From: Bryan Moss (bryan.moss@dial.pipex.com)
Date: Tue Oct 12 1999 - 09:05:46 MDT
Dan Fabulich wrote:
> > Sorry, I thought I had made this clear. The child would
> > pay (in the sense that a company 'pays' it's
> > shareholders).
>
> This assumedly requires the state to force the child to
> pay? How does that fail to distort incentives in the way
> I described a few e-mails back?
If you're refering to your candy analogy then the answer is
simple: the return on the investment in the childs education
would be based on the childs wealth. Since better education
leads to wealthier people (we would hope) the level of
education should improve with anticipation of greater
returns. Of course, there comes a point when increasing the
amount of money spent on education will not create a
significant increase in the childs future earnings, thus the
market sets the barrier on what makes a good education.
BM
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:05:30 MST