Or: The Education System is designed to create a dumber society [Archive]

Incanam

10-04-2009, 06:45 AM

Maybe he put it in the utilitarian way but what he says is valid. What is lost in that sentence is the fact that the few that are being sacrificed are not being sacrificed by coercive force of government but by their inability to succeed. That sentence also fails to mention that if we are to save those few we must use coercive force to put down all of us.
I'm not advocating bringing us all down, but that's what your insinuating. I'm one of the smarter kids that are being hurt by the system. I'm upset that my 5AP Spanish class (which 10 kids signed up for) has to be taught with the 4AP kids, because the minimum number required for an individual class is 12. All this while the remedial classes are being funded so the kids who don't care can pass the HSPA (and INCREDIBLY simple standardized test).

But the issue here is that, the education I am receiving is very good. Yes, it could be a hell of a lot better, but it is very good. It has brought me to the point where I can confidently compete with others applying to top universities in the nation. I also realize how lucky I am. My parents moved to this town, which has a very high tax rate, specifically because the schools are good.

There's the problem. You know how the SATs work? They don't test anything, other than how much money your coming from. The average in my town is a 100 pointes than inner city Philadelphia (which is close by).

And here's the thing, helping those "few" (by far the majority) to succeed is not forcefully putting down all of us. The kids who are dedicated indeed will succeed.

The thing is, to think the schools are purposefully bad is ridiculous. I have no doubt that all my teachers wish the best for me and my students. This is not because I am "brainwashed" but because I talk to them as humans.

For example, when the teacher asks the class, how many of them have been following the healthcare debate, and only 2 raise their hands, you can see the look of pain at the ignorance of the kids on his face. He wants them to know how their government is run. And maybe if people learned this from their schools, we wouldn't have so many god damn failures storming in town hall meetings.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wV1lZMTCqf8
Damn conspiracy nuts.

He says some deep stuff (not always right), but I don't find him funny at all.

In case you haven't noticed, I've long since graduated from high school and college. I don't even mildly remember elementary or middle school.

It takes people 10 years to develop learning skills and techniques? Well, that could easily be done. You ask a kid what he likes. You find that subject and tell him to study it, do a project on it and have it done by <insert date here>. Along the way you teach him the basics. Basic math, grammar and english, basic science etc etc. Voila. You've just eliminated 6 years of cramming mostly useless information into this kids brain.

The ONLY things that schools develop in children in a major way is social skills, and that can go either well, average, or horribly. You don't need useless classes to do that. Hell, if you have things students are interested in, and they share that mutual interest with everyone else in the class... hey light bulb.

Yeah, let's have people only know about stuff their interested in...that'll make for a great society.

Forumfall is always the one talking about ""sheeple..." yet here are those same people advocating ignorance.

Villageninja

10-04-2009, 06:48 AM

Hey! I know the country for you! Its called China!

There's one problem. I don't speak Chinese, and probably never will. I'd rather not hit it like that :P.

Besides, I'm done with school so it doesn't really affect me aside from knowing generations after me are going to end up like Idiocracy with the way things are going. The young generation is totally out of touch with the real world, and how to live without being told what's good for them. Protip to the young ones who aren't good little drones: Become politicians so you can herd the sheep down the line.

Villageninja

10-04-2009, 06:51 AM

Yeah, let's have people only know about stuff their interested in...that'll make for a great society.

Forumfall is always the one talking about ""sheeple..." yet here are those same people advocating ignorance.

How does teaching kids meaningful things instead of cramming their brains with things they will forget before the end of the week make for sheeple? Unless they have retarded parents who don't know how to raise children (*Cough*) then it would do nothing but actually make them WANT to learn something. The hell are you on about exactly? Would you advocate things like cramming useless information as if preparing to compete on Jeapordy?

Strangia

10-04-2009, 06:59 AM

There's one problem. I don't speak Chinese, and probably never will. I'd rather not hit it like that :P.

Besides, I'm done with school so it doesn't really affect me aside from knowing generations after me are going to end up like Idiocracy with the way things are going. The young generation is totally out of touch with the real world, and how to live without being told what's good for them. Protip to the young ones who aren't good little drones: Become politicians so you can herd the sheep down the line.

I'm just saying, the alternatives aren't much better.

A complete homeschooling system would foster more hatred and general ignorance than anything. And even if teaching was completely privatized, the private teachers would cater to the desires of the parents, not to teaching children objective facts. You would get teachers who taught "FUCK YEAH AMURIKA" instead of the facts. You would get teachers who taught the world was 6000 years old, and not just in Kansas and Texas.

And the other option, letting kids "choose" what they want to study, or testing them to see what they are good at in early childhood would never work. People often don't discover their talents until much later in life.

And that sounds dangerously close to China's system where kids are forced into career tracks between the ages 2-7.

Incanam

10-04-2009, 07:04 AM

How does teaching kids meaningful things instead of cramming their brains with things they will forget before the end of the week make for sheeple? Unless they have retarded parents who don't know how to raise children (*Cough*) then it would do nothing but actually make them WANT to learn something. The hell are you on about exactly? Would you advocate things like cramming useless information as if preparing to compete on Jeapordy?

I advocate what we have...but better.

History, I actually like, but it's very useful. And who says anything about forgetting it. I remember, the gilded age, the depression the different acts (FDIC ftw), the revolution, the causes for the civil war etc. Sure I'll forget the minutest of details, but the general idea for the last 300+ of US history is in my head. And some of it has come in handy here on Forumfall. "Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it."

If you want a population that is not going to blindly follow the government surely you'd expect them to know the previous powers of said government. Nowadays you have people claiming Obama's taxes are the same exact thing as "No taxation without representation" during the revolution. It's saddens me oh so much.

English: I generally dislike. But again, reading was the medium of the revolution, and it is certainly more reliable than today's visual media. I don't understand why you wouldn't want people to be able to interpret complex written down ideas (George Orwel wrote 1984...great book...if read).

Math: It's "thinking practice." Think spatially and logically. Better yet, it's thinking hard, a thing most Americans aren't used to. Sitting down and accomplishing a problem after thinking long and hard about it is one of the best feelings. I realize this might not be true for others, but it is still very important to be able to do.

Science: Would certainly help the "God made the earth all the life on it" argument die off.

The parents comment, btw is great, because most parents are retarded (I'd say probably due to the education they got). School is a great way to have a diverse group of adults to look after a child/adolescent. I have no idea where the hell I'd be without my guidance counselor telling me about college/careers.

PirateGlen

10-04-2009, 07:06 AM

It's rather unfortunate that public education sucks so much. Seemed like math was the only subject that they didn't teach me 3 times.

Incanam

10-04-2009, 07:08 AM

Maybe it's just me, and/or the fact that I actually like learning new things, but I have had a great experience with school, especially my high school.

PirateGlen

10-04-2009, 07:09 AM

... I have no idea where the hell I'd be without my guidance counselor telling me about college/careers.

My counselor was a bitch who tried to get me into special ed because I thought busy work was for retards.

Villageninja

10-04-2009, 07:13 AM

I'm just saying, the alternatives aren't much better.

A complete homeschooling system would foster more hatred and general ignorance than anything. And even if teaching was completely privatized, the private teachers would cater to the desires of the parents, not to teaching children objective facts. You would get teachers who taught "FUCK YEAH AMURIKA" instead of the facts. You would get teachers who taught the world was 6000 years old, and not just in Kansas and Texas.

And the other option, letting kids "choose" what they want to study, or testing them to see what they are good at in early childhood would never work. People often don't discover their talents until much later in life.

And that sounds dangerously close to China's system where kids are forced into career tracks between the ages 2-7.

China seems to be totally fucked up from that huh?

Anyway. So you think that giving teachers a little freedom in what is taught would automatically cause them to teach complete and total bullshit to these kids? You already have teachers who are stupid bitches. My geography teacher in 7th grade insisted China was in Africa for a good 2 months until I told my parents, who told the principal, who fired the teacher. Great system eh? And anyway, teachers put their own personal spin on current classes to undermine the information in the textbooks fairly often anyway. So I don't think that's really a valid argument about teaching meaningful things.

I will grant you that children that young are not ready for careers... but kids that young will still be being taught the basics anyway. It wouldn't be till around 8 years old or so when they get all the basic stuff like grammar, history, math, etc etc out of the way anyway. By then they'll have a general idea. Hell, you could even have them suggest some things they might like and take a semester where their parents can bring them over to that job to see what it's like doing that type of work. Just a crazy idea here, and the best part is that it costs little to no money for any party. After that, they will most likely find something they had some interest in. If not, then they can be tossed into the general group and go UNTIL they find something they are interested in along the usual school course. The main thing is options. Give people options.

As a side note the "testing" thing is bullshit. Enough said on that really. I took one of those tests jokingly and my suggested job was pole dancer. Nn-tss nn-tss nn-tss *swirl shirt*

PirateGlen

10-04-2009, 07:18 AM

Villageninja

10-04-2009, 07:20 AM

I advocate what we have...but better.

If you want a population that is not going to blindly follow the government surely you'd expect them to know the previous powers of said government. Nowadays you have people claiming Obama's taxes are the same exact thing as "No taxation without representation" during the revolution. It's saddens me oh so much.

The parents comment, btw is great, because most parents are retarded (I'd say probably due to the education they got). School is a great way to have a diverse group of adults to look after a child/adolescent. I have no idea where the hell I'd be without my guidance counselor telling me about college/careers.

All those subjects are important to a good degree (till you start getting into studying some off the wall poet from 100 years ago, and math formulas you won't even begin to think about at any point in your life etc) which is why I listed a good bit of them earlier as stuff people really do need to know to some general extent. Like Economics. In school, for me, economics was treated like a complete joke by schools. I doubt it's much different now, but that's fucking important stuff.

What we have is great, for people who can't make up their minds. And even for them once it gets too deep it just turns to something completely uninteresting for the most part. I agree, we need to take the current system and stop requiring so much stupid shit to be taught, and instead adding a shitload of options and optional methods of teaching. The only argument really against that, that I can think of, is how to generalize that across the country. There really isn't a way, but there shouldn't HAVE to be if educators really want to educate people, but that leads back to the earlier linked video heh.

Silverhandorder

10-04-2009, 07:23 AM

The best way to improve schools is to allow people who want to be in them to go and let everyone else get vocational jobs. There is nothing wrong with being manual labor. The fact that we cram in so many people and many of them end up doing manual jobs anyways speaks volumes.

I have hard time believing that anyone will be left behind if we take the simple step of localizing schools. That does not even offend the liberal sensibilities.

Villageninja

10-04-2009, 07:23 AM

One key to improving education may be to make teachers more connected to the students. I had a professor that did a study that found good results in matching up students with a teacher and then having them keep the same teacher for each grade (rather than a new one each year).

I results may be a bit skewed since I suspect they may have used "better" teachers in the study.

I think that's a great idea, setting aside the specifics like needing actually competent teachers who don't just teach directly from the book because they don't know the subject.

Silverhandorder

10-04-2009, 07:26 AM

I think that's a great idea, setting aside the specifics like needing actually competent teachers who don't just teach directly from the book because they don't know the subject.

Yeah they are all in private schools being paid what they are worth.

xpiher

10-04-2009, 07:32 AM

Yeah they are all in private schools being paid what they are worth.

not true. Some places actually pay their teachers what they are worth, but they are in "rich" areas or highschool teachers that have been on staff so long they can't be fired.

Villageninja

10-04-2009, 07:32 AM

Yeah they are all in private schools being paid what they are worth.

Heh, pretty much.

Silverhandorder

10-04-2009, 08:03 AM

not true. Some places actually pay their teachers what they are worth, but they are in "rich" areas
And a private school in that area pays more :).

or highschool teachers that have been on staff so long they can't be fired.
I don't think a teacher's worth is measured by how long they have been working.

Incanam

10-04-2009, 08:05 AM

Yeah they are all in private schools being paid what they are worth.

Bullshit. I've had excellent teachers in public school. And I have friends in private school...I'm not hearing such good things (for example the teachers seem apathetic there...not saying it's true for all private schools).

And you bring up the point of what the hell the poor kids are supposed to do for education? The rich can always go to private school. The poor need a "public option."

My counselor was a bitch who tried to get me into special ed because I thought busy work was for retards.
Oh, that sucks. My guy is great. He used to be a dean at Swarthmore. Knows a ton (did very very well on Jeopardy...and this is when it used to be about intelligent stuff, and not pop culture stuff like nowadays). His son got a perfect 2400 on the SATs (just thought I'd mention that since this whole thing started with the heritabilty of intelligencei n the first place). I guess I got lucky. He's organized for all of my top college choices to come visit my high school. And he's a pretty funny (in the cheesy sort of way) guy to boot.

Anyway. So you think that giving teachers a little freedom in what is taught would automatically cause them to teach complete and total bullshit to these kids? You already have teachers who are stupid bitches. My geography teacher in 7th grade insisted China was in Africa for a good 2 months until I told my parents, who told the principal, who fired the teacher. Great system eh? And anyway, teachers put their own personal spin on current classes to undermine the information in the textbooks fairly often anyway. So I don't think that's really a valid argument about teaching meaningful things.
Again, I must have had a completely different experience, but I have found the opposite of what you said about teachers to be true. Curriculums hold them back. I'm not syaing to get rid of all control, but the curriculum is pretty stupid in some areas, and it's great when teachers who actually want to teach important stuff try to break away. For example, my english teacher is only allowed to teach the summer reading books until the end of Sept. and due to this, we have barely gotten into th deeper meanings of them. It's a little sad, because we had to read over 1500 pages this summer (much more than usual).

All those subjects are important to a good degree (till you start getting into studying some off the wall poet from 100 years ago, and math formulas you won't even begin to think about at any point in your life etc) which is why I listed a good bit of them earlier as stuff people really do need to know to some general extent. Like Economics. In school, for me, economics was treated like a complete joke by schools. I doubt it's much different now, but that's fucking important stuff.
Heres the thing, the dead 100 year old poetry, as much as I despise poeetry, is an important thing to learn. For the same reason as reading 1984 would be. Poetry is simply another way to communicate ideas.

And the math thing: This goes back to my point of math not being there for actual practical use (besides the necessary) but being there for the purpose of getting people to think.

What we have is great, for people who can't make up their minds. And even for them once it gets too deep it just turns to something completely uninteresting for the most part. I agree, we need to take the current system and stop requiring so much stupid shit to be taught, and instead adding a shitload of options and optional methods of teaching. The only argument really against that, that I can think of, is how to generalize that across the country. There really isn't a way, but there shouldn't HAVE to be if educators really want to educate people, but that leads back to the earlier linked video heh.
Idk, what you imaigne, but you are not descrbing schools at all how they are (At least where I've attended).

Ex.
English required all 4 years (definitely neccessary).
Math required for 3. This generally covers up to Alegbra 2. In my case, Alegbra 2 was my freshman class, and now I am in multivariable calculus. In any case, the point I made before about it causing people to think, still stands.
1 year of World Language. Exposure...nothing wrong with that.
3 years of history. 1 year of world civ and 2 years of US history. I decided to take World History AP this year even though I wasn't required, and am most definitely not majoring in it.
3 years of Science. 1 year of basics, and then 2 years of choice from bio/chem/physics/anatomy/forensics etc. I have taken bio, chem and physics, and am now in Physics II AP (introductory college physics).

