America - The Official Thread

[Swift]

about this recession, has anyone recently been downsized? Or know many people that have?

I think this "recession" is being hyped up by the media specifically to help the democrat party in the election. Look at the history, they said almost nothing when records were being broken(and no credit given to the current administration). No, we're in a recession after a quarter of slow down.

Granted, things are very much slowing down, I'll have to say the energy costs have more to do with it then anything.

But how did your teachers backup their claim that we are in a recession?

 

[Joey D]

If you don't think we are in a recession come to Michigan, I have never seen this many people out of a job. I live in Oakland county which at one time was like the third richest county in America, I would wager to guess it doesn't even make the top 100 any more. Granted a lot of this has to do with the failing American automotive industry which in turn affects everything in the area right down to the dog groomers.

 

[Omnis]

Yeah, we're in a recession right now.We'll have a boom in the upcoming months [/prediction]

Yeah the stock market will be great and wonderbread will cost 100 bucks.

I wish Rothbard was still alive.

 

[BayConRong]

I don't eat Wonderbread anyways. it's bad for your diet.

who is Rothbard?

we could get out of recession of we would consider non-combustion engines but people love their Chevy Suburban and Ford Expeditions so much that most are unwilling to settle for anything less.

recessions don't affect the west coast as much as the east coast me thinks. i know the depression wasn't anywhere near as bad as it was accross the rockies.

 

[Joey D]

Making non-combustion engines wouldn't even remotely pull us out of a recession, if no one has money to buy the technology (which would be very expensive) then it can't help your economy out.

 

[Swift]

If you don't think we are in a recession come to Michigan, I have never seen this many people out of a job. I live in Oakland county which at one time was like the third richest county in America, I would wager to guess it doesn't even make the top 100 any more. Granted a lot of this has to do with the failing American automotive industry which in turn affects everything in the area right down to the dog groomers.

So you judge an entire country's economic condition by that one state? That doesn't seem very thorough or logical. Not to mention that a lot of the problems with Michigan can be attributed to the taxation.

 

[Omnis]

Yeah, Swift. But, also, the problems with the country can be attributed to taxation, or rather the insidious printing of unbacked money that acts as a tax in the long run.

From what I can tell, the business cycle operates usually in periods of 20 years. You figure it's about time for a huge bust since the last one in the 80s.

Can the layman ever be lastingly prosperous with a volatile currency?

 

[YSSMAN]

Your parents pay for it. So if you aren't a parent, you shouldn't be bearing the cost of other peoples' children.

That has to be one of the most ass-backwards statements I've heard in a while. Sure, I understand the rationale behind it, but the collective gain that we all have with an educated public by far exceeds the cost to us in taxes every year.

Seriously.

Which may be important to note that in Michigan we constitutionally guarantee a free education for all citizens of the state. Too damn bad we can't fund our way out of a paper-bag...

Which brings me to:

If you don't think we are in a recession come to Michigan, I have never seen this many people out of a job.

Yep. Its getting worse here as well. We've been in a statewide recession since 2000 (maybe even before that?), and it isn't looking any better any time soon. On the national level, things are much better, but of course, thats a bit relative... The DOW did surge a bit today on the Fed Rate cuts, but I still think its a bit over-valued. With Gold sitting well above $1K an ounce, there are still shaky signs out there.

We'll see what this 2008 Economic Stimulus Package, aka the "China Cuts the US a Check for $162 Billion and America Sends the Money Right Back with Electronics Purchases" Plan. Things could get better, and it probably will, but we've gotta find a way to start thinking in the long-term...

 

[Omnis]

That has to be one of the most ass-backwards statements I've heard in a while. Sure, I understand the rationale behind it, but the collective gain that we all have with an educated public by far exceeds the cost to us in taxes every year.

Seriously.

Which may be important to note that in Michigan we constitutionally guarantee a free education for all citizens of the state.

You can't have it both ways. Education is primarily the role of the family, not the state. I'd rather pay a private institution than send my money to the state.

Too damn bad we can't fund our way out of a paper-bag...

Case in point.

If schooling was a market instead of a function of government, people would have the ultimate voting power of making choices in spending their money. Of course, the more local a school system is, the better, and the most local governing force is the individual's purse.

