John’s pro-wrestling analogies were fun. There is a particular analogy that is quite appropriate as a response. Among pro-wrestling insiders there is an expression used when a wrestler goes for a move like a drop kick, a slap, or a punch and it doesn?t quite connect. They say that ?there was a lot of light? in the punch or kick or whatever. If the aggressor?s ?opponent? is inexperienced he will ?sell? the move anyway, meaning he will act like he?s been struck and ?take a bump.? The more experienced opponent will realize that the blows didn?t connect and he won?t react. This way the audience isn?t left wondering why someone went down even though he didn?t get hit and the announcer doesn?t have to make something up like ?he lost his balance getting out of the way.? The point is that, ?if you review the tape? you?ll see that for the most part John?s chair shots and ?gut pokes? were full of light. Since I?m not an inexperienced opponent I?m not ?selling the moves.? If anyone disagrees feel free to jump in and tell me where the blows have connected.
There is one argument that he continues to make though where I just have to correct him on the economics of it all. John reasserts his argument that education is a ?public good that would be under-produced in the absence of some government intervention.? (As an aside he never says why it would be produced in the right amount in the presence of government intervention.) I claimed in my earlier post that in order for him to know this he would have to be an omniscient central planner. John claims that he is not ?arguing that there is some perfect?state from which a market driven system is deviating.? But, apparently without knowing it, that is exactly what he is doing. Without this “state” in mind, there is no coherent definition of the term ?under-produced.? Under-produced compared to what? The answer is, at least in economics, the amount that would be produced in what economists call a perfectly competitive general equilibrium. This is a never-never land state where all market participants have perfect knowledge of all relevant information; all goods and services within product lines are identical; there are no costs related to making exchanges or contracts; and every market has so many buyers and seller that no individual or small group could possibly impact the price. So when John says that education would be ?under-produced? in a free market he, unwittingly, means that it would be under produced relative to the amount that would be produced in a world where all markets met the conditions suggested above. Hence, he would have to be an omniscient central planner. (If he has some other benchmark in mind he needs to state it explicitly becuase the general equilibrium benchmark is the standard)
But even beyond this point, which goes to the entire foundation of the public goods argument, he states that the reason that there would be an ?underproduction? is because ?there is no price based mechanism at all? in the areas related to citizenship education. This is why there is a need for some kind of ?baseline government support for public education activities?–a non sequitur if I ever heard one. Here is John?s generalized argument. The good will be under-produced (not definable in any real world sense) by freely choosing individuals because there is no price system to influence the production level. This implies that we need government funding, another institutional arrangement where no price mechanism is at work, in order to make sure that the good will be produced in the right amount. (Huh?)
One final question John. At the present time is the government system of educating students in ?civic responsibility? under-producing, over-producing, or producing just the right amount?