What I am trying to say is that there is a massive amount of choice here. The system here is fine, and it is definitely fine to get 12 years of education. But if that really bothered you, you could gradute by 11th grade because all that is really reuqired of you is the 4th English class, which you can easily take over the summer.

And I didn't mention the electives ranging from business, to computer graphics, to art, to music etc.

To me, my public school is a wonderful institution.

The best way to improve schools is to allow people who want to be in them to go and let everyone else get vocational jobs. There is nothing wrong with being manual labor. The fact that we cram in so many people and many of them end up doing manual jobs anyways speaks volumes.

I have hard time believing that anyone will be left behind if we take the simple step of localizing schools. That does not even offend the liberal sensibilities.
Localized schools means localized curriculums means vast disparity (moreso than there already is).

And at least the people doing manual jobs know a little about their world if they finish through with high school (I again point you to the "no taxation without represntation" argument). A part of the reason America's in a mess right now is the uneducated population. Education is a crucial tool for the stability and fuction of a democratic, republican society.

Silverhandorder

10-04-2009, 08:23 AM

Bullshit. I've had excellent teachers in public school. And I have friends in private school...I'm not hearing such good things (for example the teachers seem apathetic there...not saying it's true for all private schools).

Sorry if my sarcasm threw you off. Obviously all good teachers are not going to be in private schools. However private schools are the only ones that are actually performing right now. It is not hard to imagine why. Many of them cost a fraction of what it costs the government to send a student to public school.

And you bring up the point of what the hell the poor kids are supposed to do for education? The rich can always go to private school. The poor need a "public option."
Did you ever think that education can be funded by the poor if the price of it is not inflated? Why did it cost so little compared to now before DOE?

Localized schools means localized curriculums means vast disparity (moreso than there already is).

It also means that schools are allowed to experiment and we can see which techniques succeed and which ones fail. It also means that the areas that are the worst can easily be identified.

And at least the people doing manual jobs know a little about their world if they finish through with high school (I again point you to the "no taxation without represntation" argument). A part of the reason America's in a mess right now is the uneducated population. Education is a crucial tool for the stability and fuction of a democratic, republican society.
How can you claim to opposite conclusions? If public education is good then Americans shouldn't be an uneducated population.

Btw manual labor does not mean that the person automatically does not know anything about the world around them.

xpiher

10-04-2009, 08:25 AM

Public education is good, but it has to be done correctly. In America, its not done correctly.

Villageninja

10-04-2009, 08:26 AM

Again, I must have had a completely different experience, but I have found the opposite of what you said about teachers to be true. Curriculums hold them back. I'm not syaing to get rid of all control, but the curriculum is pretty stupid in some areas, and it's great when teachers who actually want to teach important stuff try to break away. For example, my english teacher is only allowed to teach the summer reading books until the end of Sept. and due to this, we have barely gotten into th deeper meanings of them. It's a little sad, because we had to read over 1500 pages this summer (much more than usual).

Heres the thing, the dead 100 year old poetry, as much as I despise poeetry, is an important thing to learn. For the same reason as reading 1984 would be. Poetry is simply another way to communicate ideas.

And the math thing: This goes back to my point of math not being there for actual practical use (besides the necessary) but being there for the purpose of getting people to think.

Idk, what you imaigne, but you are not descrbing schools at all how they are (At least where I've attended).

Ex.
English required all 4 years (definitely neccessary).
Math required for 3. This generally covers up to Alegbra 2. In my case, Alegbra 2 was my freshman class, and now I am in multivariable calculus. In any case, the point I made before about it causing people to think, still stands.
1 year of World Language. Exposure...nothing wrong with that.
3 years of history. 1 year of world civ and 2 years of US history. I decided to take World History AP this year even though I wasn't required, and am most definitely not majoring in it.
3 years of Science. 1 year of basics, and then 2 years of choice from bio/chem/physics/anatomy/forensics etc. I have taken bio, chem and physics, and am now in Physics II AP (introductory college physics).

What I am trying to say is that there is a massive amount of choice here. The system here is fine, and it is definitely fine to get 12 years of education. But if that really bothered you, you could gradute by 11th grade because all that is really reuqired of you is the 4th English class, which you can easily take over the summer.

And I didn't mention the electives ranging from business, to computer graphics, to art, to music etc.

To me, my public school is a wonderful institution.

Localized schools means localized curriculums means vast disparity (moreso than there already is).

And at least the people doing manual jobs know a little about their world if they finish through with high school (I again point you to the "no taxation without represntation" argument). A part of the reason America's in a mess right now is the uneducated population. Education is a crucial tool for the stability and fuction of a democratic, republican society.

I'd have to heavily disagree on the poetry thing (I meant it generally just as poetry). Hell there could be a full class on poetry and it's intricate workings. It's an acquired taste. I'm good with it, but I knew others who just totally can't get it no matter how hard they try. It's just not for them.

And jesus christ I wish I were that lucky at picking subjects and not being required to get into advanced crap. I got the choice of biology or chemistry. Didn't like it? fuck you... fail it till you pass. And you had to pass all three levels of those sciences. Same with math, ending with freakin calculus in high school. HIGH SCHOOL. I didn't even have to take calculus in friggin college. You must have one of the good schools.

I was also required to take language, literature, some sort of phys ed class, and a few other useless classes I can't even remember.

Incanam

10-04-2009, 08:42 AM

Sorry if my sarcasm threw you off. Obviously all good teachers are not going to be in private schools. However private schools are the only ones that are actually performing right now. It is not hard to imagine why. Many of them cost a fraction of what it costs the government to send a student to public school.
Right, it's cheaper for the sponsor, not the person attending the school.

Did you ever think that education can be funded by the poor if the price of it is not inflated? Why did it cost so little compared to now before DOE?

Sorry, what's DOE? And can you give me any proof of the price change caused by whatever this DOE is?

It also means that schools are allowed to experiment and we can see which techniques succeed and which ones fail. It also means that the areas that are the worst can easily be identified.

I'm less of an extremist than you. I don't see why we can't have both. The private schools can do the experimenting, and if they find something new, the public schools can implement.

And we can already identify the areas that are the worst. It's the poor areas.

How can you claim to opposite conclusions? If public education is good then Americans shouldn't be an uneducated population.
Public education is better than no education, which is what you're arguing for.

Btw manual labor does not mean that the person automatically does not know anything about the world around them.
You're saying that people should quit because they are not interested. The things they are skipping would be history (ie, knowledge of the world around them), and science. I never said manual labor means ignorance. I said a lack of education leads to that.

I'd have to heavily disagree on the poetry thing (I meant it generally just as poetry). Hell there could be a full class on poetry and it's intricate workings. It's an acquired taste. I'm good with it, but I knew others who just totally can't get it no matter how hard they try. It's just not for them.
I dislike it a lot. But it's only required ofr a year (4th year of English for us), and I think it's good that students are exposed to it. I extremely disliked some of the things we did in English as we were doing them, but I now see their benefit.

See, that's another benefit of school. It's an area to try new things. Silver is advocating people who are disinterested to just quite before they try anything else other than manual labor, while at the same time, most kids don't find their caling until after the first year of college.

And jesus christ I wish I were that lucky at picking subjects and not being required to get into advanced crap. I got the choice of biology or chemistry. Didn't like it? fuck you... fail it till you pass. And you had to pass all three levels of those sciences. Same with math, ending with freakin calculus in high school. HIGH SCHOOL. I didn't even have to take calculus in friggin college. You must have one of the good schools.

I was also required to take language, literature, some sort of phys ed class, and a few other useless classes I can't even remember.
Oh, we have to take phys ed also, I think I forgot to mention that.

Yeah, the public schools in my area are great, but their expensive (in terms of taxes). However, they are still much more affordable than private schools in my area, and offer a comparable education.

I guess this shows the division on the issue. Your not really against public education, just the kind you received. And I'm not really advocating what you received, but what I received.

xpiher

10-04-2009, 08:54 AM

Villageninja

10-04-2009, 10:08 AM

High school should be harder, senior year, than your first year of college or else you will suck in college. And you shouldn't get a choice at what you learn, well not a numerous choice. Everyone should have to take 2 sciences, 3 maths (algebra 1 & 2 and geometry), wester history, american history, basic government, and 4 years of English. What you should get a choice to do is a choice between trigonometry, calculus, or pre-calculus and AP classes classes (politics etc). All the above classes will get you prepared for most colleges, assuming the teachers can actually teach, and if you chose not to go to college you'll know enough info to make informed decisions in places that matter and be well rounded enough to pick up a trade skill or something [pretty easily.

Making it harder, and having a generally low quality of teachers is what makes people dropout. Also not having any motivation whatsoever. Anything above algebra and geometry (the two actually important maths) when it has to do with math is completely frivolous to the real world. Algebra 2 is borderline with that.

The silly thing is... most schools are just there to "prepare for college". That, in itself, is one of the most fatal flaws. They're teaching you what they think you need to know to get into college. College is teaching you what THEY think you need to know, and for what? A degree. What happens when you get your degree and actually get a job? Half the bullshit you just learned (Aside from the specific courses that teach you about your future job) over a span of 12 years goes right out the window, because most of what you will actually need to know is learned... on the job. Aside from the basics, which hearkens back to my original argument that the frilly stuff is a waste of time, money, and possible mental anguish that a kid trying to learn things does not need to be suffering. He/she will have plenty of time to suffer later on heh.

Just an interesting little piece from California (http://www.cde.ca.gov/nr/ne/yr09/yr09rel073.asp) I don't even dare start researching the atrocities of education statistics my state is committing.

Haeso

10-04-2009, 11:16 AM

In case you did not notice, you do not go to elementary, middle, and high school to learn information that will be helpful to you. What are you harry potter ?

You go to develop learning skills and techniques. Maybe those hours of studying were a waste because you were not interested in learning anything, but the time management and focus is going to be a good tool for your future.

Time management and focus are for sheeple. Find a job you actually enjoy doing, and you'll do what needs to be done. For those of you unable to find a job doing something you enjoy. I have two words - Ha Ha. But really, the current education system in America is absolutely terrible.

Silverhandorder

10-04-2009, 06:31 PM

Right, it's cheaper for the sponsor, not the person attending the school.

It is cheaper period. The private school needs X to educate a student and a public school needs (X + Y) to do the same. Who pays is irrelevant to that fact.

Sorry, what's DOE? And can you give me any proof of the price change caused by whatever this DOE is?
Dept of Education.

http://www.project.org/info.php?recordID=225 <--- Notice how the slope of all of them went up after 1980.

I'm less of an extremist than you. I don't see why we can't have both. The private schools can do the experimenting, and if they find something new, the public schools can implement.

Well I think it's extremist to ask some people to pay for others w/e it may be. Yes I know the world is not a Utopia but it seems there is simply no bounds on how much and for what people are forced to pay.

And we can already identify the areas that are the worst. It's the poor areas.
That statement is way too general to even begin to understand the problem. One size fits all is not going to fix these problems.

Public education is better than no education, which is what you're arguing for.
I am arguing for no meddling in education. You continue to push false idea that there will be no education provided to those who can not afford unless government steps in. There was a fraction of people who could not afford education prior to government involvement. Now it is a significant part of the population. Education should be getting cheaper due to technology not more expensive.

You're saying that people should quit because they are not interested. The things they are skipping would be history (ie, knowledge of the world around them), and science. I never said manual labor means ignorance. I said a lack of education leads to that.

If they are not interested they are not going to learn it in the first place. If they ever will learn it, it is when they choose to do so. Not when some one forces them to attend to school. There is no punishment for failing school, and I don't think you would be the one to be for that kind of thing.

http://mises.org/books/educationinamerica.pdf

Incanam

10-04-2009, 07:58 PM

It is cheaper period. The private school needs X to educate a student and a public school needs (X + Y) to do the same. Who pays is irrelevant to that fact.
If X is the amount payed by the student, then X is significantly lower in the public schools.

And why is X+Y in the second case any more than X in the first case?

Dept of Education.

http://www.project.org/info.php?recordID=225 <--- Notice how the slope of all of them went up after 1980.

http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind02/c1/fig01-20.htm

Notice how the number of people attending college also increased greatly, with the addition of more minorities and women.

"Overall, immediate college enrollment rates for high school completers increased from 49 to 63 percent between 1972 and 1999. (See figure 1-20 figure.) Much of the growth in these rates between 1984 and 1999 was due to increases in the immediate enrollment rates for females at four-year institutions (see below.)

Some differences in immediate enrollment rates among groups of completers have not changed. The gap in rates between those from high- and low-income families persisted for each year between 1990 and 1999. Likewise, completers whose parents had attained a bachelor’s degree or higher were more likely than those with parents who had less education to enter college immediately after high school graduation for each year between 1990 and 1999 (NCES 2001b.)"
http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind02/c1/c1s9.htm

If the advocates of a free market claim only abiltiy should determine success, the social standing of the parents should not affect this at all? But it does. Why?

Well I think it's extremist to ask some people to pay for others w/e it may be. Yes I know the world is not a Utopia but it seems there is simply no bounds on how much and for what people are forced to pay.

I was talking about political extremism. What you want, on a political scale would be close to anarchy. Not Anarchy exactly, but very close with a barely tangible government to speak. On the other side of the spectrum is true socialism, where the government controls EVERYTHING. And then there's communism of course. Both these extremes (communism vs. anarchism) in their true definitions are very implausible. The closer you are to these extremes, the less likely what you desire will happen.

You often call people like me, "socialist", but the truth is I'm very moderate (a little left leaning, no doubt but close to center). I don't see the problem with compromise. Have government funded schools and non government funded schools.

That means people are "forced to pay" a little. Not 0 like in what you desire, and not a lot like the true socialists want. But a little. That is necessary for a well functioning society. We are measured by our weakest, not our strongest.

That statement is way too general to even begin to understand the problem. One size fits all is not going to fix these problems.

I am arguing for no meddling in education. You continue to push false idea that there will be no education provided to those who can not afford unless government steps in. There was a fraction of people who could not afford education prior to government involvement. Now it is a significant part of the population. Education should be getting cheaper due to technology not more expensive.

Perhaps buying the new technology is what's causing it to become more expensive. Back when a school didn't have to afford hundreds of computers, surely the costs would have been less. You have provided no proof, that the rise in education costs was due to government intervention. There were a ton of things that changed (the rise in people going to college for one) that could have affected prices.

And about affording education, the fact that the number of attendees is higher now than it was before certainly means something good has happened. Maybe it is less affordable, but more people are going, which is good.

And another thing about the data, I just realized. That graph did not take Federal aid into account. That should automatically cut the average by $10k (in terms of what the people have to pay). The tuition costs may be going up, but the price people have to pay may not necessarily be. Most of the colleges I have visited said they will cut the tuition to the full demonstrated need of the FAFSA.

If they are not interested they are not going to learn it in the first place. If they ever will learn it, it is when they choose to do so. Not when some one forces them to attend to school. There is no punishment for failing school, and I don't think you would be the one to be for that kind of thing.

http://mises.org/books/educationinamerica.pdf
But telling them to quit before they even realize if they are interested or not is a mistake. The current system is fine in that respect. When you become an adult, you're free to drop out, until then, you have to stay in school.

There is a reason the dropouts (the majority) don't make as much as the graduates.