 

[Year.Zero]

You can't have it both ways. Education is primarily the role of the family, not the state. I'd rather pay a private institution than send my money to the state.

What? Say that to the kids who don't have a family or are raised by the state.

Where did the family get that education? From the education system—whether they paid for it or not. For a family to educate other family members, they have to have gotten that education from somewhere, and they sure as hell aren't learning particle physics lessons from their grandfather.

As a personal testament, I never learned anything from my mother. She formed few opinions on anything, and rarely taught me beyond "this is wrong", "that is bad"; people have to want to learn and if all they're being fed is pop-culture trivial bulls***, they're not going to want to.

The difference is, some cultures just have more inherent respect for education during their generations; perhaps yours lost it.

Edit:

Danoff- I'll get back to you; I haven't forgotten.

 

[Omnis]

Here we go (again)

What? Say that to the kids who don't have a family or are raised by the state.

This has nothing to do with the funding of wards of the state. You also don't take charities and non-profits into consideration, the former having been driven away by "the system".

Where did the family get that education? From the education system—whether they paid for it or not. For a family to educate other family members, they have to have gotten that education from somewhere, and they sure as hell aren't learning particle physics lessons from their grandfather.

The family takes responsibility for teaching their children (like homeschooling), or, if they are unable to, they send their children to school. Of course they're not going to be learning particle physics from grandpa (unless he's a particle physicist).

As a personal testament, I never learned anything from my mother. She formed few opinions on anything, and rarely taught me beyond "this is wrong", "that is bad"; people have to want to learn and if all they're being fed is pop-culture trivial bulls***, they're not going to want to.

Your mom sent you to school, didn't she? Or at least you got yourself there, right? If people have to want to learn, why do you advocate forcing them to learn through a socialist system? The market lets people make that decision for themselves, and also gives them an incentive to learn what they paid to learn.

The difference is, some cultures just have more inherent respect for education during their generations; perhaps yours lost it.

I could say the same for freedom. I have enough respect for education to denounce-- to the best of mine-- the socialization of it.

 

[Sage]

The difference is, some cultures just have more inherent respect for education during their generations; perhaps yours lost it.

I love education. That’s why I want it privatized – I want the absolute best education system for children, and a privatized system will provide that.

Can you imagine if the government ran all of the laundromats or all of the sandwich shops? Wouldn’t that suck? Education is far more important than either of those, and yet you trust the government with that?

 

[YSSMAN]

I don't personally have a problem with private schools... If the parents can afford to send their kids there, by all means, do so if you believe it to be the best solution. The problem is, most parents cannot afford to do so. Furthermore, I highly doubt that the public funds reserved for our children come anywhere close to what would be required to attend an otherwise "good" private school.

(EDIT: Grand Rapids Christian, one of the largest and most-popular private schools in Grand Rapids costs about $8000 a year to attend. A little more than seven times the amount paid by the Fed per child, per year, as I recall...)

The catch-22 is that that while the education of our children will be firmly in the hands of the parents, I really cannot see it guaranteeing a better education given that they are in a for-profit situation. Free markets are great, I understand that, but while we go on and on about how scores will increase and such, I imagine the bureaucracy will only expand further if we are to have private schools. Federal mandates will always be required, it seems, so I don't think we'd be jumping too far ahead.

There is a fair balance to be reached here, but the problem is, most people aren't willing to pay for it. We bitch and complain about how we're falling behind children in Europe and Asia, and yet, no one is willing to foot the bill.

Why?

Absolutely nothing is more important than a child's education. Maybe their healthcare... But thats a whole 'nother thing... As someone who had (still has?) planned on getting into education, I find it absolutely appalling how little teachers are paid, how under-funded our schools are, all while people continue to demand more while wanting to pay less... We'll likely have to wait for the next administration for anything to change in regards to education policy, which is unfortunate, but hopefully something better comes of it.

Of course, maybe I'm a bit short-sighted since I went to an over-funded public school in the middle of a pool of money (otherwise known as Amway) to keep it afloat. Then again, its only a short trip down Fulton to see what kind of a mess Grand Rapids Public is in...

