Matt Damon & the Teacher's Unions vs. the Capitalist Pigs
Matt Damon suggests that teachers teach for the same reason actors act. Because of a love for their profession. There’s little doubt that some teachers teach for that reason. There’s also little doubt that, for many, it’s a job. One they fell into, much in the same way that people do with other jobs. A cursory look back through my experience as a student, tells a very different story than the one Damon is telling—filled with bored and boring teachers who did no more than was necessary, and barely even that.
This was far more the norm than the exception. There may be a number of reasons why this was, and still is likely to be true; bureaucratic rules, a one size fits all attempt at creating a universal curriculum that is typical of bureaucratic overreach. The tendency to punish innovative teachers who step out beyond the accepted guidelines. In other words, entrenched interests who have an agenda—good or bad—and the power to enforce it. Such is the problem with a one size fits all approach to just about anything.
Matt Damon, like the teachers in this video, suggest that capitalism is the problem. Take the incentives that tie results to dollars out of the system—and you'll solve the problem. This, of course, assumes that there is an infinite amount of money available and, if the right amount is spent, the results will necessarily follow. How much is the right amount? Remarkably, for the people in this video, money is both the corrupting problem (Capitalism) and the solution (Just give us more and all will be well.). As is often the case with progressives, their near complete lack of knowledge regarding any economic principle greater than "The rich get richer and the poor get poorer" is on full display. The fact that they're teachers makes it even worse, indicating why public schools, like government in general, tends towards incompetence. This is no less true of big-government conservatives.
When Damon is asked about his success as a filmmaker being tied to his ability to make profitable movies, he suggests that a love for his craft is his motive, not money. The fact that he has an average salary of ten million dollars per film, apparently, is the natural outgrowth of that love. Do other actors get paid similarly for their love of craft? Most don’t get paid enough to sustain a basic living, let alone accumulate massive wealth.
Using the same anti-capitalist logic that’s being used by the teachers, Matt Damon is not just a Capitalist Pig, he's a parasite draining off the limited resources from other budding actors, cinematographers and the like. By bargaining for a grotesquely inflated salary, Damon insures the poverty of everyone else in his industry struggling to get a piece of the pie. For the time being, though, he is a powerful ally for the socialist wing of the public school system. This, of course, assumes that logic is anywhere to be found. If it were, there'd be hope. It's the lack of logic that provides the kiss of death, however. A logical person may be persuaded to move beyond dogma by evidence. But, illogical thinking is impervious to the seduction of reason and evidence, and views them as just another inconvenience.
This was far more the norm than the exception. There may be a number of reasons why this was, and still is likely to be true; bureaucratic rules, a one size fits all attempt at creating a universal curriculum that is typical of bureaucratic overreach. The tendency to punish innovative teachers who step out beyond the accepted guidelines. In other words, entrenched interests who have an agenda—good or bad—and the power to enforce it. Such is the problem with a one size fits all approach to just about anything.
Matt Damon, like the teachers in this video, suggest that capitalism is the problem. Take the incentives that tie results to dollars out of the system—and you'll solve the problem. This, of course, assumes that there is an infinite amount of money available and, if the right amount is spent, the results will necessarily follow. How much is the right amount? Remarkably, for the people in this video, money is both the corrupting problem (Capitalism) and the solution (Just give us more and all will be well.). As is often the case with progressives, their near complete lack of knowledge regarding any economic principle greater than "The rich get richer and the poor get poorer" is on full display. The fact that they're teachers makes it even worse, indicating why public schools, like government in general, tends towards incompetence. This is no less true of big-government conservatives.
When Damon is asked about his success as a filmmaker being tied to his ability to make profitable movies, he suggests that a love for his craft is his motive, not money. The fact that he has an average salary of ten million dollars per film, apparently, is the natural outgrowth of that love. Do other actors get paid similarly for their love of craft? Most don’t get paid enough to sustain a basic living, let alone accumulate massive wealth.
Using the same anti-capitalist logic that’s being used by the teachers, Matt Damon is not just a Capitalist Pig, he's a parasite draining off the limited resources from other budding actors, cinematographers and the like. By bargaining for a grotesquely inflated salary, Damon insures the poverty of everyone else in his industry struggling to get a piece of the pie. For the time being, though, he is a powerful ally for the socialist wing of the public school system. This, of course, assumes that logic is anywhere to be found. If it were, there'd be hope. It's the lack of logic that provides the kiss of death, however. A logical person may be persuaded to move beyond dogma by evidence. But, illogical thinking is impervious to the seduction of reason and evidence, and views them as just another inconvenience.
Why not solve the problem by paying every actor the same thing. Let’s make love of craft and not profit the driving engine of the film industry and give every actor ten million dollars per film, including the camera man, the grip and the make-up artist.
Why don’t we do that? Because it would end up costing a hundred billion dollars to make a movie—and then, there would be no movies. How about we give them a thousand dollars a film instead? The result would be much the same. The problem isn't how much money some people make, but how much revenue they generate for others, which, of course, isn't really a problem at all, not if they're profitable.