The silly thing is... most schools are just there to "prepare for college". That, in itself, is one of the most fatal flaws. They're teaching you what they think you need to know to get into college. College is teaching you what THEY think you need to know, and for what? A degree. What happens when you get your degree and actually get a job? Half the bullshit you just learned (Aside from the specific courses that teach you about your future job) over a span of 12 years goes right out the window, because most of what you will actually need to know is learned... on the job. Aside from the basics, which hearkens back to my original argument that the frilly stuff is a waste of time, money, and possible mental anguish that a kid trying to learn things does not need to be suffering. He/she will have plenty of time to suffer later on heh.
I don't think the point of college has to be to prepare you for something. That's what a liberal arts education is. An education in being well rounded.

Villageninja

10-04-2009, 08:25 PM

I don't think the point of college has to be to prepare you for something. That's what a liberal arts education is. An education in being well rounded.

That defeats the purpose of going to college entirely no? Right now, getting a degree is basically just there to get you a job. With a liberal arts degree your choices are going to be severely limited (Politician for the win?) I think this article really hits the nail on the head about it http://www.quintcareers.com/marketing_liberal-arts_degrees.html It's basically saying "Well now you're here, make the best of it and try not to be depressed that you picked a shitty degree and still have no idea what you want to do for a living". Other people with specific degrees will almost always be picked over them with a few exceptions. Maybe it's just my take on it. One thing it will help you with though is if you have...say.. aspirations to be a Walgreens/Wal-mart/<insert other store here> store manager or something along that line.

Silverhandorder

10-04-2009, 09:03 PM

If X is the amount payed by the student, then X is significantly lower in the public schools.

And why is X+Y in the second case any more than X in the first case?

Of course you are right. Some one else pays for the student going to public school. That wasn't the point I was making though.

http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind02/c1/fig01-20.htm

Notice how the number of people attending college also increased greatly, with the addition of more minorities and women.

Then the price should have went down after. That is what economics dictates (just the laws in which both Keynesian and Austrians agree on). If it's a shortage of supply the market produces extra universities. Yet the prices do not go down. That is not a failure of the market since as you can see from my chart pre-DOE the curve is very smooth.

"Overall, immediate college enrollment rates for high school completers increased from 49 to 63 percent between 1972 and 1999. (See figure 1-20 figure.) Much of the growth in these rates between 1984 and 1999 was due to increases in the immediate enrollment rates for females at four-year institutions (see below.)

Some differences in immediate enrollment rates among groups of completers have not changed. The gap in rates between those from high- and low-income families persisted for each year between 1990 and 1999. Likewise, completers whose parents had attained a bachelor’s degree or higher were more likely than those with parents who had less education to enter college immediately after high school graduation for each year between 1990 and 1999 (NCES 2001b.)"
http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind02/c1/c1s9.htm

If the advocates of a free market claim only abiltiy should determine success, the social standing of the parents should not affect this at all? But it does. Why?

Maybe I wasn't clear but I don't claim that. If some one gets lucky because their parents can instill good values in them or can afford to get them into private school more power to them. My parents can't afford that and this is why I am in public school. However yes I am lucky to have both of them help me develop my self.

However the point that I and other free marketers always maintain is that it is not necessary to have parents help some one to succeed.

The higher enrollment rates are given if some one else pays for them.

I was talking about political extremism. What you want, on a political scale would be close to anarchy. Not Anarchy exactly, but very close with a barely tangible government to speak. On the other side of the spectrum is true socialism, where the government controls EVERYTHING. And then there's communism of course. Both these extremes (communism vs. anarchism) in their true definitions are very implausible. The closer you are to these extremes, the less likely what you desire will happen.

That is a debate for another topic. Just remember that it is not extreme to oppose taxation or elimination of unneeded organizations.

You often call people like me, "socialist", but the truth is I'm very moderate (a little left leaning, no doubt but close to center). I don't see the problem with compromise. Have government funded schools and non government funded schools.

That means people are "forced to pay" a little. Not 0 like in what you desire, and not a lot like the true socialists want. But a little. That is necessary for a well functioning society. We are measured by our weakest, not our strongest.

What you suggest would be an improvement from what we have now. I don't disagree with that. However society as a whole will pay more. The quality is going to be better then now but not better then the system I advocate.

As far as being measured by our weakest I assure you we are by far the best society in the world then. Reigning in big government will only improve it. Avg poor in America lives like middle class European. Allowing deflation to take place and eliminating government monopolies helps the poor not the rich.

Perhaps buying the new technology is what's causing it to become more expensive. Back when a school didn't have to afford hundreds of computers, surely the costs would have been less. You have provided no proof, that the rise in education costs was due to government intervention. There were a ton of things that changed (the rise in people going to college for one) that could have affected prices.

Technology makes everything cheaper not more expensive. Purchasing technology that reduces the cost of production lowers the cost of the product. Technology is bought with capital that is the sacrificed production. Again this is Keynesian economics too.

And about affording education, the fact that the number of attendees is higher now than it was before certainly means something good has happened. Maybe it is less affordable, but more people are going, which is good.

You can't say that. That is an absolute claim that does not prove true. A 3rd world country is not better off by pursuing education at the cost of immediate survival. The cost of education you want is too high for it's benefit. Yes it is good that more people are educated but at what cost to the society? You can't only claim the benefit and not the cons that come with it.

And another thing about the data, I just realized. That graph did not take Federal aid into account. That should automatically cut the average by $10k (in terms of what the people have to pay). The tuition costs may be going up, but the price people have to pay may not necessarily be. Most of the colleges I have visited said they will cut the tuition to the full demonstrated need of the FAFSA.

As I pointed out that is only looking at the benefits and not the negatives. I don't think that is honest.

But telling them to quit before they even realize if they are interested or not is a mistake. The current system is fine in that respect. When you become an adult, you're free to drop out, until then, you have to stay in school.

There is nothing wrong to go to school when you are an adult. Many immigrants do that and many people who made the wrong choices while they were young. I think that we have to examine the cost of this again.

There is a reason the dropouts (the majority) don't make as much as the graduates.

I also bet that reason is irrelevant to whether education should stay public or return to private sector.

xpiher

10-04-2009, 11:30 PM

That defeats the purpose of going to college entirely no? Right now, getting a degree is basically just there to get you a job. With a liberal arts degree your choices are going to be severely limited (Politician for the win?) I think this article really hits the nail on the head about it http://www.quintcareers.com/marketing_liberal-arts_degrees.html It's basically saying "Well now you're here, make the best of it and try not to be depressed that you picked a shitty degree and still have no idea what you want to do for a living". Other people with specific degrees will almost always be picked over them with a few exceptions. Maybe it's just my take on it. One thing it will help you with though is if you have...say.. aspirations to be a Walgreens/Wal-mart/<insert other store here> store manager or something along that line.

No, it doesn't. People who get BA (any field) aren't doing it to get a high paying job generally. They either getting the BA to continue education, to prepare for grad school, or become a public servant. Trust me, having a college degree is pretty much the only way to get those types of jobs unless you are connected to an organization in some fashion and even then they want you to have a degree. What pathetic is the fact that there are essentially, in most public education systems in the US, 4-6 years are completely useless - between 4th-9th grade. Middle school is suppose to prepare you for high school, and high school is suppose to prepare you for college. That's completely pointless. The US should be set up more like most EU education systems were high school you are given the option to learn a trade or prepare for college. It should only be 3 years unless the individual needs an extra year (freshman). Furthermore, there are jobs that require people to attain degrees that really shouldn't. While going to college makes you a more rounded individual, it does nothing to prepare you for say management.

Drool111

10-06-2009, 01:17 AM

If we assume that there is indeed a reduction in the level of intelligence of the population, we need not jump to the conclusion that it is a biological result.

It is just as plausible that our system is designed to reduce the overall ability of the masses to think regardless of their actual potential. To prevent those capable of realizing their full potential.

I therefore posit that eugenics is not the solution. What really needs to happen is for the DoE to be dismantled and education be restored to the control of parents and localities. While some may decry the fact that some children will be left behind, I find it much more preferable that a few are sacrificed for the good of the many rather than allowing a corrupt system to drag everyone down to the level of the lowest common denominator.

What say you, Strawberry?

IQ is dropping every 10 years by 200%.

Deal with it.

Incanam

10-06-2009, 05:28 AM

Of course you are right. Some one else pays for the student going to public school. That wasn't the point I was making though.
You never answered the question I posed.

And the point I was making that if someone is unable to receive a good education, through no fault of their own, someone, or some entity, should ensure that they receive a basic education. After that, their on their own.

Then the price should have went down after. That is what economics dictates (just the laws in which both Keynesian and Austrians agree on). If it's a shortage of supply the market produces extra universities. Yet the prices do not go down. That is not a failure of the market since as you can see from my chart pre-DOE the curve is very smooth.

Umm, Supply and demand? More people means more demand. Greater demand means higher prices.

If there is a shortage of supply, "the market" may produce a few more universities to cover the added supply, but the universities also know they can charge more and still get away with it, due to the demand.

Maybe I wasn't clear but I don't claim that. If some one gets lucky because their parents can instill good values in them or can afford to get them into private school more power to them. My parents can't afford that and this is why I am in public school. However yes I am lucky to have both of them help me develop my self.

However the point that I and other free marketers always maintain is that it is not necessary to have parents help some one to succeed.

The higher enrollment rates are given if some one else pays for them.
It isn't always necessary, but if my parents were lazy assholes who spent all our money on beer, instead of the hard-working intelligent people they are, you better believe it would be very unlikely that I would be currently, or would ever become, successful, in school or in life.

Higher enrollment rates are a general good. The cons are the fact that the government is spending money. I don't see that as very much of a con, provided we weren't already in so much debt. If we, perhaps balanced our budget...it'd be quite alright.

That is a debate for another topic. Just remember that it is not extreme to oppose taxation or elimination of unneeded organizations.
Oh, no doubt.

The definition of unneeded varies from person to person though. As does the degree of opposition to taxation.

What you suggest would be an improvement from what we have now. I don't disagree with that. However society as a whole will pay more. The quality is going to be better then now but not better then the system I advocate.

As far as being measured by our weakest I assure you we are by far the best society in the world then. Reigning in big government will only improve it. Avg poor in America lives like middle class European. Allowing deflation to take place and eliminating government monopolies helps the poor not the rich.
The wealth in society is limited (except for inflation and the like...but overall). Saying "society" will pay more in one case than another is fallacious. In one case, the government will pay more, in the other, the people. Society, the sum of the government and the people, will pay the same.

In the system you advocate, the people will pay more. In the system the socialists advocate, the government will pay more. In the system I advocate, both will split the costs (relatively equally) depending on need.

I don't know about the US Poor=Europe middle class thing. Allowing the government to help the poor also helps the poor.

Technology makes everything cheaper not more expensive. Purchasing technology that reduces the cost of production lowers the cost of the product. Technology is bought with capital that is the sacrificed production. Again this is Keynesian economics too.

It's irrelevant, as I've explained the reason for rising costs. Whether or whether not technology is there, the costs would rise.

You can't say that. That is an absolute claim that does not prove true. A 3rd world country is not better off by pursuing education at the cost of immediate survival. The cost of education you want is too high for it's benefit. Yes it is good that more people are educated but at what cost to the society? You can't only claim the benefit and not the cons that come with it.

Of course not. A 3rd world country is, however, much better off pursuing education when survival is not an issue. And with government intervention, survival doesn't have to become an issue.

I will point you to India. 3rd world, no doubt. I say here, the one thing keeping India from becoming a first world country is education. They have a 60 something percent literacy rate. Uneducated people are not using correct farming techniques, are not getting good jobs, and are over-reproducing greatly. In India, spending money now towards education, will be seen as an investment in the future. More jobs, better quality of life. Not only that, but having government intervention now means less need for government intervention in the future. Have the government pay for the education of the poor now, and in the future, there will less poor (And poor by-products) for the government to take care of.

As I pointed out that is only looking at the benefits and not the negatives. I don't think that is honest.
In a system where the US is not in debt, I don't see the rich paying a little for the poor in terms of taxes, as a significant "Negative." While there is an obvious benefit, as you mentioned.

There is nothing wrong to go to school when you are an adult. Many immigrants do that and many people who made the wrong choices while they were young. I think that we have to examine the cost of this again.

I don't think that number is nearly as high as it should be.

I also bet that reason is irrelevant to whether education should stay public or return to private sector.
The issue was you saying kids shouldn't be forced to go to school. Not private vs. public. IF kids aren't required, dropout rate will increase, directly relating to my point.

PirateGlen

10-06-2009, 06:41 AM

Rossco

10-06-2009, 07:00 AM

Incanam, it may help your understanding of his position to know that he thinks too many people currently go to college. It came up before where I firmly took the position that having more educated people is always better.

Woah, I was reading your sig, and it tottally reminded me of this time, at school, when this one kid - who, I might add, was a jock - just so happened to honestly think he was smart because his IQ test results "were 96%," and because he had fairly good grammar skills (but was a complete dunce in everything else and didn't know it).

Sqarak

10-06-2009, 01:52 PM

IQ is dropping every 10 years by 200%.

Deal with it.

How can that be correct if IQ is a statistical value? IQ is not a unit like mb, km, l, inc, etc...I can not drop or rise arbitrairily.

There is a thing called Flynn Effect, because of this IQ tests need to be renormed every few years in order to representative. So it is impossible that IQ keeps dropping every 10 years if there would be a to large discrepancy between the IQ values of different generations then it can't be representative anymore.

Dark Lily

10-06-2009, 02:15 PM

The US should be set up more like most EU education systems were high school you are given the option to learn a trade or prepare for college.

In the UK this isn't really the case, we tend to push all students towards getting a degree regardless. It's really only if a student has no hope they may get chucked onto the 'trade' heap.

jonyak

10-06-2009, 02:16 PM

how about you (americans) stop spending billions on killing people in different countries, and instead use that money to help your own civilians... crazy I know.

Sqarak

10-06-2009, 02:31 PM

how about you (americans) stop spending billions on killing people in different countries, and instead use that money to help your own civilians... crazy I know.

I feel sick and dirty for doing this, but I must.

Americans can't choose where the money is spend. It are the rich politicians/ industrialists and their lobbies that do.

Damn I just supported Americans...need to wash myself now...

jonyak

10-06-2009, 02:52 PM

I feel sick and dirty for doing this, but I must.

Americans can't choose where the money is spend. It are the rich politicians/ industrialists and their lobbies that do.

Damn I just supported Americans...need to wash myself now...

I know.. it was more aimed at what should be done. not what they can do.

StainlessSteelRat

10-06-2009, 03:37 PM

The education in most modern societies is a two tier system: schools that the offspring of the rich can go to and the schools for the poor. The poor schools get less and less funding every year for "failing" to meet stands, thus exacerbating the problem; however, money isn't the problem. Its societal and structural from parents/children not caring to way we are taught. There is validity in your argument, but its not by design pre-say its a by product of social values, lack of funding, and lack of direction were the elite don't care because they are fine. This is why neither party (in the US) trys to do true educational reform. Its not a governmental conspiracy, its just a byproduct of apathy and selfishness.

You have got to be joking. We spend so much money on education it's not even funny. 'Poor' schools have been getting metric tons of money for decades.

The curriculum is dictated by the Fed. Of course it's by design. It uses the apathy and ignorance of parents to go unnoticed. I love how you throw in the 'elite' and 'selfishness'. Like it's a bad thing that some parents care about their kids educations. All of a sudden that makes them selfish.