DOUBLE EDIT:

Done a bit of poking around town, came across a local charter school not too far from my house... These publicly funded schools, as it seems, perform a bit better than public schools on average due to their privately managed systems. That being said, they are still monitored by State (and Federal?) governments given the way in which they are given money, which seems like a perfectly fine way of operation.

Thing is; I knew a kid who went to a charter school. Had to be one of the strangest people I ever met. He and several of his charter school buddies seemed to completely lack any kind of social norm that would otherwise be developed in the dog-eat-dog nature of the public schools. Maybe it was just them, I don't know, but my sociological training makes that question linger in the back of my mind quite often...

 

[Omnis]

Charter schools are different in that they assign money to students rather than the school. If the student leaves, the money goes with him or her.

The only reason private schools are so expensive is because of the lack of competition-- the lack of a real schooling market-- and because of the fact that it has to compete with the socialist system. It's also simply Supply and Demand. Don't forget that they are able to charge that much because they've created a demand for their performance, and that the demand for private (i.e., good) education far exceeds the supply of private institutions.

 

[YSSMAN]

Interesting figures I've found (with no real purpose I suppose)

Comparing ACT scores between Grand Rapids Christian and Forest Hills Central High (where I went to school):

Composite Scores
- GRC: 24
- FHC: 23
- State Average: 19

English
- GRC: 24
- FHC: 22
- State Average: 18

Math
- GRC: 24
- FHC: 23
- State Average: 19

Reading
- GRC: 24
- FHC: 23
- State Average: 19

Science Reasoning
- GRC: 24
- FHC: 23
- State Average: 19

However... GRC only has their 2007 scores made available, which I believe were for the class of 2006. Also, it is important to note that the overall performance of FHC has dropped since I graduated in 2005. However, I have been unable (thus far) to find our scores for this year...

So, is the money really working? Not really. Then again, one could argue that Forest Hills is pretty much funded privately anyway...

 

[Year.Zero]

Charter schools are different in that they assign money to students rather than the school. If the student leaves, the money goes with him or her.

The only reason private schools are so expensive is because of the lack of competition-- the lack of a real schooling market-- and because of the fact that it has to compete with the socialist system. It's also simply Supply and Demand. Don't forget that they are able to charge that much because they've created a demand for their performance, and that the demand for private (i.e., good) education far exceeds the supply of private institutions.

This is what I was waiting for us to get to.

Supply & demand:

Since I don't know off-hand any nations which have education systems that are entirely private, I can't give any examples; but—

Since we have some examples- we'll use those. the fundamental problem with them is that they can charge whatever they want-- market or no market, education is a necessity, and since it's a necessity it's always going to have a market, whether its' big or small. (And that is the downfall of the Catholic School Board here-- they charge a ludicrous amount of money for uniforms and ridiculous ideologies about sex and evolution, yet they're "good" schools because they're the only ones that offer robotics courses...puh-leeeaase.) See also: Waldorf, Montessori.

Much like gas prices, we bitch and moan all day long, yet we still pay for every cent of it without any reservations.

The fact is, everyone should have a right to a certain standard of education—not any $1/year education to teach children that their daddy's gun is not a toy. That is what the government-funded education system is for; for me, the thought that it should be replaced—and not supplemented with—by private education systems is absolutely ridiculous.

 

[Year.Zero]

Interesting figures I've found (with no real purpose I suppose)

Comparing ACT scores between Grand Rapids Christian and Forest Hills Central High (where I went to school):

Composite Scores
- GRC: 24
- FHC: 23
- State Average: 19

English
- GRC: 24
- FHC: 22
- State Average: 18

Math
- GRC: 24
- FHC: 23
- State Average: 19

Reading
- GRC: 24
- FHC: 23
- State Average: 19

Science Reasoning
- GRC: 24
- FHC: 23
- State Average: 19

However... GRC only has their 2007 scores made available, which I believe were for the class of 2006. Also, it is important to note that the overall performance of FHC has dropped since I graduated in 2005. However, I have been unable (thus far) to find our scores for this year...

So, is the money really working? Not really. Then again, one could argue that Forest Hills is pretty much funded privately anyway...

