Regarding higher ed, my experience in grad school at Indiana was such places are choked with foreign students. My supposition is that (1) ours are still best in many disciplines and (2) that’s how they’ll build their own systems back home: with US-minted PhDs.

I would also say that higher ed doesn’t occur in a vacuum. What I mean is, these are very complex systems. It’s easy to say, “Let’s tinker with A, B, and C,” but that fails to account for D-Z that depend on the first three. Example: the idea of making medical school “free.” It’s a great idea–it’s just not that simple. We tend to look at things in a vacuum. “Hey, college is free in Germany!” Yes, but they have had twice our unemployment rate for years and only recently came out of the double-digit territory. And their taxes are higher. And gas costs twelve bucks a gallon (or whatever). Etc. Etc. Complex systems.

Furthermore, what does “increased spending on education and research” mean? What do we cut? How much more taxes does that cost? No vacuum. Every new proposal costs something.

The most interesting idea I’ve seen regarding govt largesse is Charles Murray’s plan:
http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.24092/pub_detail.asp
His book explains it better, too, if you’re interested.

Not only do I think many government programs work effectively, and have changed the lives of many for the better, but I think that in particular huge investments in education and research have long-term positive effects that are often not credited when they occur.

I’ll avoid mentioning my own huge debt to such programs, as they make me vulnerable. I can’t bear to hear others discredit any small contributions I’ve made as not worthy of the government programs that have helped me.

The extraordinary technology advances of the 1990s that created wealth, and a budgetary surplus, as well as the advances we now appreciate through the web and the laptop I am using now, take their origins in the huge government investment in research and education that followed Sputnik. (I certainly see no reason to credit this to Reaganomics. nor most other explanations I hear, although no event deserves all the credit for something this complex.) Few in this country would deny these things have enriched their lives.

I recall the late 1970s when there was a vocalized and growing feeling that the huge promises of science that were offered in the 1960s had not materialized. This cynicism derived from too much having been promised too soon, and from a general despondence following Vietnam, oil cartels, high gas prices, and a general feeling of impotence regarding world politics. But 15 years later the remarkable electronic age we were once promised seemed a reality. At last, it felt like we were living in the age of the Jetsons. Look at Popular Mechanics in the 1960s, and the futuristic pictures it portrayed had transpired. We foolishly believed it would happen sooner, but it happened nonetheless.

The research and education spending of the 1960s had placed the US in the best possible position to take a role of world leadership in technology, but only after sufficient time had passed to see the dreams begin to materialize. The economy boomed!

Sadly, we are no longer the most educated country in the world. Other countries still send their best and brightest to us for education, but their own investments in education and research have caused their economies to grow, and their independence to thrive.

Can anyone name a major economic power that is not supported by a first class University system? Japan, Russia, Germany, France, and increasingly so China fits this bill now. And Korea, quickly rising in status, has placed it’s future on a growing educational and research investment.

It’s time we did the same, once again.

Once again, we have this chance, and energy is our segue. Our country should invest hugely, once again, in education and research, with the goal of developing practical and environmentally safe energy resources. Not only will the environment benefit, and our dependence on foreign oil no longer threaten, but the costs we suffer now will pay off in 20-30 years in ways we cannot yet predict!

I’m prepared for a blast, Garvey, and will remain silent and listen. Have at me.

I wish the quiz were worded differently, b/c I found myself disagreeing (or agreeing) with things b/c of the wording. e.g., “it’s a sad state of affairs when…” etc. I am dispassionate or ambivalent about a lot of things, so I may have answered differently if it hadn’t asked me emotionally loaded questions.

I think a lot of folks might agree, though, that the two-party system is a bummer for those of us who hold a lot of disparate views. If anyone cares, here are some issues I care about: I am pro-life, anti death penalty, pro decriminalization of marij., pro immigration, pro voluntary military, pro school vouchers, anti socialized health care, anti corporate welfare, anti govt funded research, anti social security, anti taxes, pro charity, pro reasoned and market-driven environmentalism, pro increased oil drilling, anti protectionism, pro free trade, anti eugenics, anti government radio/TV… What party is that?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/editor/2942709366/

Economic Left/Right: -4.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.03

Garvey? David? B?

p.s. Would have expected a little further left. Oh well.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

Such things are never perfect but I think this one’s decent. Maybe I’ll work up a post about it some day.

