Let me explain. One major problem with the textbook I was given was that the problems demonstrated in the examples in the book and in class were VERY different from the actual problems in the book. It’d tell me how to solve one process (sequence? pattern?), but then they’d give us another to solve with which the methods taught to us would not work with.

And yes, we did get a lot of “stamp problems”.

And then, just as today, the business Republicans of the time fought it tooth and nail because it cut into their profits. Tom, your entrepreneurial heroes are neither heroic, nor very entrepreneurial, either.

And many others. The minute a politician says “here are the rules that say who can participate in this market,” you’re in the soup. Remember, we’re not talking about safety regulations here. We’re talking about political power picking the winners, and crony capitalism forcing out competition.

Sure, a lot of “capitalists” want to be in the seat on the right of the government throne. Hell, the entire “green industry” market is operating like this right now. The key is a system that doesn’t leave channels for that to happen, same as a good system of government restrains the kind of politicians who wouldn’t mind this being a single party Soviet-style nation.

I wish you had taken the time to actually think about that article “The Fall of the United States.”

(Edited)

It’s just that competition and free choice is not what capitalists want. It’s what they say they want. What they really want is monopoly and collusion and total control of the market. Sure, there are honest and virtuous capitalists, maybe even the majority of them, but they cannot compete against those who are gaming the system.

That’s why regulation is essential. Sure, regulation can be inefficient, or fail altogether, but it can be improved and fixed. But lack of regulation will inevitably lead to plutocracy and fascism. An totally unregulated and totally free market is an oxymoron, like a benevolent dictatorship.
It’s easy to imagine one, but it never happens in the real world.

But nobody really wants to get into Deep Political Philosophy around here.

Isolated, localized stupidity, or national-level stupidity.

There isn’t really a third option.

Your idea isn’t bad (especially the lottery part), but still assumes a “they” acting as gatekeepers somewhere along the line.

In that paper the authors identify one big problem: a system of textbook selection that basically drives small competitors off the market and creates an artificial near-monopoly. Competition and free choice are still the best solutions.

OTOH, I don’t want it under any political system because that is too open to corruption, lobbying, partisanship and other crap. It should be handled at a national level by educators, not appointed or elected. Lists of those willing to write textbooks should be made by the various Universities and the textbook authors come from those lists. Could choose by lottery from those WILLING to do it in each field. It would also make some money for underpaid educators. Could have 2-3 books for each subject, all peer reviewed and then available for purchase by various schools.

Books aren’t going to be used much longer. The Kindle and other reading devices will replace those so that students don’t have to spend a fortune on textbooks. I bought used books when I could. They were nice because my predecessors made some neat notes that I used.

Another thought. They could even parcel out chapters on some subjects to various educators, each from a particular expert, and compile into into one books. They do that in many Medical textbooks. I’ve worked on those with my former employer. That way students got the best info from the best of the best in the various fields and subfields.