|
The seminar ended this afternoon at 4. So, all day the kids were in various classes. There was a woman from Hungary who flew in to teach in part of this seminar. She talked about life in Hungary under Soviet authority, lack of incentive, poverty, lack of choice, etc. Then she did a class activity. Tell me, if you would, what you think about this. And if you have suggestions for other activities, please feel free to make them. Okay. So, she put a bunch of paper clips on a large piece of paper. She told the kids that she would give them a piece of candy for each paper clip picked up in the first minute, and in the second minute, she would give two pieces of candy for each paper clip picked up. Within a short time, well within the first minute, some of the kids had grabbed up the all the paper clips. In so doing, they damaged the large piece of paper that the clips were on. The kids got their piece of candy for each clip, and that was that. The damage to the paper was discussed; she described that as the "tragedy of commons", the paper, representing the environment. Is "tragedy of commons" a known economic term?
The next time they tried this, many of the kids had a segment of the paper identified with their initials as "their own". Then, down went the paper clips. This time, the kids all waited till the second minute and picked up their clips, the paper clips on "their own land", and got two pieces of candy for each clip. Now, some kids got nothing. Bummer. But the paper looked perfect. So, the environment wasn't damaged by fighting over what was available. Her point was that, while each of the kids "owned" their segment, they harvested successfully from their little plot. But when there was not private ownership, there was lots of damage. What about the kids that got nothing? In the real world, that could be a hungry family. She said that charities, families and religious groups should help out, not the government. She focused on the idea that government intervention reduces incentive and creates dependence. I can't completely disagree with that, but if we have no gov't. safety net, then what about the people who have no one to help them.
I totally agree with the quality control comments above. Clearly, there are tons of examples of corporations that are more than willing to pollute until they are forced to stop, clean up and pay restitution (that is never really true compensation). The idea of jobs going overseas, didn't worry the teachers at this seminar. We were told that jobs are infinite. But workers have to be nimble and willing to retrain, etc. I don't know. This just seems so theoretically interesting, but practically disastrous. I think that, while, fundamentally, prosperity benefits people, we have to be doing more than simply pursuing wealth, because, clearly, people are going to be left to suffer. Are we just not supposed to care? :shrug: :shrug: :shrug:
|