the regulatory state is a direct threat society".
If it is ****ing obvious that libertarianism is ri
Bubbles always existed in finance …
Way before the regulations you blame on too , existed .
Ever heard of tulip bubble for example ?
Or the rail road by bubble ?
Too much risk in the system just happens , with or without regulations .
Well if you in fact agree that the regulatory system caused the worst financial crisis in 60 years it would be nice for you to say so yes, then we can move on how to reduce that problem (who to vote for example).
I don't believe that the modern regulatory system was overwhelmingly responsible. It was one of a number of contributing factors, but not the most significant imo.
I don't believe that FDIC deposit insurance was a factor at all. I believe that government promotion of a home ownership was a contributing factor, as I said previously. I believe that the perception that government would bail out banks, especially banks that were perceived to be "too big to fail," was a contributing factor, although not as significant as you think it was. Both factors are better described as legislative rather than regulatory, but that's a bit of a quibble, I suppose.
I don't believe that the modern regulatory system was overwhelmingly responsible. It was one of a number of contributing factors, but not the most significant imo.
I don't believe that FDIC deposit insurance was a factor at all. I believe that government promotion of a home ownership was a contributing factor, as I said previously. I believe that the perception that government would bail out banks, especially banks that were perceived to be "too big to fail," was a contributing factor, althoug
You see it as a "quibble", but his dick is gonna get so hard that you agreed with him on something.
I don't believe that the modern regulatory system was overwhelmingly responsible. It was one of a number of contributing factors, but not the most significant imo.
I don't believe that FDIC deposit insurance was a factor at all. I believe that government promotion of a home ownership was a contributing factor, as I said previously. I believe that the perception that government would bail out banks, especially banks that were perceived to be "too big to fail," was a contributing factor, althoug
Don't you see the FDIC as the cornerstone of state creditor guarantees? It's existence, predicated on (on paper) reasonable assumptions, is what allows for all the rest.
Same as Marbury is behind all SCOTUS decisions in a way.
The FDIC is the bootstrapping of state intervention in financial markets at its core. It reverberates in every decision about financial market interventions
Is there some offer function of preventing bank run I don’t know about the FDIC ?
How is the state using fdic to Intervene in the financial market o0 ?
Don't you see the FDIC as the cornerstone of state creditor guarantees? It's existence, predicated on (on paper) reasonable assumptions, is what allows for all the rest.
Same as Marbury is behind all SCOTUS decisions in a way.
The FDIC is the bootstrapping of state intervention in financial markets at its core. It reverberates in every decision about financial market interventions
I don't really see it that way, and I think that implicit government guarantees of bank solvency was only a minor factor in the financial crisis.
There have been financial meltdowns that were caused by participants knowingly taking on excessive risk. But I don't think this was really one of those situations.
Mortgage originators didn't think they were taking on excessive risk because they were originating mortgages that they knew they could sell into securitizations. The lenders weren't intending to hold the risk, and in most cases, they weren't holding the risk. Issuers of MBS didn't think they were taking on excessive risk because, again, they were holding mortgages on their balances sheets for only a short period. They weren't intending to hold the risk long-term (except for perhaps the residual), and in most cases, they weren't holding the risk long-term.
Purchasers of AAA securities didn't think they were taking on excessive risk. Sure, the spreads on AAA MBS were wider than any other AAA paper you could buy in 2006, but it was still AAA paper. Most purchasers ran internal models and concluded that it was virtually impossible to break the AAA tranche, even if there was a historic decline in housing prices, historic levels of defaults, and historic loss severity.
What most market participants failed to anticipate were the knock-on effects, in particular the total lock up of credit markets and the extreme illiquidity in the market. Holders of AAA MBS found themselves in a situation where they simply couldn't exit their positions without taking a huge loss, even though, in many cases, their long term models showed that the securities would probably be OK if held to maturity. (As an aside, they weren't necessarily wrong. There was an extended period when AAA MBS were trading lower than they probably should have been trading. If you had a lot of cash, and you gobbled up a lot of that stuff at the right time in 2008, you made a lot of money.) And holders of those MBS usually had to mark those securities to market at fire sale prices, which caused all sorts of turmoil.