I'm not advocating bringing us all down, but that's what your insinuating. I'm one of the smarter kids that are being hurt by the system. I'm upset that my 5AP Spanish class (which 10 kids signed up for) has to be taught with the 4AP kids, because the minimum number required for an individual class is 12. All this while the remedial classes are being funded so the kids who don't care can pass the HSPA (and INCREDIBLY simple standardized test).

Honestly, if your Spanish is so advanced, I could give two shits if the school was capable of teaching you. Not their job.

But the issue here is that, the education I am receiving is very good. Yes, it could be a hell of a lot better, but it is very good. It has brought me to the point where I can confidently compete with others applying to top universities in the nation. I also realize how lucky I am. My parents moved to this town, which has a very high tax rate, specifically because the schools are good.

It's good b/c you can compete w/ other products of a shitty system? Not much of a benchmark.

There's the problem. You know how the SATs work? They don't test anything, other than how much money your coming from. The average in my town is a 100 pointes than inner city Philadelphia (which is close by).

Wow, and you believe this bullshit even though you've already taken the test?

And here's the thing, helping those "few" (by far the majority) to succeed is not forcefully putting down all of us. The kids who are dedicated indeed will succeed.

International scores and comparisons would disagree. The US is way behind the RotW. Your anecdotal evidence of yourself is not really evidence.

The thing is, to think the schools are purposefully bad is ridiculous. I have no doubt that all my teachers wish the best for me and my students. This is not because I am "brainwashed" but because I talk to them as humans.

For example, when the teacher asks the class, how many of them have been following the healthcare debate, and only 2 raise their hands, you can see the look of pain at the ignorance of the kids on his face. He wants them to know how their government is run. And maybe if people learned this from their schools, we wouldn't have so many god damn failures storming in town hall meetings.

Who said anything about teachers not caring? Completely irrelevant.

Damn conspiracy nuts.

All the evidence points to a failing education system despite the $$$ we throw at it every year. How is a measured decline of performance a 'conspiracy'? How is it a conspiracy when it's the gov't that decides the curriculum?

jonyak

10-06-2009, 03:58 PM

maybe its not the education system.

StainlessSteelRat

10-06-2009, 04:03 PM

Dept of Education.

http://www.project.org/info.php?recordID=225 <--- Notice how the slope of all of them went up after 1980.

You guys need to not debate education spending based on this graph. It's a graph of college tuition rates and has no bearing on the $$ spent per student in the public education system.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/edu_spe_per_sec_sch_stu-spending-per-secondary-school-student

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/edu_spe_per_pri_sch_stu-spending-per-primary-school-student

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/04/AR2008040402921.html

http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2008/04/and-you-thought-gas-prices-were-high.html

StainlessSteelRat

10-06-2009, 04:07 PM

maybe its not the education system.

What then? The standards are lower. The performances are lower. You don't think there's a causal relationship there?

I will agree to a small impact on results caused by our desire to fight darwinism but I can't see that as the primary factor.

StainlessSteelRat

10-06-2009, 04:09 PM

how about you (americans) stop spending billions on killing people in different countries, and instead use that money to help your own civilians... crazy I know.

I agree 100% but it's not like we aren't also spending billions helping our own civilians. Money isn't the answer here. Buy a man a fish..... Teach a man to fish.... and all that shit.

Silverhandorder

10-06-2009, 05:11 PM

Hmm I see SSR jumped into this. I have my own comments to Incanam, I don't have time atm but thur you should get my reply.

Bissen

10-06-2009, 05:22 PM

I agree 100% but it's not like we aren't also spending billions helping our own civilians. Money isn't the answer here. Buy a man a fish..... Teach a man to fish.... and all that shit.

How much of US taxes is it again that goes into funding your military industrial snotplex? Like 50%?

And money can teach a man to fish. Just so you know.

Btw. GG New Orleans. Hope the rest of America sleeps nice and tidy at night.
Not blaming you hombre. Just saying...

StainlessSteelRat

10-06-2009, 09:27 PM

How much of US taxes is it again that goes into funding your military industrial snotplex? Like 50%?

Bullshit propaganda number. It's 50% IF you exclude Social Security and Medicare.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget

And money can teach a man to fish. Just so you know.

And money is being spent, in the billions. We are third in the world in per student spending, or didn't you bother to check the links?

Btw. GG New Orleans. Hope the rest of America sleeps nice and tidy at night.
Not blaming you hombre. Just saying...

The money was there. They have been receiving money since 1965.

http://thethirdbattleofneworleans.blogspot.com/2006/06/us-army-corps-of-engineers-takes-blame.html

Ah, but funding was being reduced you say, but what does that have to do w/ the failure of what was already built?

But Ivor van Heerden, the Hurricane Center's deputy director, said the real scandal of Katrina is the "catastrophic structural failure" of barriers that should have handled the hurricane with relative ease.

Page 16:

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/58444.pdf

60+ million was diverted away from NO by the Corps at their discretion during the 80s and 90s.

Just saying...........

PirateGlen

10-06-2009, 11:05 PM

Bullshit propaganda number. It's 50% IF you exclude Social Security and Medicare.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget

You should exclude it for a number of reasons. Social security and medicare have their own seperate budget and are among government's non-discretionary spending. What government does get to chose, they chose to spend 50% on the military. Every year they spend stupid large amounts of cash on defense spending.

We currently spend 7x as much as the next closest spender: China. Cut 170 billion and we're still 5x in spending vs China.

Sqarak

10-06-2009, 11:08 PM

We currently spend 7x as much as the next closest spender: China. Cut 170 billion and we're still 5x in spending vs China.

Running Area 51 is expensive dude.

StainlessSteelRat

10-06-2009, 11:13 PM

You should exclude it for a number of reasons. Social security and medicare have their own seperate budget and are among government's non-discretionary spending. What government does get to chose, they chose to spend 50% on the military. Every year they spend stupid large amounts of cash on defense spending.

We currently spend 7x as much as the next closest spender: China. Cut 170 billion and we're still 5x in spending vs China.

Wanna buy an igloo?

There are no separate budgets. Why do you think SS is broke? The money was all 'lent' to the general fund. You don't actually believe that the SS fund has 2 trillion (trillion or billion or whatever, i forget) in real assets (i.e. not gov't bonds), do you?

You are trying to draw a line in the sand below the waterline at high tide. They should be separate but are not. And it's still not 50%.

And I do agree we spend too much. Don't get me wrong, we spend way too much. It's just a bogus claim to say 50%. Especially when every budget number out there includes SS and Medicare. No one every cites the gov't budget totals excluding them except when someone wants to make defense spending seem like '50%'.

PirateGlen

10-06-2009, 11:25 PM

Wanna buy an igloo?

There are no separate budgets. Why do you think SS is broke? The money was all 'lent' to the general fund. You don't actually believe that the SS fund has 2 trillion (trillion or billion or whatever, i forget) in real assets (i.e. not gov't bonds), do you?
A government bond is a real asset. The government pays interest on these bonds to social security. It would be retarded to have piles of cash collecting dust instead of interest. Currently, government bonds are among the safest of possible investments on the planet. The only issue facing Social security is that it will run out of the balance it has accrued when the boomers retire if we change nothing.

You are trying to draw a line in the sand below the waterline at high tide. They should be separate but are not. And it's still not 50%.

And I do agree we spend too much. Don't get me wrong, we spend way too much. It's just a bogus claim to say 50%. Especially when every budget number out there includes SS and Medicare. No one every cites the gov't budget totals excluding them except when someone wants to make defense spending seem like '50%'.

You could just as easily say they include nondisrectionary spending to make everything else look smaller. The only valid point is that 50% is an exaggeration. The point remains that for ANY new government expenditures including healthcare and education, when anyone asks where the money should come from, the answer should be from defense spending.

Cintare

10-07-2009, 12:34 AM

Honestly I have no idea what any of you are talking about but...

I don't see any reason why anyone should be illiterate. It's not a genetic issue of intelligence, it's a society issue. If there's one thing kids should get out of elementary school it's reading and reading comprehension, period.

That's my 2 cents.

Incanam

10-07-2009, 03:16 AM

Honestly, if your Spanish is so advanced, I could give two shits if the school was capable of teaching you. Not their job.

It's not that advanced. That's why I need to be taught more...

It IS their job (I countered your baseless statement with my own).

It's good b/c you can compete w/ other products of a shitty system? Not much of a benchmark.

It's good because I have a solid goal, and a very solid knowledge of math, science, writing, Spanish, etc.

Say what you will about the public schools, but I'm sure you know the private Universities of this country are some of the best in the world. If I am competitive at MIT (arguably the best tech. school in the world), then yes, I had a very good education.

Wow, and you believe this bullshit even though you've already taken the test?

I don't know what your saying...?

I believe the SATs are a joke and should be abolished yes. That's not very relevant to the current discussion though.

International scores and comparisons would disagree. The US is way behind the RotW. Your anecdotal evidence of yourself is not really evidence.
I don't know why your talking...?

Sorry, but I never claimed the current US system was good. I was arguing with Silver about whether or not a public system would be better than a private system. MY answer is...have both...

You just joined the conversation...but try to read some of the previous posts please...

Who said anything about teachers not caring? Completely irrelevant.
It was mentioned a while back...Please read...

All the evidence points to a failing education system despite the $$$ we throw at it every year. How is a measured decline of performance a 'conspiracy'? How is it a conspiracy when it's the gov't that decides the curriculum?
Your deluded if you think the government curriculum is the problem...

It's a conspiracy because it's not logical. When I see more $$$ being thrown at the problem and the results not showing, I see inefficiency and bad implementation. I see the failure of the very idiotic No Child Left Behind Plan, which almost all teachers are against.

What a conspiracy theorist sees is some "intentional" plan by the government to "keep people stupid." Clearly, as shown by many on Forumfall (not referencing anyone in particular here), people don't need a government to make them stupid.

Silverhandorder

10-07-2009, 04:23 AM

You never answered the question I posed.

And the point I was making that if someone is unable to receive a good education, through no fault of their own, someone, or some entity, should ensure that they receive a basic education. After that, their on their own.
I disagreed with that and hence why we are having the debate in the first place.

Umm, Supply and demand? More people means more demand. Greater demand means higher prices.

If there is a shortage of supply, "the market" may produce a few more universities to cover the added supply, but the universities also know they can charge more and still get away with it, due to the demand.

Exactly but when the equilibrium is achieved the Universities if they were competitive would be forced to drop the prices to what they were in the previous equilibrium. This is how they were before DOE was formed. For w/e reason after the DOE the price of education went up more and more.

Had you been correct then the prices of tuition should have been jumping up all the time before 1980s. That is clearly not the case from the graph I have linked.

It isn't always necessary, but if my parents were lazy assholes who spent all our money on beer, instead of the hard-working intelligent people they are, you better believe it would be very unlikely that I would be currently, or would ever become, successful, in school or in life.

What we see now in US schools is exactly what you have described. Those who have bad parents fail anyways. Those that succeed despite bad parents would have done so even in free market system.

Btw you just admitted as much by saying you would not have done so well in school without your parents.

Higher enrollment rates are a general good. The cons are the fact that the government is spending money. I don't see that as very much of a con, provided we weren't already in so much debt. If we, perhaps balanced our budget...it'd be quite alright.

First higher enrollment rates are not always good. You need to see at what cost you are achieving these higher enrollment rates. As pointed out we pay more per student and less students are successful.

The wealth in society is limited (except for inflation and the like...but overall). Saying "society" will pay more in one case than another is fallacious. In one case, the government will pay more, in the other, the people. Society, the sum of the government and the people, will pay the same.

You are wrong. It is most easily proven by SSR's links to graphs. We pay more then private schools. So the total paid by society is more with your system.

Plus it is fallacious to think government spending is different from individual spending. The only source of income from the government is people. So if government funds education it is essentially making people pay more. In our case it makes one group of people pay.

In the system you advocate, the people will pay more. In the system the socialists advocate, the government will pay more. In the system I advocate, both will split the costs (relatively equally) depending on need.

The system I advocate the people will pay less. The system the socialist advocate does not work and there is no pricing mechanism to compare to the systems you or me propose. In your system people will pay more because people will be forced to fund the more expensive public education.

I don't know about the US Poor=Europe middle class thing. Allowing the government to help the poor also helps the poor.

Would you like me to provide the article breaking down on what the avg poor in America owns and how it compares to avg middle class European?

Allowing government to help the poor creates dependence, makes more people poor and brings down the overall standard of living.

It's irrelevant, as I've explained the reason for rising costs. Whether or whether not technology is there, the costs would rise.

Sorry but that is relevant. If we compare industries with little government involvement and the industries that are heavily regulated the industries with little involvement upgrade tech more often and provide cheaper services. It is directly relevant to the cost of education for society.

Of course not. A 3rd world country is, however, much better off pursuing education when survival is not an issue. And with government intervention, survival doesn't have to become an issue.

Again I point out that you can not simply look at the benefits and not the cost of what you propose. Government intervention notoriously made survival harder every time it intervened. For the government to intervene it has to take the money/productivity out of the private sector. If it does that then it makes it harder for everyone to live. More people have to rely on the government and exacerbate the problem.

I will point you to India. 3rd world, no doubt. I say here, the one thing keeping India from becoming a first world country is education. They have a 60 something percent literacy rate. In India, spending money now towards education, will be seen as an investment in the future. More jobs, better quality of life.

India's development is being fueled by their productive capacity. With more spare money and time people can undertake to education on their own. Just because the government of India is undertaking the development of the their education system does not mean that they are doing it by the most efficient method.

Uneducated people are not using correct farming techniques, are not getting good jobs, and are over-reproducing greatly.

Yeah and they will stay un educated for longer periods of time because of government centrally planning education.

Not only that, but having government intervention now means less need for government intervention in the future. Have the government pay for the education of the poor now, and in the future, there will less poor (And poor by-products) for the government to take care of.

Had the government ever succeed in providing efficient services that may have been the case. However the benefits government provides are less then the cost of providing them.

In a system where the US is not in debt, I don't see the rich paying a little for the poor in terms of taxes, as a significant "Negative." While there is an obvious benefit, as you mentioned.

The negative is the money being pulled out of the economy not the rich being forced to pay for it (that is immoral). It is very serious problem. Had failed government programs were to be shut down then this would be a totally different discussion. The problem is that they simply get more funding.

I don't think that number is nearly as high as it should be.

Well it would be higher if government was not making education unaffordable.

The issue was you saying kids shouldn't be forced to go to school. Not private vs. public. IF kids aren't required, dropout rate will increase, directly relating to my point.

Yeah we have deviated greatly from the original point of disagreement. To summarize my original point I will say that kids who have no aptitude for education are wasting their time in gov't schools. Their time is better put in learning a trade or going to work then to continue to fail in school. I can't see public schools reforming these kids.

Those who are unlucky and have bad parents have not shown improvement either. So I see no reason to force them into schools when they are better off working with their hands.

Incanam

10-07-2009, 05:50 AM

I disagreed with that and hence why we are having the debate in the first place.

You still never answered the question, which is funny, because the majority of our discussion leads to that question.

Exactly but when the equilibrium is achieved the Universities if they were competitive would be forced to drop the prices to what they were in the previous equilibrium. This is how they were before DOE was formed. For w/e reason after the DOE the price of education went up more and more.

Had you been correct then the prices of tuition should have been jumping up all the time before 1980s. That is clearly not the case from the graph I have linked.
You're not giving me a reason. Again, there could have been a multitude of factors, like the rising college entree numbers I mentioned, which increased at the same time.