Damon, obviously doesn't just make the movies he loves, is anyone naive enough to believe this? He makes movies that are potentially lucrative for everyone involved. And, because he's financially viable, he can continue to make movies and get paid a huge salary. Remarkably, rather than limiting other filmmakers, his success makes their success possible by creating a continuous cash flow, with a fresh infusion of new investors who are eager to make a killing in the movie business. Make no mistake, once he stops being bankable, he’ll also stop getting the big bucks. And, eventually, he’ll stop making movies altogether.
Might the films being produced, somehow, be more artistically meaningful if profit was removed from the equation? It would depend on whose definition of "artistic" is being used, generally resulting in a small number of people determining what you “should” like instead of choosing for yourself. After all, you don't want too many rubes and idiots infecting the aesthetic accomplishments of their betters.
But, isn't education somehow different? Isn't education too important to leave to the market?
The “Market” is simply people using their hard-earned money to choose where they'll spend it and where they won’t. If a school system is failing, in spite of increased funding, which has too often been the case in the last fifty years, they should have the right to defund the failing institutions by moving their kids to a better school, where they have the hope of getting a good education. To do otherwise is to sustain failure. Unfortunately, it's always easier to fail than it is to succeed. Maybe that's why public schools have become so successful at promoting failure.
But, wouldn't this mean that poor schools, more reasonably, minority schools, are the ones most likely to suffer? Wouldn't schools become segregated by virtue of the greater wealth that's controlled by whites? In order to control white-flight from urban school systems and segregation from once again becoming the norm, white pathological tendencies must be held in check by a monopoly on power. A tight control of Federal funding becomes necessary to achieve that goal. In other words, the majority of the population must be controlled by a minority. If people won't make the right choices, those choices will be made for them, for their own good, mind you. This isn't fascism, of course, it's benevolent coercion, in the name of a good cause.
Where exactly does a monopoly of power ever lead to anything other than failure? Wherever competition is encouraged, prices fall and quality increases. Innovation becomes the norm because competition compels people to find more efficient ways to provide higher quality goods and services to consumers.
This is where progressives usually demean competition as the conservative/libertarian version of a one size fits all solution to every economic problem. In fact, they may be right.
If we look at something as fundamental as the historical evolution of civilization out of tribalism, a similar process is at work. A wide range of diverse people bring their skills and knowledge to bear in a geographic location, generally centered around life-giving water and arable land. Egypt, Persia, Rome, the Incas, the Maya, even the U.S. are the product of this kind of competition and social cooperation. This has the effect of increasing the quality of life for everyone, including those at the lowest rungs of the social ladder. Out of that prosperity inevitably comes the rule of law, individual rights and hopefully, democracy. It is, admittedly, an imperfect process, but it 's a necessary one. Why? Only in the imagination of children (or adults who think like children) does perfection exist as anything more than an adjective.
This is just as true in every area of commerce, including housing, food production, medicine, film-making, sports etc. It is no less true of education.
The public school system was created by borrowing methods of mass production, as it was applied to industry, and adapting them for education. Prior to that innovation, education for the masses was rare and was primarily the province of the wealthy. This should compel us to conclude that wealth creation is the solution, not the problem. Both Damon and the teachers, although well intended, have seriously misidentified the cause by focusing on the symptom, exacerbating the real problem instead of eliminating it.
Certainly, education requires continued innovation, but that's a lot less likely to happen when powerful interests can influence outcomes to serve a personal end. That is the real threat, not misguided, racist parents just waiting to undermine the enlightened government's racial mandates. That so many people are willing to endure the accusation of racism, is a testament to their tolerance, not an indifference to it.
Where power is centralized, decision making is channeled into the hands of a small number of people to make vital decisions for others. That means that fewer people are able to add their ideas and creativity, creating (for all intents and purposes) a closed system. All such systems, inevitably, become circular and self-serving, a morass of personal and political red tape, making pivotal decisions a slow, cumbersome process. That is the nature of all bureaucracies.
Where racial segregation, or any other form of segregation has led to inherent unfairness, government is often at its root--the Civil War being a prime example. Government legalized slavery and it required a half million deaths to right the wrong. If government eventually provided a solution, it was in response to the unfairness and calamity that it caused in the first place. It requires the power of government, then, to make the laws that govern others, not corporations, regardless of their ability to influence the political game.
Government, in the end, whether we're talking about slavery, Jim Crow or war, is always the necessary ingredient. That’s why attempting to deal with entrenched interests, by creating new entrenched interests, is never the solution.
Does this mean there is no place for government? Of course not! Freedom is imperfect, as is all human endeavor. The guarantee of freedom, without the possibility of failure, however, will never really be freedom. It’s only an illusion erected by those who trust in the few—meaning themselves—not the many.
