Markets-in-everything: Morons

I was in the process of writing a response to Alison Benedikt’s Slate piece, If You Send Your Kid to Private School, You Are a Bad Person, but David Henderson of EconLog makes the same point that I was going to make, and does it better:

 In short, Ms. Benedikt admits that she didn’t learn much [from her bad education]. And in her piece, she illustrates that fact beautifully.

Though, I can well imagine that Ms. Benedikt would respond, but I’m doing fine. Great. She has discovered that there is a market for morons. That is too bad.


2 thoughts on “Markets-in-everything: Morons

  1. It’s difficult to know where to start in responding to Ms. Benedikt’s piece. However, rather than describing her as a moron, I think a more apt term is “useful idiot.” Sadly, she may be closer to the norm rather than the exception. Ms. Benedikt’s beloved PUBLIC SCHOOLS allowed her to avoid studying the works and history of “dead white European males” and instead substituted the liberal agenda of the federal education bureaucracy – not that she actively paid attention to that either although I’m sure they made her feel good about herself. Ms. Benedikt – and thousands like her – “escaped” reflecting on issues and problems dealing with humans and human nature since the time of Adam – and her views reflect her ignorance.

    Our public school officials constantly argue that they need more money to fix the problems, but our nation already spends more money on public per pupil than all other countries (with perhaps one exception) without commensurate results. This money has NOT been used to provide children with an education. Instead, it has been used to indoctrinate “useful idiots” with the liberal/socialist agenda so that they can be happy (but stupid) cogs in the big government machine. As a result, more young people – like Ms. Benedikt – see no problem with substituting their freedoms for the imagined security of the nanny state.

    Increasingly, schools are being used by the left to teach kids that the government, rather than their parents, is their family, responsible for their health care, meals, etc…..and now, the schools find that their mission somehow includes telling kids if they are too fat:

    and you thought the mission of schools was teaching reading, writing (oops, no cursive!) and arithmetic!


    I as watching Sean Hannity’s College Edition show tonight where he had an open town hall program with college students from across the US. Virtually all of the kids boasting ivy league shirts appeared quite sure of themselves, but spouted off with false “facts” and parroted the Keynesian economics of their liberal professors.

    One smug lad claimed that ObamaCare was all about quality over quantity. Huh? What a simple tool! ObamaCare was designed to get votes for the Democrats. As such, the plan promises to increase the quantity of medical care….and that’s one of the problems with ObamaCare. Not only does ObamaCare eliminate any incentive for people to limit medical encounters (even for trivial “problems”), it adds and mandates goods and services that insurance companies must cover FOR EVERYONE even if they really don’t want it! Yes, Seth, that sex change operation you’ve been thinking about will be covered as will drug rehab, etc. Because resources are finite, that leaves us with a dilemma. If there are more healthcare encounters, we (as a nation) must either spend more of our GDP on healthcare or we must reduce the quality of these individual encounters. ObamaCare solves this by doing both – it results in decreased quality and increased costs. The pointy headed academicians who proclaim that costs can be reduced simply by “improving efficiency” have never dealt with the practical application. What they see as “waste” and “inefficiency” is often the art of medicine that creates quality.

    Several students are convinced that Obama has reduced our national debt and that the economy is doing great under his leadership. They had some pretty sloppy thinking about our debt and deficits – a few seemed very impressed with themselves that they knew the difference between the two. Perhaps what was most concerning was that they seemed to lack the foresight that increasing taxes (to whatever level) in order to reduce deficits – while allowing increased government spending – might serve as a disincentive for economic growth. And the ivy league kids are absolutely convinced that less rather than more government spending is the problem. I wonder where they think all this money comes from for the government to spend. The idea that we cannot what we have not first earned (produced) is foreign to them.


Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s