Colleges don't open up nearly as rapidly as you may be thinking. Maybe time is needed for the prices to equalize. The thing is, we don't know, and it is very hard for us TO know.

What we see now in US schools is exactly what you have described. Those who have bad parents fail anyways. Those that succeed despite bad parents would have done so even in free market system.
Right...we should fix that. I'm not saying the current system is perfect.

Btw you just admitted as much by saying you would not have done so well in school without your parents.
Right, and you seem to agree. So we agree that parental income is a factor in education/sucess of the child.

First higher enrollment rates are not always good. You need to see at what cost you are achieving these higher enrollment rates. As pointed out we pay more per student and less students are successful.

You can't prove the second point, and we need to change the first point.

In theory, the government, with its massive capability, should be more efficient in education than smaller groups (kind of like mass production if you will). It isn't. Something's not right with the current system. We both agree with that. It's on how to fix it we disagree.

You are wrong. It is most easily proven by SSR's links to graphs. We pay more then private schools. So the total paid by society is more with your system.
The burden is more on the rich than on the poor...but before you respond to this:

Plus it is fallacious to think government spending is different from individual spending. The only source of income from the government is people. So if government funds education it is essentially making people pay more. In our case it makes one group of people pay.
Which leads to my first question.

Why, if government spending isn't different from individual spending, is government spending different from individual spending? I mean why is it supposedly (not saying the facts are necessarily wrong, but they were only for DC I beleive and could easily be manipulated) a different cost, if government spending is no different from individual spending?

And if there is some inherent (key word, and I don't believe there is) reason in why the government makes people (as a whole) pay more, it is coming from the people who can and don't need it vs. the people who need it but can't.

The system I advocate the people will pay less. The system the socialist advocate does not work and there is no pricing mechanism to compare to the systems you or me propose. In your system people will pay more because people will be forced to fund the more expensive public education.
We've never had true socialism (just like you will claim we've never had a true free market), so you can't make your second statement. In terms of price comparisons, you're right, there are none. All we're doing is arguing theory, and not getting anywhere.

Not only that, but the price matters less to me, than it does to you. In a way, it's very ironic. You seem ot care more for the society as a whole, while care more for the individual (albeit, the poor individual, a different individual from who you'll claim to be in favor of ie the heavily taxed).

Would you like me to provide the article breaking down on what the avg poor in America owns and how it compares to avg middle class European?

Allowing government to help the poor creates dependence, makes more people poor and brings down the overall standard of living.

It depends on how the government helps the poor. An education is one of the few ways it can help the poor, and actually help them be more self-sufficient. That's the entire point.

Sorry but that is relevant. If we compare industries with little government involvement and the industries that are heavily regulated the industries with little involvement upgrade tech more often and provide cheaper services. It is directly relevant to the cost of education for society.
The unregulated industries also provide newer problems. The airline industry is a mess now that the government isn't in control in terms of customer support at the least. So maybe (that's a maybe), cost might be higher with the government, but definitely (yes a definitely), there are other benefits.

Again I point out that you can not simply look at the benefits and not the cost of what you propose. Government intervention notoriously made survival harder every time it intervened. For the government to intervene it has to take the money/productivity out of the private sector. If it does that then it makes it harder for everyone to live. More people have to rely on the government and exacerbate the problem.
It takes it out of the private sector to put it back into the private sector where it is more needed. It doesn't "keep it" for itself. The government is actually a bunch of people, believe it or not. It, as an entity, can't horde money (assuming no corruption of course).

India's development is being fueled by their productive capacity. With more spare money and time people can undertake to education on their own. Just because the government of India is undertaking the development of the their education system does not mean that they are doing it by the most efficient method.

Time is of the essence. The inefficient agricultural techniques are running the country dry (literally, as in they wil lose water in the major agricultural areas in the next 30 years).

Yeah and they will stay un educated for longer periods of time because of government centrally planning education.

No they won't...

Had the government ever succeed in providing efficient services that may have been the case. However the benefits government provides are less then the cost of providing them.
For some, not for others.

The negative is the money being pulled out of the economy not the rich being forced to pay for it (that is immoral). It is very serious problem. Had failed government programs were to be shut down then this would be a totally different discussion. The problem is that they simply get more funding.
The money is then put back into economy (at least for what I'm talking about). It's not immoral.

Failed problems need to be fixed. Lol, I'm not going to argue against that. What is and what isn't considered failed has to be defined though.

Well it would be higher if government was not making education unaffordable.
Surely adult re-enrollment in highschool is not expensive enough to warrant that statement. Especially if the government is providing it.

Yeah we have deviated greatly from the original point of disagreement. To summarize my original point I will say that kids who have no aptitude for education are wasting their time in gov't schools. Their time is better put in learning a trade or going to work then to continue to fail in school. I can't see public schools reforming these kids.

Those who are unlucky and have bad parents have not shown improvement either. So I see no reason to force them into schools when they are better off working with their hands.
If it helps, I'll be willing to accept lowering the dropout age to 16 (lower than the current 18 + the age mostk ids start working).

I think it's follish though. Kids at that age don't have any idea what they want. They start working and get the instant gratification of money, and forget about the delayed gratification of a greater income after study.

I would argue this point more, but I feel it pales in comparison to the other issue, and I'm kind of tired from writing this giant response anyway, so I would suggest ignoring the last part (this part) entirely.

Rossco

10-07-2009, 08:10 AM

I just read the thread title.

Society can't get much more stupid, as a majority, then it currently is.

Oo_

10-07-2009, 01:00 PM

I recently discovered this John Taylor Gatto fellow who has written couple of interesting books on the subject.

http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/index.htm

In the final analysis, Gatto believes that compulsory, government-run schooling is inherently destructive to true education, the cultivation of self-reliance, and indeed to individualism - which used to be a defining element of the American character. The true purpose of our public school system in reality has more to do with control than it does with learning. This does not mean that rank-and-file teachers, principals, and even superintendents believe they are making students dumber, more conformist, less self-reliant, less capable of genuine analytical, independent thought, and more easily controlled; most people involved in the system no doubt believe that they are trying their best to really teach their students. However, the system itself (which Gatto often characterizes as a complex web) ensures that its real purpose is served, despite the efforts of individual reformers within it - that true democracy is rendered unworkable even as the trappings of democracy are allegedly bolstered. Seen in this light, these institutions that produce barely literate, dependent, conformist, incomplete individuals full of emotional and psychological problems, who lack real knowledge (and whose capacity for acquiring such is deliberately weakened or eliminated), and who are just `educated' enough to pay their taxes and buy the latest products, are not, in fact, failing schools - on the contrary, if we are to believe Gatto's analysis, they are performing their designated function PERFECTLY. That purpose is to mold people in such a way as to make them more easily controlled by corporations and the state (a clear-cut example of how, contrary to popular myth, the interests of big business and those of big government more often than not coincide.)

Quoted text stolen shamelessly from Amazon's reviews.

Silverhandorder

10-07-2009, 03:30 PM

You still never answered the question, which is funny, because the majority of our discussion leads to that question.
I think I answered it in my last post. I don't think anyone should be obligated to pay for both pragmatic and moral reasons. Hence why I said I disagree.

You're not giving me a reason. Again, there could have been a multitude of factors, like the rising college entree numbers I mentioned, which increased at the same time.

That is the point. Nothing fundamentally changed in the education industry except more central planning by the government.

Colleges don't open up nearly as rapidly as you may be thinking. Maybe time is needed for the prices to equalize. The thing is, we don't know, and it is very hard for us TO know.

Again if you were correct then we should see the same trend in years before DOE. However that is absent from the graph I provided.

Right...we should fix that. I'm not saying the current system is perfect.

We can't fix that. You can't replace parents with anything.

Right, and you seem to agree. So we agree that parental income is a factor in education/sucess of the child.
Yes.

You can't prove the second point, and we need to change the first point.

You guys need to not debate education spending based on this graph. It's a graph of college tuition rates and has no bearing on the $$ spent per student in the public education system.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/edu_spe_per_sec_sch_stu-spending-per-secondary-school-student

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/edu_spe_per_pri_sch_stu-spending-per-primary-school-student

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/04/AR2008040402921.html

http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2008/04/and-you-thought-gas-prices-were-high.html

Add that to the fact that SAT scores are going down. About the first point that is just how central planing works. Society as a whole posses too much knowledge for central planners to effectively manage and process. Subjective value can not be measured by any entity alone. It has to be done by all of us participating at the same time.

In theory, the government, with its massive capability, should be more efficient in education than smaller groups (kind of like mass production if you will). It isn't. Something's not right with the current system. We both agree with that. It's on how to fix it we disagree.

This is related to what I said directly above. Mass production not the right analogy. Mass production is just that the process of creating things. Government centrally planing industries is allocating resources in the nation, history has proven that they are far less efficient. The latest proof is growing funding for public schools despite their low performance. Even you advocate a mix can see how your views are directly counter to what you just states above.

The idea that you can fix does not answer to the argument that you are still doing a bad job compared to what could be done in a free market.

The burden is more on the rich than on the poor...but before you respond to this:

Which leads to my first question.

Why, if government spending isn't different from individual spending, is government spending different from individual spending? I mean why is it supposedly (not saying the facts are necessarily wrong, but they were only for DC I beleive and could easily be manipulated) a different cost, if government spending is no different from individual spending?

And if there is some inherent (key word, and I don't believe there is) reason in why the government makes people (as a whole) pay more, it is coming from the people who can and don't need it vs. the people who need it but can't.

Yes there is the government is less efficient in allocating resources. Where a private school has to keep their customers happy or lose money next year the government has 4 years and several layers of bureaucracy as a buffer before they make a change.

Where 49% of voters will still be shut out of the decision making process, in the market those 49% will find some one else to cater to them. A public sector company has to have favorability rating of less then 50% to even feel threatened. Can you imagine a private business surviving where 50% of it's customers desert them? I don't think so.

We've never had true socialism (just like you will claim we've never had a true free market), so you can't make your second statement. In terms of price comparisons, you're right, there are none. All we're doing is arguing theory, and not getting anywhere.

Free Markets exist. Black market is a free market. Many emerging markets are unregulated until they grow big enough for governments to notice. Cellphone and electronics industry has very little regulation. Granted they have some put on them but even that some if eliminated will only help us the consumers.

Not only that, but the price matters less to me, than it does to you. In a way, it's very ironic. You seem ot care more for the society as a whole, while care more for the individual (albeit, the poor individual, a different individual from who you'll claim to be in favor of ie the heavily taxed).

No I am for protecting all individuals. You are for protecting some individuals. Granted the price is not important to you, you still have to acknowledge the realities of what we discuss. Maybe not every progressive would be as willing to vote for public education had he been informed of my side of the argument. Or are you going to tell me it is taken for granted on liberal forums that government is less efficient and makes us pay more money?

It depends on how the government helps the poor. An education is one of the few ways it can help the poor, and actually help them be more self-sufficient. That's the entire point.

Again you talk about the benefits but not the cons. There is a big percentage of the poor that end up working menial jobs anyways. Are they better off after spending 8 years in school that they could have used working? Are those poor better off now that the prices on the goods they consume are higher because of the tax increases to fund education? There is evidence that those that succeed in the current system would have succeeded anyways. There are many factors and to only talk of the benefits is to stick your head in the sand.

The unregulated industries also provide newer problems. The airline industry is a mess now that the government isn't in control in terms of customer support at the least. So maybe (that's a maybe), cost might be higher with the government, but definitely (yes a definitely), there are other benefits.

Unregulated industries also solve those problems faster then the government can.

I am not familiar of this particular example why don't you enlighten me.

It takes it out of the private sector to put it back into the private sector where it is more needed. It doesn't "keep it" for itself. The government is actually a bunch of people, believe it or not. It, as an entity, can't horde money (assuming no corruption of course).
There is a reason why we have a saying called the public sector. My argument is that this money is taken out of private sector to create the public sector which is less efficient and more expensive. The trend has been for a long time that we are losing out manufacturing jobs in the private sector while we are growing public sector jobs in the service sector (albeit slower).

There are several implications of this. First the service sector can not sustain the economy without a manufacturing sector. If the service sector is growing and the manufacturing sector is shrinking then there are rough times on the horizon.

Second as a whole the public sector is a drain on the economy. It inherently does not make profits and it drains the private sector to make up the difference. Today the public sector makes up 42% of the economy.

Time is of the essence. The inefficient agricultural techniques are running the country dry (literally, as in they wil lose water in the major agricultural areas in the next 30 years).

I am not familiar with India. But based on similar situation in the past if they are left to their own devices the cost of inefficient techniques will bankrupt the farmers who use them while the ones who are using efficient techniques will dominate the agricultural market and achieve the needed/wanted results.

No they won't...

Well this is the reason why we are having this discussion isn't it to prove how what I am saying is the case.

For some, not for others.

I would argue from a pragmatic point of view that we all pay eventually. It costs more for the rich to provide because they pay more in taxes. Yet it costs more for the poor because then the rich raise their prices. In the end the middle class is hurt the most and more are forced to become poor.

The money is then put back into economy (at least for what I'm talking about). It's not immoral.

Obviously it is immoral to take from some to help the others. Isn't it form the whole basis against theft?

Failed problems need to be fixed. Lol, I'm not going to argue against that. What is and what isn't considered failed has to be defined though.
How about not making a profit be a good litmus test?

Surely adult re-enrollment in highschool is not expensive enough to warrant that statement. Especially if the government is providing it.
It is if those adults have to work part time to support their family because that said government just increased their cost of living by providing the service.

StainlessSteelRat

10-07-2009, 10:45 PM

It's not that advanced. That's why I need to be taught more...

It IS their job (I countered your baseless statement with my own).

No it's not. Foreign languages are electives above and beyond a rudimentary introduction.

It's good because I have a solid goal, and a very solid knowledge of math, science, writing, Spanish, etc.

Say what you will about the public schools, but I'm sure you know the private Universities of this country are some of the best in the world. If I am competitive at MIT (arguably the best tech. school in the world), then yes, I had a very good education.

I know our universities are good, both public and private. But you were claiming to be able to compete w/ other HS grads for spots at top schools. My point it that the competition is not very strong so that doesn't really mean anything.

I don't know what your saying...?

You seemed to believe the propaganda concerning SATs being culturally biased.

I believe the SATs are a joke and should be abolished yes. That's not very relevant to the current discussion though.

No, it's not.

I don't know why your talking...?

I dunno, maybe cause it's my thread......

Sorry, but I never claimed the current US system was good. I was arguing with Silver about whether or not a public system would be better than a private system. MY answer is...have both...

And I don't disagree w/ having both. I do disagree w/ what I responded to:

And here's the thing, helping those "few" (by far the majority) to succeed is not forcefully putting down all of us. The kids who are dedicated indeed will succeed.

That is total horseshit. It's not a matter of the dedicated succeeding. Of course they will succeed to some extent but our public system is holding many of them back in order to ensure that everyone "succeeds" (graduates HS). Those 'few' are NOT the majority. Those 'few' are becoming the majority b/c of our system being built on a "no child left behind" mindset.

You just joined the conversation...but try to read some of the previous posts please...

How about, no. So it was mentionned. Some do, some don't. You should have told them it was irrelevant instead of presenting us w/ more irrelevant verbal diarhea.

Your deluded if you think the government curriculum is the problem...

Good argument.

It's a conspiracy because it's not logical. When I see more $$$ being thrown at the problem and the results not showing, I see inefficiency and bad implementation. I see the failure of the very idiotic No Child Left Behind Plan, which almost all teachers are against.