Ditto, B. I will say this about my statement you took up here: it is an exaggeration, but not by much. What does the Dept of Energy do? Probably something, but I don’t expect it to be for *my* benefit. Same for ED, AG, and all kinds of other federal feeding troughs. I think where anarchy ends and pragmatic libertarianism begins is with the basic services you allude to: roads, fire, police–all that safety stuff that is pretty decent (and yet, also a huge pot of waste and graft, esp. for roads and other federal construction projects).

I would definitely place myself along the anti-authoritarian side of things. I think each of the two parties have a definite authoritarian streak in them–I just happen to hate the left’s version more. I admit that it may be a cartoonish view of the left, but they are the party of wanting to piss in my cornflakes. Democrats claim they want to change America, but IMO, America’s fine–I’d rather they change govt instead.

I’d say limited govt is the goal. When I was younger, I used to think that govt *should be* doing this, that, and the other. And then I worked for the govt. I read history. I paid attention to the news. Mugged by data, as it were. So my politics changed from talking about what the govt should be doing and focused more on what the govt is actually *capable* of achieving. Therein lies the chasm. And chasm may be an understatement.

Take a look around. My roads are shitty. My police can barely keep up with murders, let alone such “petty” things as grand theft auto. The DMV is a joke. Public schools, as a whole, are poor. The post office blows. FEMA? Immigration? Don’t even get started. These things all suck and have always sucked. It’s not like everything was awesome until Jan. 2001 and then, and only then, it started to suck.

What elements of the government have been run so successfully *for the people*, and is their track record so overwhelming positive, that we should use that for the basis for increasing the scope and role of government? THAT’S my point. (e.g., which government agency do you want your doctor’s office to be more like?)

Does this mean we should do nothing? Maybe. I dunno. But people doing “something” for the “good of the country” are the scariest people in the world to me.

Anyway, I’ve never met Garvey, but I pegged him as libertarian a while back. His consideration of Bob Barr lends credence to that. I believe he is sincere in his repudiation of Bush and the Republicans. Are there some contradictions there? I’m sure we all have some of those.

David, we’ve talked before about the dual-axis political model. I believe that you and I (and Kent) are all on the left side of that chart. However, I also find myself drawn toward the anti-authoritarian direction, which is where Garvey clearly locates himself. (If you keep reading Chomsky you may find yourself drawn that way too.) Anyway, I feel I have some perspectives in common with both of you, though we surely disagree about much.

Certainly I think we can all agree that whatever sins may lie at the door of the GOP, we could not have gotten where we are without the active complicity of the Democrats. I believe there are some deep systemic problems in our economy and our politics that neither party is willing or able to address.

If we haven’t already passed the point of no return, I’d like to react to Garvey’s statement that “I don’t expect anything from my taxes.” Is that really true? Nothing at all? Not even, say, roads, just to pick an example? If so, you are one low-expectation havin’ person. While I’m sure we’d agree that other forms of organization are more efficacious and desirable than the State, still and all I do expect some things in return for my tax dollar.

In all fairness to Garvey, I have watched his posts for sometime, and I believe he’s not a strong Bush fan, or a Republican. Perhaps he sees himself as a libertarian, or even an anarchist. My impressions, which are just that, impressions, is that he has no faith in the ability of government to help people, and distrusts politicians in principle. So I think he’s telling the truth when he states he is not a fan of our president. I also suspect he strongly prefers Republicans to Democrats, and McCain to Obama.

The Republican party has long stood for smaller government, although in practice they have never been very good at reaching that goal, usually enlarging government at the expense of any government programs that might directly help people in need. Republicans would state the the best way to help everybody is through free trade and a market based economy. I don’t agree.

Given Garvey’s hyphotheses, how can he possibly believe the Republicans bear the brunt of the responsibility for the present financial crisis?

Nonetheless, hearing distinct points of view can be very helpful for others, whose political underpinnings are not set in stone. A political conversation never changes anyone’s mind immediately, but it often sets a seed that changes opinion over time.

Can’t the two of you engage in this debate without screaming “You started it,” and without the insulting tone.

For my part, I think history will acknowledge some of Garvey’s points, but that an overwhelming consensus will arise placing the blame squarely at Bush and the Republican party. We’ll have to wait to see who’s right.

For the present, it suffices to note that the overwhelming majority of the public, and a great many notable economists (perhaps mostly academicians, if that’s an issue for you) seem to agree with David, in spirit, if not necessarily in detail.