This is a good point-- but not because of the stats. Your public funding system works different from the Canadian public funding system. Is yours county or region based or something?

Ours is provincial-- that is, every taxpaying citizen in the province is supporting all the schools equally (by relative population density / student attendance / wealth of surrounding area etc). Schools in poorer areas get more funding and more devotion to crime awareness/prevention, etc.

 

[Omnis]

This is what I was waiting for us to get to.

Supply & demand:

Since I don't know off-hand any nations which have education systems that are entirely private, I can't give any examples; but—

Since we have some examples- we'll use those. the fundamental problem with them is that they can charge whatever they want-- market or no market, education is a necessity, and since it's a necessity it's always going to have a market, whether its' big or small. (And that is the downfall of the Catholic School Board here-- they charge a ludicrous amount of money for uniforms and ridiculous ideologies about sex and evolution, yet they're "good" schools because they're the only ones that offer robotics courses...puh-leeeaase.) See also: Waldorf, Montessori.

Much like gas prices, we bitch and moan all day long, yet we still pay for every cent of it without any reservations.

The fact is, everyone should have a right to a certain standard of education—not any $1/year education to teach children that their daddy's gun is not a toy. That is what the government-funded education system is for; for me, the thought that it should be replaced—and not supplemented with—by private education systems is absolutely ridiculous.

If they charged so much money, students would not go there. The school would have to lower prices or go out of business. It's quite simple. Your "gas addiction" example is also fallacy. If gas was $100/gal, people would be walking and the next auto show would be an alternative fuel show.

Everything you're moaning about could be fixed or filled by suppliers in a free market.

You still can't deny my previous post. Education is so important that people will find the most economic and efficient way to educate themselves, unless they are forced into a system.

It sounds to me like you're stuck on thinking of privatization in the fascist/corporatist sense. I'd agree with you there that that would be destructive. Otherwise, there's no way you can dispute that an increase in choices-- that is, a free market-- would not be more beneficial or yield better results than a fixed statist system.

 

[Danoff]

This is what I was waiting for us to get to.

Supply & demand: ...

Since we have some examples- we'll use those. the fundamental problem with them is that they can charge whatever they want-- market or no market, education is a necessity, and since it's a necessity it's always going to have a market, whether its' big or small.

Kinda like people can charge as much as they want for food huh? Since food is a necessity, it's no wonder that companies are extorting us over the cost of bread.[/sarcasm] I can't think of anything more fundamentally required for life than food, but we trust that to the free market, and nobody bitches about the price.

Food is a phenomenal parallel to child education too. There are laws requiring parents to feed their children. You'd think the corporations selling food would have them over a barrel - seeing as how the law requires that their children be fed. But that doesn't stop parents from being willing to/capable of feeding their children.

And if you can't afford to feed/educate your child, perhaps you shouldn't be having one. There are lots of people ready to adopt that are willing to pay for these things.

And again, not how we're not bitching about the quality or availability of university education.

(And that is the downfall of the Catholic School Board here-- they charge a ludicrous amount of money for uniforms and ridiculous ideologies about sex and evolution, yet they're "good" schools because they're the only ones that offer robotics courses...puh-leeeaase.) See also: Waldorf, Montessori.

Again it's all about what the market demands. Some parents want their child to be put in uniform and taught ridiculous ideologies. Others want their child in a cutting edge robotics course. Parents should be allowed to choose what kind of education they fund for their child.

Much like gas prices, we bitch and moan all day long, yet we still pay for every cent of it without any reservations.

I hope this isn't true for you. Anytime you ignore cost you're inviting the opportunity for over-use, or in your case, over-spending. Perhaps you need to rethink you position on gasoline usage. There are a bazillion alternatives to gasoline. You can carpool, walk, ride a bike, buy a more fuel efficient vehicle, get an ethanol vehicle, get an electric vehicle, move closer to work, telecommute for part or all of the week. The list literally goes on. Our gasoline usage is nowhere near fixed. Just because you don't want to change your lifestyle doesn't mean you're entitled to be able to afford the consequence of that choice.

The fact is, everyone should have a right to a certain standard of education

Just like every child has a right to a certain level of nutrition. The law requiring that children be educated does not require a socialist school system.