Fuck teachers. Most are as useless as the no child bullshit.

How is it not logical that gov't is the problem if the performance of our schools has been in a downward spiral ever since gov't (at the Fed level) got involved? How is it not logical if the gov't 'fix' is to spend more and more money every year yet still the performance drops? How is it not logical that gov't and, by extension, special interests (unions) who benefit from all this money are the problem?

How can you sit there and pretend to be logical when you are interested in perpetuating the existing system (and by that, I mean leaving the same fucking morons in charge) all b/c you are in a good school w/ some good teachers?

What a conspiracy theorist sees is some "intentional" plan by the government to "keep people stupid." Clearly, as shown by many on Forumfall (not referencing anyone in particular here), people don't need a government to make them stupid.

Well, of course they don't, they have public schools to learn them good.....

I see inefficiency and bad implementation.

Why? We all know the 'what'.

StainlessSteelRat

10-07-2009, 10:50 PM

A government bond is a real asset. The government pays interest on these bonds to social security. It would be retarded to have piles of cash collecting dust instead of interest. Currently, government bonds are among the safest of possible investments on the planet. The only issue facing Social security is that it will run out of the balance it has accrued when the boomers retire if we change nothing.

A gov't bond is an asset but if the gov't is buyiing its own bonds..... not so much. The point being, if the general fund is the debtor to that bond and the general fund is broke, then it's completely delusional to believe that the SS fund has assets if those assets are comprised of general fund bonds. Sure, we pay the interest on our debt, at the moment, sort of, by making more bonds; what happens when no one wants to buy US bonds b/c we are over leveraged?

You could just as easily say they include nondisrectionary spending to make everything else look smaller. The only valid point is that 50% is an exaggeration. The point remains that for ANY new government expenditures including healthcare and education, when anyone asks where the money should come from, the answer should be from defense spending.

The answer could be any number of places. But the only valid point is that there should be no increases in spending, only decreases.

Incanam

10-08-2009, 07:22 AM

I'm going to be brief, because there is WAY too much for me to respond to in detail.

I think I answered it in my last post. I don't think anyone should be obligated to pay for both pragmatic and moral reasons. Hence why I said I disagree.
The original question was why is X+Y in the second case greater than X in the first case? What's the reason?

That is the point. Nothing fundamentally changed in the education industry except more central planning by the government.
...and the drastic increase in attendance...which I've mentioned 3 times.

Again if you were correct then we should see the same trend in years before DOE. However that is absent from the graph I provided.
Again, there was no exponential rise in attendees due to the Johnson and Kennedy Civil Rights legislation for minorities and women. By the 70's, the rise had begun, and that's when your graph starts to rise.

We can't fix that. You can't replace parents with anything.

Baseless claim.

Add that to the fact that SAT scores are going down. About the first point that is just how central planing works. Society as a whole posses too much knowledge for central planners to effectively manage and process. Subjective value can not be measured by any entity alone. It has to be done by all of us participating at the same time.
SAT scores are not an indication of anything other than the wealth of the area you are coming from. Number one deciding factor. Look it up.

Centeral planners don't have to manage all the knowledge of society. In this case, it is simply the knowledge of education.

This is related to what I said directly above. Mass production not the right analogy. Mass production is just that the process of creating things. Government centrally planing industries is allocating resources in the nation, history has proven that they are far less efficient. The latest proof is growing funding for public schools despite their low performance. Even you advocate a mix can see how your views are directly counter to what you just states above.
Mass production requires planning to create the efficient system of production.

My views are based on an ideal, like yours are. Government has proven to work multiple times, as well as having failed to work multiple times. You seem to look at only the failures.

The idea that you can fix does not answer to the argument that you are still doing a bad job compared to what could be done in a free market.
But...you wouldn't be if it was fixed. We're both talking about fixing it. There is no proof that the free-market fixing is better than the mixed-economy fixing.

Yes there is the government is less efficient in allocating resources. Where a private school has to keep their customers happy or lose money next year the government has 4 years and several layers of bureaucracy as a buffer before they make a change.

But when it does make the change, with enough popular support and pressure, the government is better for the people.

Where 49% of voters will still be shut out of the decision making process, in the market those 49% will find some one else to cater to them. A public sector company has to have favorability rating of less then 50% to even feel threatened. Can you imagine a private business surviving where 50% of it's customers desert them? I don't think so.
Mixed economy means the minority can go to their private schools. Best of both worlds. They have to pay a little more. That's okay, because they have more to pay with.

Free Markets exist. Black market is a free market. Many emerging markets are unregulated until they grow big enough for governments to notice. Cellphone and electronics industry has very little regulation. Granted they have some put on them but even that some if eliminated will only help us the consumers.

No I am for protecting all individuals. You are for protecting some individuals. Granted the price is not important to you, you still have to acknowledge the realities of what we discuss. Maybe not every progressive would be as willing to vote for public education had he been informed of my side of the argument. Or are you going to tell me it is taken for granted on liberal forums that government is less efficient and makes us pay more money?
I don't frequent liberal forums, though I probably should...

You still have not proven there is an inherent inefficiency with government regulation. But even if you can, I doubt most progressives would care.

Some would change their mind sure...but I bet some conservatives would change their minds if they heard my side of the argument...I don't see why you mentioned that.

Again you talk about the benefits but not the cons. There is a big percentage of the poor that end up working menial jobs anyways. Are they better off after spending 8 years in school that they could have used working? Are those poor better off now that the prices on the goods they consume are higher because of the tax increases to fund education? There is evidence that those that succeed in the current system would have succeeded anyways. There are many factors and to only talk of the benefits is to stick your head in the sand.
I'm talking about 4, years, in high school. 2nd, the the 4 years is really 2 years, because work starts generally at 16. And yes, they are better off learning for another 2 years than going straight to work.

You don't have to increase taxes, just reallocate funds.

Unregulated industries also solve those problems faster then the government can.
Maybe, maybe not. They also may not necessarily be better solutions.

I am not familiar of this particular example why don't you enlighten me.
I'd have to look it up. But basically, the airlines went from complete regulation (the socialistic model), to partial regulation (my type of model). The prices went down like you suggested. But now there are issues with harmful business practices such as flight changing fees costing more than the actual ticket etc. And you will suggest that these people take their business somewhere else, but they can't. There are only 3 major airlines, and all have these harmful practices.

(By the way, the current regulations are only those on safety, so that is not an issue why new companies are not forming).

There is a reason why we have a saying called the public sector. My argument is that this money is taken out of private sector to create the public sector which is less efficient and more expensive. The trend has been for a long time that we are losing out manufacturing jobs in the private sector while we are growing public sector jobs in the service sector (albeit slower).
Just because it is called a public sector, doesn't make a difference. The money is staying in the economy. (Public sector jobs).

There are several implications of this. First the service sector can not sustain the economy without a manufacturing sector. If the service sector is growing and the manufacturing sector is shrinking then there are rough times on the horizon.
The different sectors will stabilize.

Second as a whole the public sector is a drain on the economy. It inherently does not make profits and it drains the private sector to make up the difference. Today the public sector makes up 42% of the economy.

It isn't a drain on the economy, as it puts money back into the system.

I am not familiar with India. But based on similar situation in the past if they are left to their own devices the cost of inefficient techniques will bankrupt the farmers who use them while the ones who are using efficient techniques will dominate the agricultural market and achieve the needed/wanted results.
The inefficient techniques are cheaper (not caring about the water because it is free, so they overuse it-If the government charged for water, they would be forced to become efficient...), which is why they are used. The efficient farmers use the same water the inefficient farmers do. If the water runs out, due to the inefficient farmers, not only do the efficient farmers make less money, but they'll end up having the same future problems as the inefficient ones.

Well this is the reason why we are having this discussion isn't it to prove how what I am saying is the case.
Yeah, you didn't give a reason on thatp articular quote, so I did the same.

I would argue from a pragmatic point of view that we all pay eventually. It costs more for the rich to provide because they pay more in taxes. Yet it costs more for the poor because then the rich raise their prices. In the end the middle class is hurt the most and more are forced to become poor.

Regulate the prices if they seem to be out of control (if the Rich are making too much at the expense of the poor and the middle class).

Obviously it is immoral to take from some to help the others. Isn't it form the whole basis against theft?
Morality is subjective. It's different from theft. This is an issue for another discussion.

How about not making a profit be a good litmus test?
There are other factors of importance.

It is if those adults have to work part time to support their family because that said government just increased their cost of living by providing the service.
The government didn't increase the cost of living, the rich did, unnecessarily.

No it's not. Foreign languages are electives above and beyond a rudimentary introduction.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3739690.stm

I know our universities are good, both public and private. But you were claiming to be able to compete w/ other HS grads for spots at top schools. My point it that the competition is not very strong so that doesn't really mean anything.
No, because I am competing with the top products of the system. These are the best public schools and private schools. By competing for the top universities, I am competing with the best in the world. This is thanks to a public school education.

My problem is the fact that if the best public schools can compete with the private schools, all of the public schools should be able to.

You seemed to believe the propaganda concerning SATs being culturally biased.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/27/sat-scores-and-family-income/?apage=2

The numbers don't lie.

No, it's not.

And I don't disagree w/ having both. I do disagree w/ what I responded to:

And here's the thing, helping those "few" (by far the majority) to succeed is not forcefully putting down all of us. The kids who are dedicated indeed will succeed.

That is total horseshit. It's not a matter of the dedicated succeeding. Of course they will succeed to some extent but our public system is holding many of them back in order to ensure that everyone "succeeds" (graduates HS). Those 'few' are NOT the majority. Those 'few' are becoming the majority b/c of our system being built on a "no child left behind" mindset.

Why would it be fair to not care for every student according to his needs. I understand. I'm in the upper percentiles of students, and when stuff is cut, it's cut from me, and not the less intelligent kids. I don't like No Child Left Behind. It's not a good way to do this.

I do, however, think we should be increasing graduation rates, and generating a general interest in knowledge. Helping those people who need it to graduate, may have a slight detrimental effect on the top kids, but it also has a major effect on the lower kids.

It's all a finely tuned balance. Well, it's not tuned currently. But it needs to be.

How about, no. So it was mentionned. Some do, some don't. You should have told them it was irrelevant instead of presenting us w/ more irrelevant verbal diarhea.

It wasn't irrelavant. It was part of the conversation. If you're not going to go back and read it, drop it.

Good argument.
Fuck teachers. Most are as useless as the no child bullshit.
Right back at ya...

MY teachers have been great in general. So I disagree. And if I can have great teachers, there is no reason others can't. Teaching is a skill. Let's help those "useless" teachers to not suck so much.

How is it not logical that gov't is the problem if the performance of our schools has been in a downward spiral ever since gov't (at the Fed level) got involved? How is it not logical if the gov't 'fix' is to spend more and more money every year yet still the performance drops? How is it not logical that gov't and, by extension, special interests (unions) who benefit from all this money are the problem?
It's not logical that the government is doing it on purpose, which is what you claimed.

The government runs the education of many other countries that are higher up than the US on these these tests. If the government is fine there, why is there a problem here?

How can you sit there and pretend to be logical when you are interested in perpetuating the existing system (and by that, I mean leaving the same fucking morons in charge) all b/c you are in a good school w/ some good teachers?

Well, of course they don't, they have public schools to learn them good.....
Idk. Genes?

I see inefficiency and bad implementation.

Why? We all know the 'what'.
Yeah, why?

FatRednekk

10-08-2009, 07:24 AM

We need teachers that care for their jobs. Shit I read my kids assignments after they get them back, it's a number and a few squiggles. I wouldn't mind some commentary so she actually learns something!

Vessol

10-08-2009, 08:08 AM

lol, tinfoilz

StainlessSteelRat

10-08-2009, 03:57 PM

The government didn't increase the cost of living, the rich did, unnecessarily.

Uh, no; monetary policy did this. Inflation and regulation.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3739690.stm

And? Never said languages weren't beneficial. When you can't write a letter in English, it becomes of secondary concern.

No, because I am competing with the top products of the system. These are the best public schools and private schools. By competing for the top universities, I am competing with the best in the world. This is thanks to a public school education.

You consider Harvard (et.al.) undergrads as the 'best in the world'? lol

My problem is the fact that if the best public schools can compete with the private schools, all of the public schools should be able to.

Why can't they? Is it really the school that competes? Or the parents/kids in spite of the school?

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/27/sat-scores-and-family-income/?apage=2

The numbers don't lie.

Sure they do and they mislead very well. Income levels are reported by the students. Problem #1 w/ the data itself. Problem #2 with the conclusion of a causal relationship. Just like CO2 and Temp, there is nothing to say which is affecting the other. Problem #3, there are many other variables involved that could represent the causal relationship but are masked by the income stats: at-home moms, single parents, # of siblings, school class size, etc. etc.

Regardless of whether numbers mislead, and they do, even if income correlates, that doesn't mean the test is culturally biased.

No, it's not. Is to. ?????????

Why would it be fair to not care for every student according to his needs. I understand. I'm in the upper percentiles of students, and when stuff is cut, it's cut from me, and not the less intelligent kids. I don't like No Child Left Behind. It's not a good way to do this.

We aren't caring for every student according to his needs. We are setting the standard based on the dumbest fuck in the class. No benefit to anyone.

I do, however, think we should be increasing graduation rates, and generating a general interest in knowledge. Helping those people who need it to graduate, may have a slight detrimental effect on the top kids, but it also has a major effect on the lower kids.

Why? What evidence do you have that demonstrates the need for higher graduation rates? And what point is having a worthless degree?

You still haven't addressed the issue that our standards are being lowered in order to allow the dumbest to graduate. This is all in pursuit of higher graduation rates that you speak of. This is why we are lagging compared to the RotW. The current goals and the same goals you preach are destroying our ability to compete.

It wasn't irrelavant. It was part of the conversation. If you're not going to go back and read it, drop it.

Part of the conversation doesn't make it pertinent.

MY teachers have been great in general. So I disagree. And if I can have great teachers, there is no reason others can't. Teaching is a skill. Let's help those "useless" teachers to not suck so much.

Here you go again w/ your teachers. Teaching is a profession. The idea that you can learn to teach and teach anything as opposed to learn subject matter and decide to teach it is ludicrous. How many of your teachers actually have advanced education in the subject matter they teach? How many simply have the requisite "Education" degree? They are useless and suck b/c they have no foundation in the subjects they teach and we do not demand one of them.

It's not logical that the government is doing it on purpose, which is what you claimed.

OK, say it one more time while clicking your heels together........

The government runs the education of many other countries that are higher up than the US on these these tests. If the government is fine there, why is there a problem here?

Different governments........maybe.......

Yeah, why?

Well, let's here it Mr. Logical. What is the logical reason for our schools sucking and worsening ever since gov't began to get more and more involved and money became more and more available to those involved?

I gave my 'why'. If I'm wrong, as you say, then what do you think the reason is?

jonyak

10-08-2009, 04:18 PM

I blame the commies.

Silverhandorder

10-08-2009, 07:03 PM

The original question was why is X+Y in the second case greater than X in the first case? What's the reason?
Central planing.

...and the drastic increase in attendance...which I've mentioned 3 times.

Again, there was no exponential rise in attendees due to the Johnson and Kennedy Civil Rights legislation for minorities and women. By the 70's, the rise had begun, and that's when your graph starts to rise.

