Comments on: Education, Not Regulation

By: Dave Roland

Dave Roland — Thu, 28 May 2009 23:40:22 +0000

Joseph, I think you’ll be very interested in our upcoming study on charter schools – it includes a literature review of a broad array of research. We should be publishing it in the next couple of months. Stay tuned.

By: Eric D. Dixon

Eric D. Dixon — Thu, 28 May 2009 22:20:42 +0000

Joseph, you’re the one who continues to evade the point. You don’t know me, and you have no direct experience with my personal integrity — so it’s natural to be skeptical about my motives, however sincere and rigorous I know they are.

But you make continual assertions, both wild and vague, about our organization without citing any data to support your claims. In contrast, we present real data researched and analyzed by leading economists in academic positions at widely respected universities throughout the nation. This work is not suspect by any academic standard, but it’s always possible that their method is flawed. If you have a critique of the data or method of analysis that we present, please let us know.

By: Joseph Gnatek

Joseph Gnatek — Thu, 28 May 2009 21:44:03 +0000

You still haven’t answered a very basic question. Which Eric D Dixon are we to believe? As you are well aware, there are far more actual data that show charter schools do the same or worse than public schools: Are we to listen to the Eric D Dixon who actually knows there are many more studies that prove this is a fact, or the one who is paid to report potentially bogus statistics that were provided and arrived at by the organization you are endorsing(KIPP).
You would much rather, of course, we buy into your trunkload of starched-white-shirt purchased taint. The tobacco companies employed very similar techniques for years and ended up compensating our citizens many billions of dollars. It is unfortunate that shams such as the “Show-me Institute” and its paid propagandists aren’t held responsible in such a way.

By: Eric D. Dixon

Eric D. Dixon — Thu, 28 May 2009 06:53:50 +0000

The quote about “vile names” is applicable to a wider range of impolite discourse than simply the use of personal epithets. Your comments here are replete with loaded terms that you wield with the apparent intention of trying to injure our reputations, and I can only guess that you behave this way because you can’t refute our arguments. In the absence of data supporting your views, you resort to ad hominem attacks.

I’m sure there are people in this world who are willing to compromise their principles in order to earn a paycheck. I’m also certain that I’m not one of those people. Your allegations to the contrary are laughable. I pursued a position with the Show-Me Institute because I believe that spreading economic literacy can help change the world for the better.

Again, I ask: Do you have any substantive critiques of our policy arguments? Please, advance them. We are genuinely willing to listen and consider them.

By: Joseph Gnatek

Joseph Gnatek — Thu, 28 May 2009 05:10:40 +0000

Call it what you want, Eric D Dixon, paid propagandist. But which should we believe, the Eric D Dixon who claims he has his own opinion, or the one who is paid to think and speak a certain way? I know this much, sir. I never called you a name. I only stated the facts about who you are and why you spew your ‘opinion’.
One can only reasonably infer that your lack of ethical base in your chosen profession has you befuddled into believing that when someone speaks the truth about your agenda that they are vicitimizing you. Perhaps you actually do fool some people with your manipulations of the truth. Perhaps, though, there will continue to be people who will set the record straight about your slimey ulterior motives.

By: Eric D. Dixon

Eric D. Dixon — Wed, 27 May 2009 17:43:50 +0000

“If you can’t answer a man’s argument, all is not lost; you can still call him vile names.” –Elbert Hubbard

Joseph, we’re careful to keep our arguments focused on issues rather than on people. We are genuinely *not* interested in advancing propaganda. We pursue free-market solutions because the evidence tends to show that they work well in promoting widespread economic growth, and when we conduct research, we publish our results whatever those findings might be.

If you’ve found flaws in the things we’ve published, we’d love to hear substantive criticisms. Name-calling, however, smacks of desperation.

By: Joseph Gnatek

Joseph Gnatek — Wed, 27 May 2009 05:02:57 +0000

All of any of your points are nothing but paid propaganda. I wonder if any of you have the capacity to think at a somewhat higher level?

By: Ryan

Ryan — Wed, 13 May 2009 20:04:30 +0000

Another example of how consumer preferences produce more efficient outcomes than legislation.

I also find it funny that they made all your points for you.

By: Sarah Brodsky

Sarah Brodsky — Wed, 13 May 2009 18:01:26 +0000

Lots of people don’t like smoke, and ably avoid it even without a ban. It seems like those who call for regulation are implying that smoke is so pleasant to be around that only the full force of law will keep nonsmokers away.