That is what the government-funded education system is for; for me, the thought that it should be replaced—and not supplemented with—by private education systems is absolutely ridiculous.

Why? Private schools are usually clean, organized, efficiently run, and produce excellent educational results (even the religious ones). I should know, I went to a private school. Public schools on the otherhand are messy, unorganized, inefficiently run, and generally provide poor educational results. I should know, I went to public school.

Generally speaking, any socialist system is inherently flawed. It's a simple flaw, one that's easy to point out. To continue advocating it is to fundamentally ignore pretty basic reason.

That has to be one of the most ass-backwards statements I've heard in a while. Sure, I understand the rationale behind it, but the collective gain that we all have with an educated public by far exceeds the cost to us in taxes every year.

Who cares if it's immoral to make someone pay for someone else's burden huh? There's a perceived benefit!! There are at least two flaws in your reasoning here.

1) Having an educated public (and reaping the "collective gain" that results) does not require public education.
2) You're still refusing to acknowledge that you have to put a price on education.

 

[Joey D]

So you judge an entire country's economic condition by that one state? That doesn't seem very thorough or logical. Not to mention that a lot of the problems with Michigan can be attributed to the taxation.

Michigan is connected to a lot of states because of the auto industry, Chrysler and GM has many west coast ties with design labs and testing facilities. Not to mention the amount of good being shipped in from Asia through the ports that go onto the cars. The auto industry is huge in the United States and affects more then you seem to think. If Michigan is failing then a big section of our country wide industry is failing.

And actually the taxes aren't as outrageous as they could be in Michigan.

 

[YSSMAN]

Is yours county or region based or something?

Federal --> State --> School Districts... But, a lot of the school district funding is based on property taxes within the district, and with the average home going for nearly $300K in Forest Hills, we get a lot of money. Not to mention the various millages and tax increases the people vote on every year, which pass 99% of the time, along with all of the private fund raising the parents do for the school each year.

I guess this is an example of a public school system that works: Parents, students, etc actually care to make their education better. We've been ranked the top school district in Michigan before, but without question, we dominate the region without much of a problem.

===

Who cares if it's immoral to make someone pay for someone else's burden huh? There's a perceived benefit!! There are at least two flaws in your reasoning here.

1) Having an educated public (and reaping the "collective gain" that results) does not require public education.
2) You're still refusing to acknowledge that you have to put a price on education.

Of course education comes at a price! Thats why I want to better appropriate funds to the schools! I think an important piece of the puzzle is not only the increase in funding in general, but furthermore, the distribution of funds that is in fact fair and justified (ie, school districts like mine maybe receive less cash than Grand Rapids Public that clearly needs it).

There is still a lot that can be done to make our public schools better, but we have to have leaders in Congress and in the White House who are willing to make the sacrifices necessary. Like I said earlier, people have to be willing to pay for the better educations that they demand, and whether that comes from higher taxes, or better yet, money coming out of otherwise useless government programs, we all come out better in the end.

 

[Omnis]

Federal --> State --> School Districts... But, a lot of the school district funding is based on property taxes within the district, and with the average home going for nearly $300K in Forest Hills, we get a lot of money. Not to mention the various millages and tax increases the people vote on every year, which pass 99% of the time, along with all of the private fund raising the parents do for the school each year.

I guess this is an example of a public school system that works: Parents, students, etc actually care to make their education better. We've been ranked the top school district in Michigan before, but without question, we dominate the region without much of a problem.

===



Of course education comes at a price! Thats why I want to better appropriate funds to the schools! I think an important piece of the puzzle is not only the increase in funding in general, but furthermore, the distribution of funds that is in fact fair and justified (ie, school districts like mine maybe receive less cash than Grand Rapids Public that clearly needs it).

There is still a lot that can be done to make our public schools better, but we have to have leaders in Congress and in the White House who are willing to make the sacrifices necessary. Like I said earlier, people have to be willing to pay for the better educations that they demand, and whether that comes from higher taxes, or better yet, money coming out of otherwise useless government programs, we all come out better in the end.

So basically you want a private free-market system... run by the government?

