Why isn’t this guy, James E. Miller, and not David Rubenstein, correct (see below)? Or at least why do I think he’s correct? Why is the service that teachers offer somehow different from any other business? You of all people ought to know? Anyway, his reasoning is, and has for a long time been, sticking in my craw. (Meaning I don’t seem to be able to move on.) Although “decline” may not be the right word to use because when were things ever better? Here also there was no Golden Age.
‘Rubenstein mentions the need to “Educate. Educate. Educate.” by reforming public school systems and highlighting the need for governments to “allocate resources more efficiently.” But of course public officials who derive their income from coercion are never capable of economizing resources as prudently as private individuals. If Rubenstein truly wanted the education industry to thrive, he would demand the government relinquish its claim on the sector and allow the market mechanism to bear its fruits. Teachers offer a service like any other business. Having bureaucrats in charge of a great portion of the industry is no better than nationalizing the production of sweaters or miniskirts. Economic calculation and resource allocation are best utilized by those who earn their income from voluntary consumers. The consequence of the public education system, reliant on force for payment, has been an increase in cost for service and no real increase in the quality offered. In other words, the industry’s lack of the elements that define capitalism has been responsible for its decline.”