A ton of choice can be a burden, but a few choices are better than no choice, assuming the few provide possibilities not heretofore available.
The Bush drug program might be more costly than necessary, but it does not seem to have been the flop widely predicted. One rarely hears complaints about it. And it had the salutary effect of discombobulating the GOP. Ideally we would have regulated charters on top of a decent traditional public school system which included strong remedial help for the victims of failed charters or failed conventional schools. The existing system is more like a crap shoot, providing no security for anybody on either side. -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jim Devine Sent: Friday, February 27, 2009 10:54 AM To: Progressive Economics Subject: Re: [Pen-l] methodological individualism & schools Michael Perelman writes: > David ... looks at the situation from the > perspective of an individual child. Given that setup, offering more > choices to the child must be better. It's the parents who make that choice (damn paternalism!), but no matter.[*] Recent behavioral economic experiments have shown again and again that more choice is not always better for the chooser. This is despite the fact that behavioral economics is almost entirely individualistic in terms of methodology. This result can be seen in a big way with the Bush/GOP prescription drug plan, which addled the minds of a lot of seniors, while overworking pharmacists and others willing to help them. -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. [*] Why not let the kids decide? didn't William Golding have a book about that? _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