That is not the point. Laws of economics dictate that the market will work to achieve equilibrium again. As I pointed out 3 times had you been correct then the prices should have been rising throughout the entire history. They were obviously not rising. The rise was not exponential either get your terms right.

What you are suggesting is along the lines of me selling fruits at the market and all of a sudden there are 2x more people interested in my wares. I hike up the prices because there are people who are willing to outbid others for the product. Then a week later when the demand stays the same I and every other seller on the market comes back with the same amount of goods to again hike up the prices. Clearly that can not happen. If you like me to explain why I will.

Baseless claim.

Parents serve the function of a guidance councilor, a teacher and a planner for the kids. We have all those offered in school. Still on avg the kid's who do not have their parents involved in their education perform less then the ones who have involved parents.

It is impossible to provide these kids with a person who cares about them and spends more time with them then they spend in school. This is where central planning fails. You think you can replace that irreplaceable asset. You simply need to accept that kids who do not have involved parents have the cards stacked against them.

SAT scores are not an indication of anything other than the wealth of the area you are coming from. Number one deciding factor. Look it up.

That is preposterous and borderline conspiracy theory.

I took the test and my group of friends took this test. Smart kids in my group outperformed the dumb ones. There is direct correlation with the amount of time we spend practicing and our grades.

The more likely explanation is that kids in high income families have parents who are more successful and can afford to send them to tutoring or instill discipline required to prepare for the test.

Those kids who are rich and score higher due to their advantages are still more "learned" then the kids who are poor and score less. Life works like this. You can be better then the guy busting his ass to get the promotion. If you do not provide more merit then him he will still get ahead of you. Whether you do not win because of life's hardships stacked against you or because you are a lazy asshole is irrelevant.

Centeral planners don't have to manage all the knowledge of society. In this case, it is simply the knowledge of education.
That does not matter, even if we would have super computers that could outperform the processing power of the collective human race we would still not be able to achieve better results.

The pricing mechanism is subjective and needs many vectors voluntarily participating in order to set the prices. Without correct prices you can not possible allocate efficiently.

Mass production requires planning to create the efficient system of production.

Mass production does not have the random factor/variable of human nature involved. If it did it would not work either.

My views are based on an ideal, like yours are. Government has proven to work multiple times, as well as having failed to work multiple times. You seem to look at only the failures.

I would disagree, you are welcome to provide proof for that though.

But...you wouldn't be if it was fixed. We're both talking about fixing it.

Freemarket IS better at fixing problems. It fixes them faster and at less cost. Plus freemarket also fixes problems of pricing goods that government can never fix. More on it bellow.

There is no proof that the free-market fixing is better than the mixed-economy fixing.

Yet private schools provide better results. The naturally going full on private schools will provide better results. There is no disagreement at this part. Don't try to muddy the water here.

You admitted that you do not care for prices when I have proven that they outperform their public counterparts.

Your problem is that you want to pay for those you think are disadvantaged and can not afford it on their own for no fault of their own. To which I pointed out that had the prices not been inflated by government many more of them could afford it. In the 70s it was possible for a teenager to pay through their education by simply working one summer as a waiter. Obviously today this is impossible. This is what I want to reverse.

My entire argument is that in the end when all factors are accounted for the free market system is cheaper and has greater accessibility then your mixed economy system. Why? Because I allow for the pricing mechanism and the most efficient allocation of resources.

But when it does make the change, with enough popular support and pressure, the government is better for the people.

Some problems the government is not capable of fixing. Education is one of them. New problems arise continuously. In the free market they get solved faster and cause less damage. In centrally planned economy the fact that it takes longer to solve them ends up doing more harm and means there are more at any given time then in free market.

Mixed economy means the minority can go to their private schools. Best of both worlds. They have to pay a little more. That's okay, because they have more to pay with.

Free market means the poor can still afford to have education on par with anything the government would dream of being able to provide.

You still have not proven there is an inherent inefficiency with government regulation. But even if you can, I doubt most progressives would care.
They would care if the inefficiency is with achieving their goals. Which I think I have proven sufficiently. You simply not familiar with Hayek's ideas and I am not the best vector to present them.

Some would change their mind sure...but I bet some conservatives would change their minds if they heard my side of the argument...I don't see why you mentioned that.
Ofcourse but would you not agree majority (what a dirty word) would support a system that achieves both the philanthropic goals and efficiency without having to force people against their will?

I'm talking about 4, years, in high school. 2nd, the the 4 years is really 2 years, because work starts generally at 16. And yes, they are better off learning for another 2 years than going straight to work.

Depends. If you looked around when you were in highschool the kids who given up on school spend their last two years doing nothing.

You don't have to increase taxes, just reallocate funds.
The formula does not change tho. The school system and public sector as a whole is a negative drain on society.

The inefficient techniques are cheaper (not caring about the water because it is free, so they overuse it-If the government charged for water, they would be forced to become efficient...), which is why they are used. The efficient farmers use the same water the inefficient farmers do. If the water runs out, due to the inefficient farmers, not only do the efficient farmers make less money, but they'll end up having the same future problems as the inefficient ones.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture_in_India

You know I was going to go into how private property prevents that from happening, which would make me deduct that India does not protect them as much. Then I got interested in it and decided to give it a quick search. And was proven right. Aquifers which are owned publicly are already a deviation from private property. But further consideration also shows how they are being mismanaged by none other then the government. In a free market system the owners of the aquifers would charge for the water pumping and the farmers who use good techniques would expand faster and the ones who don't would fail. Before you going to suggest that owners will overcharge I would again point out that government already overcharges through the taxes that are used to maintain them and the pumps.

The "Problems" clearly shows how this is the fault of the government in what you described was the problem.

Ofcourse the article also said that "Illiteracy, general socio-economic backwardness, slow progress in implementing land reforms and inadequate or inefficient finance and marketing services for farm produce." To which I never disagreed I simply disagreed on the idea that central planning can fix them faster then allowing these people do it them selves.

Maybe, maybe not. They also may not necessarily be better solutions.

I'd have to look it up. But basically, the airlines went from complete regulation (the socialistic model), to partial regulation (my type of model). The prices went down like you suggested. But now there are issues with harmful business practices such as flight changing fees costing more than the actual ticket etc. And you will suggest that these people take their business somewhere else, but they can't. There are only 3 major airlines, and all have these harmful practices.

Now this is harder to fact check but your credibility is suffering from you interpreting problems in India incorrectly.

First I don't know what major airport in a country that only has 3 air travel companies. There are hundreds and other nations are not excluded from competing.

(By the way, the current regulations are only those on safety, so that is not an issue why new companies are not forming).
Barrier of entry. If you have redundant safety features that may very well prevent new companies from starting.

Just because it is called a public sector, doesn't make a difference. The money is staying in the economy. (Public sector jobs).

Yes it does the public sector is characterized as less efficient and unprofitable. So if we losing efficient and productive jobs for the inefficient and unprofitable ones then obviously we are worse off.

The different sectors will stabilize.
Yes by shrinking the service sector and the overall economy. America is in illusionary economy and there is too many jobs that will disappear as soon as the dollar crashes.

It isn't a drain on the economy, as it puts money back into the system.
Actually for you to know why you are wrong you need to realize that if more money is taken to fund unproductive enterprises then the overall productivity of the economy goes down. Money simply reflects our productivity. So at any given time money is always being drained so less capital is being bought for expansion in the private sector which slows their growth. And since they are the only ones who are profitable that spells doom for you future.
Regulate the prices if they seem to be out of control (if the Rich are making too much at the expense of the poor and the middle class).
You can't regulate the prices because this is the reason why soviet system failed. It creates lines and further damages the efficient allocation of resources.

There are other factors of importance.
You are right. I sincerely suggest you read Hayek tho. He explains very well how profitability is the greatest form of philanthropy and how it actually ties all factors together.

The government didn't increase the cost of living, the rich did, unnecessarily.

the rich can't control the government funding unprofitable ventures. If they are supposed to pay for them obviously they will try to protect them selves. However they would never raise the prices in the first place unless government burdens them. Btw the rich also means small business owners and all corporations. So basically the producers.

Incanam

10-11-2009, 10:59 PM

Look, I would like to respond to eveyr point, that would take me an hour or to, and I'd rather not do that.

And? Never said languages weren't beneficial. When you can't write a letter in English, it becomes of secondary concern.

And since most people in my highschool can, other languages are now not a secondary concern...

You consider Harvard (et.al.) undergrads as the 'best in the world'? lol
Who's better? Perhaps Oxford, and that one school in France? While America has the ivys (a few aren't great, but most of them are), MIT, Caltech, Stanford etc.

Sure they do and they mislead very well. Income levels are reported by the students. Problem #1 w/ the data itself. Problem #2 with the conclusion of a causal relationship. Just like CO2 and Temp, there is nothing to say which is affecting the other. Problem #3, there are many other variables involved that could represent the causal relationship but are masked by the income stats: at-home moms, single parents, # of siblings, school class size, etc. etc.

Regardless of whether numbers mislead, and they do, even if income correlates, that doesn't mean the test is culturally biased.

Cultural biased were your words. I simply said that all it shows is the wealth of where your coming from.

And it is generally agreed by educators that the test is a farce. Compare the SAT's to the AP test. I have a friend who got a 5 on the language AP test, yet didn't do so well on the SAT essay/ writing section. When they give you 25 minutes to write an essay, what does this test? You can write fast? Or when they give you 10 minutes for 10 multiple choice math questions, what does this test exactly? Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying intelligence isn't a factor. The honors kids will do better than the advanced kids who'll do beter than the regular kids.

But when we're comparing within each of those groups, the tests hold relatively little significance.

Why? What evidence do you have that demonstrates the need for higher graduation rates? And what point is having a worthless degree?

You still haven't addressed the issue that our standards are being lowered in order to allow the dumbest to graduate. This is all in pursuit of higher graduation rates that you speak of. This is why we are lagging compared to the RotW. The current goals and the same goals you preach are destroying our ability to compete.

The fact that a good education is beneficial in many different situations.

And if our standards are being lowered, we should stop that. I'm not advocating that, nor am I advocating the current system. Stop insuinating that I am. When I talk about increasing graduation rates, I actually mean teaching people better, not lowring our standards.

Here you go again w/ your teachers. Teaching is a profession. The idea that you can learn to teach and teach anything as opposed to learn subject matter and decide to teach it is ludicrous. How many of your teachers actually have advanced education in the subject matter they teach? How many simply have the requisite "Education" degree? They are useless and suck b/c they have no foundation in the subjects they teach and we do not demand one of them.

Okay here we go.

My English teacher has an English Degree from HArvard.
My History teacher from last year (ne of the top 10 in my state according to some award) is a doctor in law. He also teaches governemnt, legal systems, and economics if we had enoguh interest in it, which sadly we didn't.
MY homeroom teacher teaches English (though I'ven ever had him) and got a degree from UPenn.
MY math teacher from two years ago, got a math degree from Upenn.
My math teacher from this, year, I'm not sure, but I know he taught in England, Nicaragua, and Africa for many many years.

These are the only ones I know. To counter your theory btw.
MY chemistry teacher from two years ago used to be a chemist. Most of the kids agree she was one of the worst (though to be fair, I didn't think she was that bad. Then again, I understood chemistry).

Though, I agree with you. Teaching should be a prfession as revered as being a doctor, with almost as much studying time put in. At least 6 years.

Different governments........maybe.......
Okay, so a govenrment CAN run education fine. Our government needs to change.

Well, let's here it Mr. Logical. What is the logical reason for our schools sucking and worsening ever since gov't began to get more and more involved and money became more and more available to those involved?

I gave my 'why'. If I'm wrong, as you say, then what do you think the reason is?
Governemnt hasn't been running it properly. Not on purpose, just bad decisions (like No Child Left Behind).

Incanam

10-11-2009, 11:49 PM

That is not the point. Laws of economics dictate that the market will work to achieve equilibrium again. As I pointed out 3 times had you been correct then the prices should have been rising throughout the entire history. They were obviously not rising. The rise was not exponential either get your terms right.

What you are suggesting is along the lines of me selling fruits at the market and all of a sudden there are 2x more people interested in my wares. I hike up the prices because there are people who are willing to outbid others for the product. Then a week later when the demand stays the same I and every other seller on the market comes back with the same amount of goods to again hike up the prices. Clearly that can not happen. If you like me to explain why I will.
Explain your scenario again. You were unclear, about what happens a week later.

You hike up your prices the first week, because of greater demand. The next week, there are more people, so you hike them up again. The next week, there are more people, so you hike them up again...Why is that not what happens?

Parents serve the function of a guidance councilor, a teacher and a planner for the kids. We have all those offered in school. Still on avg the kid's who do not have their parents involved in their education perform less then the ones who have involved parents.

It is impossible to provide these kids with a person who cares about them and spends more time with them then they spend in school. This is where central planning fails. You think you can replace that irreplaceable asset. You simply need to accept that kids who do not have involved parents have the cards stacked against them.

I accept that. I see no reason why we can't take a few of the cards away (or however the card stacking analogy works).

That is preposterous and borderline conspiracy theory.

I took the test and my group of friends took this test. Smart kids in my group outperformed the dumb ones. There is direct correlation with the amount of time we spend practicing and our grades.

The more likely explanation is that kids in high income families have parents who are more successful and can afford to send them to tutoring or instill discipline required to prepare for the test.

Those kids who are rich and score higher due to their advantages are still more "learned" then the kids who are poor and score less. Life works like this. You can be better then the guy busting his ass to get the promotion. If you do not provide more merit then him he will still get ahead of you. Whether you do not win because of life's hardships stacked against you or because you are a lazy asshole is irrelevant.

There's a different between "learned" and intelligent. The tests should be testing intelligence, which they do not do. See my previous post for more.

That does not matter, even if we would have super computers that could outperform the processing power of the collective human race we would still not be able to achieve better results.

The pricing mechanism is subjective and needs many vectors voluntarily participating in order to set the prices. Without correct prices you can not possible allocate efficiently.
No proof. I'd give more of a response, but I have like another hours worth of your post to go through...nedless to say, you gave me an opinion just now.

I would disagree, you are welcome to provide proof for that though.
How about setting up our education system in the first place? Horace Mann was part of that mysterious think called government. And in the same way you associate the government influence on our education with everything bad that has happened since, I will now satirically (because I have to tell you) claim that America rising to where it is is due to Horace Mann's idea for compulsory education.

Yet private schools provide better results. The naturally going full on private schools will provide better results. There is no disagreement at this part. Don't try to muddy the water here.
Not always. The pubclic schools in my area are regarded as much better than the private ones.

You say many times the same thing about the government being inefficient.
We're not getting anywhere. I'll just say that the government necessarily does not have to be inefficient. IF a government sets up an agency that can make immediate changes, the 4 year delay problem does not take effect.

Ofcourse but would you not agree majority (what a dirty word) would support a system that achieves both the philanthropic goals and efficiency without having to force people against their will?
Sure. But the first is not acheived with your system.

Depends. If you looked around when you were in highschool the kids who given up on school spend their last two years doing nothing.
I'm in highschool. We've had 20 kids drop out in the last year. We definitely have more than 20 18 year-olds. Why is that number not higher. (We have 392 kids-now- in our senior class)

You know I was going to go into how private property prevents that from happening, which would make me deduct that India does not protect them as much. Then I got interested in it and decided to give it a quick search. And was proven right. Aquifers which are owned publicly are already a deviation from private property. But further consideration also shows how they are being mismanaged by none other then the government. In a free market system the owners of the aquifers would charge for the water pumping and the farmers who use good techniques would expand faster and the ones who don't would fail. Before you going to suggest that owners will overcharge I would again point out that government already overcharges through the taxes that are used to maintain them and the pumps.

