Why do leftists insist that businesses can't "self-regulate," but teachers can?

[tpfkaw]

Title says it all; one of the favorite leftist catchphrase/slogans is that "[industry x] can't 'self-regulate.'"  However, they will also angrily insist that teacher's unions should have total control over the entire educational process, that there should be no mechanism for oversight of teacher performance whatsoever (not hyperbole, thats simply what they do in all instances), and that systems like in New York where it is impossible to fire a teacher for incompetence ought to be preserved.

[Lambsbread]

Because liberal economic policy is the same thing as Conservative social policy: Pretty words that appeal to a large group of people but makes absolutely no sense once you do some digging.

[memphis]

Teachers shoud have total control? No principals, no school boards, no state mandated curriculum? What leftist is saying that? You want business to be like schools and both should have regulators who are able to fire? You want members of the SEC to fire the heads of banks? I'm being tongue in cheek obviously, but a little reality and consistancy on your part would be nice.

[Gustaf]

There is a point somewhere in there, that left-wingers have a strange way of assuming that corporations are rational wealth-maximizers that will abuse the system as much as they can, whereas individuals will not, so that taxes and transfers will have no adverse effect on behaviour. And before someone cries hyperbole, yes, I've seen plenty of left-wingers claim the latter.

[memphis]

There is a point somewhere in there, that left-wingers have a strange way of assuming that corporations are rational wealth-maximizers that will abuse the system as much as they can, whereas individuals will not, so that taxes and transfers will have no adverse effect on behaviour. And before someone cries hyperbole, yes, I've seen plenty of left-wingers claim the latter.

Corporations have the luxury of being much more rational, and thus able to game a system, than individual people. Individuals have a lot less time and money to game a system and are much more greatly impacted by social pressures not to screw their peers. Taxes are one factor that can have an effect on behavior. Right wingers like to act like it's the only one.

[opebo]

Firstly, this is a straw-man argument.  Secondly, memphis is correct that individuals are not 'rational' and don't game systems very well.  Thirdly, over-staffing and retaining 'deadwood' are good economic policy from a macro/Keynesian point of view - for example, if some senior teachers are retained who 'do nothing', this is a net gain for the economy, as new younger teachers can be hired to do their work, and more money gets sent out the door to boost demand.  The rule of thumb with government spending should always be 'more is better', and people with real job security (sinecures) make much better consumers than those without.

[Gustaf]

There is a point somewhere in there, that left-wingers have a strange way of assuming that corporations are rational wealth-maximizers that will abuse the system as much as they can, whereas individuals will not, so that taxes and transfers will have no adverse effect on behaviour. And before someone cries hyperbole, yes, I've seen plenty of left-wingers claim the latter.

Corporations have the luxury of being much more rational, and thus able to game a system, than individual people. Individuals have a lot less time and money to game a system and are much more greatly impacted by social pressures not to screw their peers. Taxes are one factor that can have an effect on behavior. Right wingers like to act like it's the only one.

If individuals aren't rational on their own why would they magically become so when lumped together in a corporation?

On some of your other points I agree though.

[opebo]

If individuals aren't rational on their own why would they magically become so when lumped together in a corporation?

Obviously humans are social creatures, Gustaf, and can hardly do anything 'individually'.  But yours is a fair point - corporations, like 'markets', are more often irrational than rational.  I think however memphis' point about corporations gaming a system more than individuals reflects the view that corporations are less constrained by socialization - and I do agree with this idea.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

If individuals aren't rational on their own why would they magically become so when lumped together in a corporation?

Of course the correct answer is that neither are particularly rational, unless the word is being contorted into a fascinating variety of different shapes in order to fit the example to hand. It's not as though we can objectively define the rational anyway, so why even bother?

Personally I think it's a mistake to argue (from a left-wing point of view) that there is something especially rational about large companies; not all employers are asset strippers (for example) and it damages whatever arguments can be made against such behavior if you assert that it is rational, and thus normal and to be expected. Then there's the whole area of mismanagement; you can hardly level that allegation if you have also claimed that companies are inherently rational!

[Gustaf]

If individuals aren't rational on their own why would they magically become so when lumped together in a corporation?

Of course the correct answer is that neither are particularly rational, unless the word is being contorted into a fascinating variety of different shapes in order to fit the example to hand. It's not as though we can objectively define the rational anyway, so why even bother?

Personally I think it's a mistake to argue (from a left-wing point of view) that there is something especially rational about large companies; not all employers are asset strippers (for example) and it damages whatever arguments can be made against such behavior if you assert that it is rational, and thus normal and to be expected. Then there's the whole area of mismanagement; you can hardly level that allegation if you have also claimed that companies are inherently rational!

Yup, that's more or less what I'm thinking.

As an economist one would argue that on the micro-level people aren't necessarily rational. But in the long run, due to market forces and learning, the predictions made by theories assuming rationality will tend to be roughly correct.

The obvious example is that companies that are too incompetent will eventually go bankrupt.