Roy’s last point gets to the crux of the matter.
No John, I am not saying that an optimum level can only be determined by a competitive market process. I am saying that the whole concept of an optimum allocation of resources with optimum levels of production is meaningless claptrap.
I may be guilty of using incorrect language here, but I think the fair-minded reader surely knows what I mean. We are contrasting two snapshots of an ever-changing situation. One is a snapshot of a purely voluntary, purely private market for education. It is not optimum in a general-equilibrium sense; in an Austrian sense, it involves subjective and changing preferences. The other is a snapshot of another ever-changing, dynamic system that mixes public and private financing of education in an attempt to satisfy the non-vocational, political and institutional needs to which I have previously referred.
Neither is “optimum” or “perfect.” I was only using the term to denote the central-planning datum that Roy had suggested I must have in my mind to justify my position. He had suggested that I was assuming some kind of general-equilibrium model, but that is not suggested by my use of the term “underproduced.” Again, since any government action inevitably involves making messy political decisions not based on a purely market process — how much tax to levy to build a courthouse, how many cops to hire to patrol the streets, how many streets to build and to what standard, etc. — Roy’s demand for certainty before taking government action, if taken to its logical conclusion, invalidates the means and the rationale for taking any governmental action. My use of the term “underproduced” refers to the fact that markets alone won’t address the political issues I raise, period. It’s not to suggest that a public-sector response will address them perfectly.
Let’s put this another way. I am arguing that the potential cost (political and institutional) of having too little education, particularly among lower-income families and children, is greater than the potential cost of governmental overspending on education. Speaking of reading books on the subject, John Locke’s essays on these issues might be worth a second look.
Karen, I had Breakstone sour cream for supper last night. Seriously, I don’t buy reductio ad economus (pardon the bad Latin spelling, I took Greek). My argument is about politics and political institutions.