Everything you want is what you'd get by cutting out the government middle-man.

 

[Danoff]

Of course education comes at a price! Thats why I want to better appropriate funds to the schools!

That's not the same thing as admitting that you have to put a price on it. You're still denying the concept of putting a dollar value on education. You keep saying "more", or that it's not enough. Well it'll never be enough until you're willing to define a point at which you think it is (which you have so far been avoiding). The problem is that the point at which it is "enough" is different for some parents and students than others. The government shouldn't be making blanket "one child's education is worth x dollars" judgments. Some kids need more special attention. Others can practically self-educate (I've met one person in particular who basically taught himself from a textbook throughout gradeschool). The decision for how much a child's education is worth is one for the parents and the child to make.

 

[YSSMAN]

I do completely agree, it is far too difficult to completely quantify how exactly to disperse funds to the kids. But, the government obviously has to do the best it can to make it fair, and of course, evenly distributed to various districts across the country. The problem is, the general way in which we go about it (generally) isn't applying enough cash to "special" instances.

I have not read-up on how much money people are advocating for educational increases, but I'd imagine that there is a reasonable amount of money that they're looking to increase per-pupil. The problem is, I think its fairly obvious that a school (such as my own) would likely be able to go on without an increase, while others would obviously require more. If the current price of $1200 (or whatever it is) per-pupil per year isn't enough, I'd be interested to see what reasonable increases in funding (up to $1800 just as a rough guess?) could do. Every school system is different, every kid is different, and of course that creates a problem. But, with a bit of devolution down to the State and Local level, funds could easily be appropriated a bit more fairly.

 

[Danoff]

But, with a bit of devolution down to the State and Local level, funds could easily be appropriated a bit more fairly.

What do you mean by fair?

 

[Omnis]

Yssman, are you not reading my posts? Everything you want is what a free market delivers.

 

[Year.Zero]

Kinda like people can charge as much as they want for food huh? Since food is a necessity, it's no wonder that companies are extorting us over the cost of bread.[/sarcasm] I can't think of anything more fundamentally required for life than food, but we trust that to the free market, and nobody bitches about the price.

That's different—the competition and rivalry is huge with grocery stores; it isn't with private schools. They care about a dollar, yes- but they care about reputation and prestige more, which they can preserve by charging an astronomical amount.

Food is a phenomenal parallel to child education too. There are laws requiring parents to feed their children. You'd think the corporations selling food would have them over a barrel - seeing as how the law requires that their children be fed. But that doesn't stop parents from being willing to/capable of feeding their children.

Yes it does, quite frequently. There are something like 10 million kids who are fed through donations in America.

And if you can't afford to feed/educate your child, perhaps you shouldn't be having one. There are lots of people ready to adopt that are willing to pay for these things.

A bit late if one lost their job, eh?

And again, not how we're not bitching about the quality or availability of university education.

(That's a different situation here.)

Again it's all about what the market demands. Some parents want their child to be put in uniform and taught ridiculous ideologies. Others want their child in a cutting edge robotics course. Parents should be allowed to choose what kind of education they fund for their child.

...and since there isn't a mass quantity of private educations to choose from—nor will there be if it were instantaneously converted to a privatized system—what we're left with is religious schools, a couple hippie schools, and elitist ones.

I hope this isn't true for you. >snip< Just because you don't want to change your lifestyle doesn't mean you're entitled to be able to afford the consequence of that choice.

I don't drive a car.

Just like every child has a right to a certain level of nutrition. The law requiring that children be educated does not require a socialist school system.

Maybe not- but who's going to guarantee that level of education is provided? Government legislation? Trial and error (at the expense of your children), followed by some sort of FIA-esque Educational governing body to ensure a certain level is maintained?

I never said the government was doing its' job (quite the opposite in fact, and why you're so upset)—just that it should be providing the basis of education to us for "free".

Why? Private schools are usually clean, organized, efficiently run, and produce excellent educational results (even the religious ones). I should know, I went to a private school. Public schools on the other hand are messy, unorganized, inefficiently run, and generally provide poor educational results. I should know, I went to public school.

In America, yes. According to an educational survey done by the OECD, all nordic countries but Denmark (which scored below average) scored in the above average bracket (Canada being #2), with America 1 place above Denmark.