Mark Magula
Why don’t we do that? Because it would end up costing a hundred billion dollars to make a movie—and then, there would be no movies. How about we give them a thousand dollars a film instead? The result would be much the same. The problem isn't how much money some people make, but how much revenue they generate for others, which, of course, isn't really a problem at all, not if they're profitable.
Damon, obviously doesn't just make the movies he loves, is anyone naive enough to believe this? He makes movies that are potentially lucrative for everyone involved. And, because he's financially viable, he can continue to make movies and get paid a huge salary. Remarkably, rather than limiting other filmmakers, his success makes their success possible by creating a continuous cash flow, with a fresh infusion of new investors who are eager to make a killing in the movie business. Make no mistake, once he stops being bankable, he’ll also stop getting the big bucks. And, eventually, he’ll stop making movies altogether.
Might the films being produced, somehow, be more artistically meaningful if profit was removed from the equation? It would depend on whose definition of "artistic" is being used, generally resulting in a small number of people determining what you “should” like instead of choosing for yourself. After all, you don't want too many rubes and idiots infecting the aesthetic accomplishments of their betters.
But, isn't education somehow different? Isn't education too important to leave to the market?
The “Market” is simply people using their hard-earned money to choose where they'll spend it and where they won’t. If a school system is failing, in spite of increased funding, which has too often been the case in the last fifty years, they should have the right to defund the failing institutions by moving their kids to a better school, where they have the hope of getting a good education. To do otherwise is to sustain failure. Unfortunately, it's always easier to fail than it is to succeed. Maybe that's why public schools have become so successful at promoting failure.
But, wouldn't this mean that poor schools, more reasonably, minority schools, are the ones most likely to suffer? Wouldn't schools become segregated by virtue of the greater wealth that's controlled by whites? In order to control white-flight from urban school systems and segregation from once again becoming the norm, white pathological tendencies must be held in check by a monopoly on power. A tight control of Federal funding becomes necessary to achieve that goal. In other words, the majority of the population must be controlled by a minority. If people won't make the right choices, those choices will be made for them, for their own good, mind you. This isn't fascism, of course, it's benevolent coercion, in the name of a good cause.
Where exactly does a monopoly of power ever lead to anything other than failure? Wherever competition is encouraged, prices fall and quality increases. Innovation becomes the norm because competition compels people to find more efficient ways to provide higher quality goods and services to consumers.
This is where progressives usually demean competition as the conservative/libertarian version of a one size fits all solution to every economic problem. In fact, they may be right.
If we look at something as fundamental as the historical evolution of civilization out of tribalism, a similar process is at work. A wide range of diverse people bring their skills and knowledge to bear in a geographic location, generally centered around life-giving water and arable land. Egypt, Persia, Rome, the Incas, the Maya, even the U.S. are the product of this kind of competition and social cooperation. This has the effect of increasing the quality of life for everyone, including those at the lowest rungs of the social ladder. Out of that prosperity inevitably comes the rule of law, individual rights and hopefully, democracy. It is, admittedly, an imperfect process, but it 's a necessary one. Why? Only in the imagination of children (or adults who think like children) does perfection exist as anything more than an adjective.
This is just as true in every area of commerce, including housing, food production, medicine, film-making, sports etc. It is no less true of education.
The public school system was created by borrowing methods of mass production, as it was applied to industry, and adapting them for education. Prior to that innovation, education for the masses was rare and was primarily the province of the wealthy. This should compel us to conclude that wealth creation is the solution, not the problem. Both Damon and the teachers, although well intended, have seriously misidentified the cause by focusing on the symptom, exacerbating the real problem instead of eliminating it.
Certainly, education requires continued innovation, but that's a lot less likely to happen when powerful interests can influence outcomes to serve a personal end. That is the real threat, not misguided, racist parents just waiting to undermine the enlightened government's racial mandates. That so many people are willing to endure the accusation of racism, is a testament to their tolerance, not an indifference to it.
Where power is centralized, decision making is channeled into the hands of a small number of people to make vital decisions for others. That means that fewer people are able to add their ideas and creativity, creating (for all intents and purposes) a closed system. All such systems, inevitably, become circular and self-serving, a morass of personal and political red tape, making pivotal decisions a slow, cumbersome process. That is the nature of all bureaucracies.
Where racial segregation, or any other form of segregation has led to inherent unfairness, government is often at its root--the Civil War being a prime example. Government legalized slavery and it required a half million deaths to right the wrong. If government eventually provided a solution, it was in response to the unfairness and calamity that it caused in the first place. It requires the power of government, then, to make the laws that govern others, not corporations, regardless of their ability to influence the political game.
Government, in the end, whether we're talking about slavery, Jim Crow or war, is always the necessary ingredient. That’s why attempting to deal with entrenched interests, by creating new entrenched interests, is never the solution.
Does this mean there is no place for government? Of course not! Freedom is imperfect, as is all human endeavor. The guarantee of freedom, without the possibility of failure, however, will never really be freedom. It’s only an illusion erected by those who trust in the few—meaning themselves—not the many.
Mark Magula