Warren Buffett: "Make Private Schools Illegal...."

[algernonsidney]

I wonder: how did these people get so rich? How did they get rich when they say such stupid things? It's especially troubling when Warren Buffett says it. His father was actually a pretty decent Congressman who had some good ideas.

"I believe we can solve the problems of urban education in our lifetimes and actualize education's power to reverse generational poverty," Rhee wrote. "But I am learning that it is a radical concept to even suggest this. Warren Buffett [the billionaire investor] framed the problem for me once in a way that clarified how basic our most stubborn obstacles are. He said it would be easy to solve today's problems in urban education. 'Make private schools illegal,' he said, 'and assign every child to a public school by random lottery.' "

There you have it, although it seems to be old news. Warren Buffet wants to make private schools illegal.

[sjw]

But... but... Warren Buffet is a heroic businessman! Like Bill Gates! Wait...

[anthony]

But... but... Warren Buffet is a heroic businessman! Like Bill Gates! Wait...

I don't know if his brain is becoming addled with age, or whether some reaction (guilt?) to his wealth has set in, or if an excess of power has gone to his head - but this is a collectivist speaking, not a capitalist.

He isn't alone either from what I gather; he's in the company of other cronyist, lobbying, speculators who represent to the world the face of "capitalism".

Is there anywhere one true-blue independent businessman/indusrialist, that an Objectivist can point to proudly as an example?

I suppose they do exist quietly somewhere - and those who have held out against the seduction and advantages of the Big G, and managed to survive, are the real heroes, imo.

Tony

[sjw]

Is there anywhere one true-blue independent businessman/indusrialist, that an Objectivist can point to proudly as an example?

I suppose they do exist quietly somewhere - and those who have held out against the seduction and advantages of the Big G, and managed to survive, are the real heroes, imo.

Hint: the more corrupt the economic system, the more one must be corrupt in order to have the most success. Look for good true-blue independent businessman/industrialists working as a nameless employee for some railroad or something.

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

Buffett is advocating a more sophisticated and broad form of busing plus pure egalitarianism designed to ruin smart children. It's a pure fascism even communists would like.

--Brant

[Robert Campbell]

There goes the last of my respect for Warren Buffett.

Robert Campbell

[sjw]

Yaron Brook still likes him: http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9236

[algernonsidney]

Is there anywhere one true-blue independent businessman/indusrialist, that an Objectivist can point to proudly as an example?

I suppose they do exist quietly somewhere - and those who have held out against the seduction and advantages of the Big G, and managed to survive, are the real heroes, imo.

Tony

I definitely think John Mackey of Whole Foods is one.

[Selene]

Is there anywhere one true-blue independent businessman/indusrialist, that an Objectivist can point to proudly as an example?

I suppose they do exist quietly somewhere - and those who have held out against the seduction and advantages of the Big G, and managed to survive, are the real heroes, imo.

Tony

I definitely think John Mackey of Whole Foods is one.

Yes. I agree Mackey is definitely one. There is also a banker in, I believe, Pennsylvania or Ohio. I will have to look tomorrow.

[kiaer.ts]

This is a third party report of what Buffett said. Not Buffettt's own statement. I was reported in a counterfactual form: that it would be easy to solve the problem if something were done. This is not the same as saying that something should be done. Not that logic and accurate attribution matter. I hold that it is true that you could cure AIDS if you were to test everyone and shoot those who have it. Doesn't mean I support such a thing.

BTW, I am no fan of Buffett's.

[sjw]

Mackey seems to have been a great businessman: his central motive concerned value-creation not money-creation. Unfortunately it seems he has run out of ideas and doesn't know what to do with his profits:

In 2006, Mackey announced he was reducing his salary to $1 a year, would donate his stock portfolio to charity, and set up a $100,000 emergency fund for staff facing personal problems.[8] He wrote: "I am now 53 years old and I have reached a place in my life where I no longer want to work for money, but simply for the joy of the work itself and to better answer the call to service that I feel so clearly in my own heart."

53 is not very old for a CEO. He ought to have ideas.

Shayne

[Reidy]

I can imagine Buffett meaning something to the effect of: "the government schools' real problem is that so many of their students come from poverty and cultural disadvantage; if the students were on the average better-suited to schooling, the quality would on the average improve." I can't conclude the worst until I see the context (or, for that matter, until I see that it's an accurate quote).

[Selene]

I have heard Mr. Chavis on C-Span and on various radio shows. He gets it. I have never had a problem teaching students. In my five (5) years of teaching at the City University, all of my classes were over enrolled, both in day school and night school. Word gets around. Teaching is an art and art requires discipline both by the students and the teacher. Discipline does not have to be unenjoyable.

"Money Is Not What Schools Need

By John Stossel

Sep 17, 2010

U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan recently claimed: "Districts around the country have literally been cutting for five, six, seven years in a row. And, many of them, you know, are through, you know, fat, through flesh and into bone ..."