The "Problems" clearly shows how this is the fault of the government in what you described was the problem.

Ofcourse the article also said that "Illiteracy, general socio-economic backwardness, slow progress in implementing land reforms and inadequate or inefficient finance and marketing services for farm produce." To which I never disagreed I simply disagreed on the idea that central planning can fix them faster then allowing these people do it them selves.

http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/high-pulse-prices-fail-to-lift-farmers-spirits/369412/

This is just something I found that was interesting.

http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/387094/feature_indian_farmers_on_way_to_healthy _life_and_income/index.html

And this.

http://www.commodityonline.com/news/UK-supermarkets-grow-on-exploited-Indian-farmers-19326-1-1.html

And this.

But What I was looking for were stats on the profits of farmers in India, which I couldn't find for some reason. The profits are so low, I am extrapolating here through my knowledge of the rural ares of India, but I would be happy if you found some data on this, for farmers, that I assume they do not pay an income tax. And they get free water. Yet they still can't make ends meet. Think about their cost if some private entity charged them for water for profit. The private entity, which knows the farmers need the water to survive, so will be forced to buy the water at whatever the cost.

I do agree the government mismanaged the situation. They should charge a very, very low price on the water, enough so that farmers can afford it, but wasting water would still be costly.

But the above articles show that more than the government is responsible for the failure. The second article is just interesting because it seems where there is success, the government/ communist entities are involved. I just found that interesting.

Now this is harder to fact check but your credibility is suffering from you interpreting problems in India incorrectly.

First I don't know what major airport in a country that only has 3 air travel companies. There are hundreds and other nations are not excluded from competing.
"Safety Consumers obviously would not be happy if prices fell this much and safety also was reduced in the process. But the opposite has been true: Safety has improved as prices have fallen. The safety record of Americas airways is determined more accurately by examining how many airline fatalities occur annually relative to the overall number of miles flown by the nation's air carriers. It is important to note, however, that fare deregulation did not extend to a broader removal of federal oversight of the airline industry; even after passage of the Airline Deregulation Act, matters of airline safety were still closely regulated by the Federal Aviation Administration.

Service Quality The quality of airline service can be measured in many different ways, including the number of aircraft departures, the total number of miles flown, the timeliness of service, other programs and services, and various frills or amenities. On the vast majority of these counts, the overall quality of airline service has improved since deregulation.[8]

Over the past several years the public's view of airline service quality has shown a significant drop.[9] According to the 2008 American Customer Satisfaction Index, a University of Michigan study of 80,000 consumers’ expectations and preferences, the major US airlines ranked last among all the industries surveyed. In 2009 the airlines have moved up to being one point ahead of Cable & Satellite TV and the newspaper industry (though results for all industries were not available at the time of this writing) [10].

Additionally there has been repeated call for the United States government to pass a "Air Passenger Bill of Rights" to provide specific requirements about what must happen to air passengers in certain conditions.[11] The current push for the bill stems from several high profile passenger strandings over the last several years."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airline_deregulation

My mistake on the three airlines thing. I meant to say that that's how it was after regulation.
"By the end of 1991, after a dramatic downfall through the 1980s, Pan Am was history. The number of major carriers in the United States fell from six in 1978—United, American, Delta, Eastern, TWA, and Pan Am—to three by 1991—United, American, and Delta."

http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Commercial_Aviation/Dereg/Tran8.htm

Barrier of entry. If you have redundant safety features that may very well prevent new companies from starting.

Rather be safe than have new companies start...

Yes it does the public sector is characterized as less efficient and unprofitable. So if we losing efficient and productive jobs for the inefficient and unprofitable ones then obviously we are worse off.
Characterized by you... Your use of passive voice, and the fact that your making baseless calims leads me to doubt you.

Actually for you to know why you are wrong you need to realize that if more money is taken to fund unproductive enterprises then the overall productivity of the economy goes down. Money simply reflects our productivity. So at any given time money is always being drained so less capital is being bought for expansion in the private sector which slows their growth. And since they are the only ones who are profitable that spells doom for you future.
Where is the money being drained to?

the rich can't control the government funding unprofitable ventures. If they are supposed to pay for them obviously they will try to protect them selves. However they would never raise the prices in the first place unless government burdens them. Btw the rich also means small business owners and all corporations. So basically the producers.
Well, the rich shouldn't include smaller buisness owners. I disagree with the current system in that regard. Corporations, yes, are making much more profit than is necessary, and should be taxed.

And the really rich, aren't being burdened, they are simply using it as an exuse to raise prices.

I'll point you to the recent gas crisis things. The prices only went up, because the rich new they could make more profit.

88Chaz88

10-11-2009, 11:58 PM

Holyshitmotherofwalloftext batman!

Vessol

10-12-2009, 02:47 AM

I say we go back to Sparta.

Raise the strong to kill our slaves and throw the weak off a mountain.

Silverhandorder

10-12-2009, 05:42 AM

Explain your scenario again. You were unclear, about what happens a week later.

At any given time the producers are competing against each other to sell their wares. They either offer lower prices or offer higher quality.

Since men are greedy and want to maximize their profits. The entrepreneurs (the smart people who know how to do that) will put their initial rise in profits into expanding their business. By growing more trees or hiring extra farm hands to collect more produce. So next time they go back to the market there will always be more supply since people will strive to profit from it. The only time this does not work is when the resource is limited. This is not the case with schools. The resources that are needed to start a school are teachers and a place where they can teach the students.

You hike up your prices the first week, because of greater demand. The next week, there are more people, so you hike them up again. The next week, there are more people, so you hike them up again...Why is that not what happens?

As the prices keep going up the profit margin also goes up and if there is nothing preventing formation of new schools then even more people will venture into providing this service. It's basic economics.

The problem in our system is that DOE or some organization under their authority gives out certificates of accreditation to these colleges. Without these certificates it is illegal for the colleges to give out degrees. So the supply is artificially low.

Now that is a problem we can fix. However we can not fix the student loans and financial aid problems. These eliminate incentive for colleges to compete against each other. Since the students are not paying for their own education the demand is being artificially increased. Many of these new students do not shop around and keep maintaining bad colleges. Since price is not an issue colleges that are run inefficiently can raise the ceiling on tuition. Since government can not tell the difference this also increases the cost across the board.

A good example would be offering to pay for everyone's Christmas gifts. You know people will always max out to the limit and those who do not care will buy shit simply because they can. That is human nature.

I accept that. I see no reason why we can't take a few of the cards away (or however the card stacking analogy works).
Let me clarify that for you. You want to lend these kids a hand. As I already pointed out several times you can't give them the assets they are missing. The system tried and horribly failed.

This does not mean they are screwed for the rest of their life. It simply means that they have different set of opportunities available to them that is all.

There's a different between "learned" and intelligent. The tests should be testing intelligence, which they do not do. See my previous post for more.

There is a reason why the colleges make them take an SAT and not an IQ test. No one gives a shit how intelligent you are. You learn what you need for your degree. If you are not at the basic level that is needed to start your education for the college they will not take you. That is rather obvious. If anything colleges been way too lax, especially on the minorities with affirmative action.

No proof. I'd give more of a response, but I have like another hours worth of your post to go through...nedless to say, you gave me an opinion just now.

That is not an opinion that is a fact. You are clueless to the fact that subjective value runs this world. How can anyone but you know what a good is worth to you? Why does Da Vinci's paintings cost more then their nominal value? Rarity? I can draw a picture which would make it the only one in the world. People won't pay anywhere near what La Gioconda is priced at. Why? Because Da Vinci's pictures represent subjective value to some one that means absolutely nothing to others.

Same goes for everyday goods. Some one may need milk really bad because they are making cake for a party. They will pay more then the people who are simply grocery shopping. What your ideas of price control would do is force milk to be sold at artificially low prices. This will create shortages of milk, which in turn will represent an inefficient allocation of resources. While the milk is sitting in the fridge of the grocery shopper the person who needed to make cake is not making it. The process of making a cake is the lost production. What if it was a business that just lost it's customer and must shut down?

You are proving to be very ignorant in laws of economics.

How about setting up our education system in the first place? Horace Mann was part of that mysterious think called government. And in the same way you associate the government influence on our education with everything bad that has happened since, I will now satirically (because I have to tell you) claim that America rising to where it is is due to Horace Mann's idea for compulsory education.

Then you would be completely wrong in your assessment. Since so far the advocates of compulsory education have admitted that in it self the education system sucks and provides little benefit for the nation. To them the only justification that is needed is that some poor person somewhere would possible get it while they are a child as opposed to when they are an adult.

There is relevant data that shows how public education has undermined our professional force as opposed to strengthened it. We have people who are only suited for a manual jobs trying to compete for years with talented people only to end up working in a field outside of their degree description.

Not always. The pubclic schools in my area are regarded as much better than the private ones.

The averages matter. The average will always be higher for privates because they have the market mechanism. Even if you restrict their ability to expand.

We're not getting anywhere. I'll just say that the government necessarily does not have to be inefficient. IF a government sets up an agency that can make immediate changes, the 4 year delay problem does not take effect.

If you are not going to debate my points then why do you keep posting? I already explained why that can not happen. I will repeat again, there are a lot of people far smarter then you that have already said that and tried to follow through with that. They failed not because they were lacking in intelligence or skill. They failed because they distort the pricing mechanism of the market. They can have power to make immediate changes and they will still allocate resources less efficiently because of the distortions.

Sure. But the first is not acheived with your system.

That is a subject for another thread since we agreed we will only argue about the efficiency of the systems.

I'm in highschool. We've had 20 kids drop out in the last year. We definitely have more than 20 18 year-olds. Why is that number not higher. (We have 392 kids-now- in our senior class)
Out of those 392 what percentage only attends classes but does no work? What percentage tries to do work but gets no higher then a C? Those students could be working right now earning money being productive. Wtf does drop outs have anything to do with what I was saying?

http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/high-pulse-prices-fail-to-lift-farmers-spirits/369412/

This is just something I found that was interesting.

Are you trying to prove your self wrong? The article shows how government is wasting resources trying to get farmers to farm shit that won't make them money. The farmer came out and said that the price of the crop do not justify him switching.

http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/387094/feature_indian_farmers_on_way_to_healthy _life_and_income/index.html

And this.

Look bellow for my explanation.

http://www.commodityonline.com/news/UK-supermarkets-grow-on-exploited-Indian-farmers-19326-1-1.html

And this.

The companies that delivered low quality seeds have committed fraud. Unless they gave no guarantee in which case the farmers that took the risk do not deserve to have those resources under their management and they will have to liquidate them to people who are more capable.

But What I was looking for were stats on the profits of farmers in India, which I couldn't find for some reason. The profits are so low, I am extrapolating here through my knowledge of the rural ares of India, but I would be happy if you found some data on this, for farmers, that I assume they do not pay an income tax. And they get free water. Yet they still can't make ends meet. Think about their cost if some private entity charged them for water for profit. The private entity, which knows the farmers need the water to survive, so will be forced to buy the water at whatever the cost.

Then how come food sellers do not charge w/e they want. After all you can't live without food.

I do agree the government mismanaged the situation. They should charge a very, very low price on the water, enough so that farmers can afford it, but wasting water would still be costly.

They should and probably will do it. But that would be like them fucking things up and then trying to fix their fuck up. I would rather not give them a chance to fuck things up again. They proved countless times to be more prone to fucks ups then anything else.

But the above articles show that more than the government is responsible for the failure. The second article is just interesting because it seems where there is success, the government/ communist entities are involved. I just found that interesting.

No your conclusions are all wrong. First article is a government fucking up what is a good working market.

The second article shows farmers organizing voluntarily without any force used by the government. The part where government helps is a form of subsidy. Which is basically protectionism on part of India. I think you know from your economics class why globalization is happening and why they are making a mistake here.

The third article shows why free market works. The bad farmers are prevented from wasting resources by going bankrupt and having them taken away from them. That is a good thing.

"Safety Consumers obviously would not be happy if prices fell this much and safety also was reduced in the process. But the opposite has been true: Safety has improved as prices have fallen. The safety record of Americas airways is determined more accurately by examining how many airline fatalities occur annually relative to the overall number of miles flown by the nation's air carriers. It is important to note, however, that fare deregulation did not extend to a broader removal of federal oversight of the airline industry; even after passage of the Airline Deregulation Act, matters of airline safety were still closely regulated by the Federal Aviation Administration.

Service Quality The quality of airline service can be measured in many different ways, including the number of aircraft departures, the total number of miles flown, the timeliness of service, other programs and services, and various frills or amenities. On the vast majority of these counts, the overall quality of airline service has improved since deregulation.[8]

Over the past several years the public's view of airline service quality has shown a significant drop.[9] According to the 2008 American Customer Satisfaction Index, a University of Michigan study of 80,000 consumers’ expectations and preferences, the major US airlines ranked last among all the industries surveyed. In 2009 the airlines have moved up to being one point ahead of Cable & Satellite TV and the newspaper industry (though results for all industries were not available at the time of this writing) [10].

Additionally there has been repeated call for the United States government to pass a "Air Passenger Bill of Rights" to provide specific requirements about what must happen to air passengers in certain conditions.[11] The current push for the bill stems from several high profile passenger strandings over the last several years."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airline_deregulation

My mistake on the three airlines thing. I meant to say that that's how it was after regulation.
"By the end of 1991, after a dramatic downfall through the 1980s, Pan Am was history. The number of major carriers in the United States fell from six in 1978—United, American, Delta, Eastern, TWA, and Pan Am—to three by 1991—United, American, and Delta."

Thanks for proving me correct.

http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Commercial_Aviation/Dereg/Tran8.htm
This article is pure propaganda. They admit to giving subsidies to airlines and then have the gall to say that over expansion was due to free market forces. I could rip it apart for many of their assumptions but this alone should discredit it completely.

Rather be safe than have new companies start...

Then buy tickets from the "safe" airlines. Do you know what redundant means?

Characterized by you... Your use of passive voice, and the fact that your making baseless calims leads me to doubt you.

Oh really? I thought you avoiding every argument about costs so far proves otherwise. Were you not the one who was saying who cares about costs only thing that matters is all the poor children going to school for free. Please do not try to bring up arguments you your self conceded to earlier.

Where is the money being drained to?

To inefficient sectors of the economy (public sector). It's like having a good employee and a bad employee and keep the bad employee working and producing less and breaking things.

Well, the rich shouldn't include smaller buisness owners. I disagree with the current system in that regard. Corporations, yes, are making much more profit than is necessary, and should be taxed.

Then you should advocate for elimination of minimum wage and special status for unions. You should also advertise for elimination of high income taxes on small business owners.

Plus you should realize that small business owners still use services of big corporations which will raise prices because of high cost of taxes. Obviously this will translate to higher prices by the small business owners.

And the really rich, aren't being burdened, they are simply using it as an exuse to raise prices.

I could care less about really rich. I care what happens to me when they either hide their money or in the case of big business pass on the costs to me.

I'll point you to the recent gas crisis things. The prices only went up, because the rich new they could make more profit.
Recent gas crisis was made of many factors. I did not study it closely enough to comment on it. Based on our previous discussions tho I have little confidence in you being able to come with the right conclusions.