Really? They cut spending five to seven consecutive years?

Give me a break!

Andrew Coulson, director of the Cato Institute's Center for Educational Freedom, writes that out of 14,000 school districts in the United States, just seven have cut their budgets seven years in a row. How about five years in a row? Just 87. That's a fraction of 1 percent in each case.

Duncan may be pandering to his constituency, or he may actually be fooled by how school districts (and other government agencies) talk about budget cuts. When normal people hear about a budget cut, we assume the amount of money to be spent is less than the previous year's allocation. But that's not what bureaucrats mean.

"They are not comparing current year spending to the previous year's spending," Coulson writes. "What they're doing is comparing the approved current year budget to the budget that they initially dreamed about having."

So if a district got more money than last year but less than it asked for, the administrators consider it a cut. "Back in the real world, a K-12 public education costs four times as much as it did in 1970, adjusting for inflation: $150,000 versus the $38,000 it cost four decades ago (in constant 2009 dollars)," Coulson says.

Taxpayers need to understand this sort thing just to protect themselves from greedy government officials and teachers unions.

It was on the basis of this fear and ignorance that President Obama got Congress to pass a "stimulus" bill this summer that included $10 billion for school districts. The money is needed desperately to save teachers from layoffs, the bill's advocates said. We must do it for the children!

When you look at the facts, the scam is clear.

"Over the past 40 years," Coulson writes, "public school employment has risen 10 times faster than enrollment. There are 9 percent more students today, but nearly twice as many public school employees."

But isn't it just common sense that schools would be better if they had more money? As a wise man said, it's not what we don't know that gets us into trouble; it's what we know that isn't so.

Consider the American Indian Public Charter School in Oakland, Calif. It was once a failing school, but now it's one of the best in California. Ben Chavis turned it around without any additional money. His book, "Crazy Like a Fox," tells how.

Chavis' experience exposes the school establishment's lies for what they are. Nearly all of Chavis' students are considered economically disadvantaged (98 percent qualify for free lunches), yet they have the fourth-highest test scores of any school in the state.

"In Oakland this year, on the AP (advanced placement) exam, we had 100 percent of all the blacks and Mexicans in the city of Oakland who passed AP calculus," Chavis said. "There are four high schools, and we're the only ones who had anyone pass AP calc."

Yet Chavis accomplishes this without the "certified" teachers so revered by the educational establishment. His classes are as big as, and sometimes bigger than, public school classes, but only a quarter of his teachers are certified by the state.

Money, he insists, is not the answer. "My buildings are shacks compared to their schools, but my schools are clean, and we'll kick all their asses."

He scoffs at the establishment's solutions to the education problem, such as teacher evaluations.

"I don't do no teacher evaluations. All I do is go into a class, and if the kids ain't working, your ass is fired. (Most principals) sit for hours and say, 'Is he meeting this goal, is he meeting' — I just go to class, and if the kids are not working ..."

It's time we threw out the "experts" and exposed the schools to real competition by people with common sense."

[Robert Campbell]

Adam,

You wouldn't have John Allison in mind, maybe? He's the now-retired CEO of a bank whose headquarters are in North Carolina.

Good piece by Stossel. It reminds me that Murray Rothbard used to talk about the difference between a "cut" and a "cut cut."

A "cut" is a reduction in the rate of increase in government spending.

A "cut cut" is an actual reduction in government spending.

A couple of years ago, a bill mandating that 50% of state aid to public schools actually reach the classroom couldn't pass in both houses of the South Carolina legislature. All the Democrats were against it, and so were a bunch of Republicans.

Robert Campbell

[Selene]

Adam,

You wouldn't have John Allison in mind, maybe? He's the now-retired CEO of a bank whose headquarters are in North Carolina.

Good piece by Stossel. It reminds me that Murray Rothbard used to talk about the difference between a "cut" and a "cut cut."

A "cut" is a reduction in the rate of increase in government spending.

A "cut cut" is an actual reduction in government spending.

A couple of years ago, a bill mandating that 50% of state aid to public schools actually reach the classroom couldn't pass in both houses of the South Carolina legislature. All the Democrats were against it, and so were a bunch of Republicans.

Robert Campbell

Robert:

Bingo! Yes. John Allison is the man I was thinking about. http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reg_ls_financial_crisis

Thank you.

The public school system should simply be ended by announcing a thirteen year phase out starting with next years kindergarten classes being the last ones in public school.

Give each parent the 70% of the current amount spent by the state for a child in that district in the form of a redeemable voucher. This would give the parents with four year old children one full year to shop for a private school for their kindergartner, or they might decide on two or three parents who could home school ten (10) to twelve (12) students locally and divide up the $100,000 or so dollars that those dozen students would get.

Adam