Generally speaking, any socialist system is inherently flawed. It's a simple flaw, one that's easy to point out. To continue advocating it is to fundamentally ignore pretty basic reason.

Not reason- reason and logic are based on ideals. To think that people 1- adhere to reason and logic is inherently illogical in itself; and that 2- the people running these 2 forms of business (subsidized vs. privatized) according the perfect model of each ideology is flawed. Your observation that the "socialist" system of education—in a very capitalist country—is flawed is true...in a capitalist country.

Your argument is that one (the "socialist" model) has the potential to be flawed, and in some (USA's) case, it is. My argument is that the other one ("capitalist" model) also has the potential to be flawed, and in our (Canada's) case, it is too.

My point is that there are examples of other businesses of the same type (capitalist) that do gouge "customers" (*I wouldn't consider myself a customer if paying for education), and do exploit necessities for their own gain.

You say, "go elsewhere", "you have choices"—who's going to pay for an electric car with batteries that die in 8 years? Who's going to pay for an ethanol fuel vehicle with no ethanol service stations around? Who's going to pay for $1.10/litre gasoline? Oh wait- we all do because we have no practical choice.

My final, underlying point of this all, was: Would you want to risk throwing away all subsidized options of education in favor of a privatized one? Or would you want both, with the option of choosing between either—after all, the government is their competition; wouldn't that be incentive enough to lower prices to become available to the less-than-middle-class?

 

[Omnis]

Sorry to rebute before Danoff, but he can clean up.

That's different—the competition and rivalry is huge with grocery stores; it isn't with private schools. They care about a dollar, yes- but they care about reputation and prestige more, which they can preserve by charging an astronomical amount.

Not when there is an open school market.

Yes it does, quite frequently. There are something like 10 million kids who are fed through donations in America.

Could you imagine how many of those kids would starve if there were no private charities to feed them?

A bit late if one lost their job, eh?

So, to compensate, we had better make sure the working class gets taxed, eh?

(That's a different situation here.)

No, it isn't.

...and since there isn't a mass quantity of private educations to choose from—nor will there be if it were instantaneously converted to a privatized system—what we're left with is religious schools, a couple hippie schools, and elitist ones.

Come again? Why, yes there would be. What a shallow statement. You'd be left with freedom of choice and create a demand for the type of school you want. With all of the students in this country, there sure as hell would be people ready to fill that demand.

Maybe not- but who's going to guarantee that level of education is provided? Government legislation? Trial and error (at the expense of your children), followed by some sort of FIA-esque Educational governing body to ensure a certain level is maintained?

Simple: whatever you've gotten the education for is going to guarantee that you're adequately educated. Going to college? Pass the SAT/ACT/CLAST and get accepted. Becoming a lawyer? Pass the bar exam. Want to be a steel worker? Complete your vocational training. Et cetera.

I never said the government was doing its' job (quite the opposite in fact, and why you're so upset)—just that it should be providing the basis of education to us for "free".

But the government is doing it's job. In fact, it's doing far more than its duty. That's exactly the problem.

In America, yes. According to an educational survey done by the OECD, all nordic countries but Denmark (which scored below average) scored in the above average bracket (Canada being #2), with America 1 place above Denmark.

American students don't care about how they stack up against Danes or Swedes. Like every individual, they act to attain their ends.

Not reason- reason and logic are based on ideals. To think that people 1- adhere to reason and logic is inherently illogical in itself; and that 2- the people running these 2 forms of business (subsidized vs. privatized) according the perfect model of each ideology is flawed. Your observation that the "socialist" system of education—in a very capitalist country—is flawed is true...in a capitalist country.

So you're refuting us on socialism in America and then agreeing with us on socialism in America?

Your argument is that one (the "socialist" model) has the potential to be flawed, and in some (USA's) case, it is. My argument is that the other one ("capitalist" model) also has the potential to be flawed, and in our (Canada's) case, it is too.

You can't have it both ways, though. Capitalism's only flaw is that governments love to mess with it. You keep talking about "subsidized" vs. privatized. Don't you realize that once a government subsidizes something, it kills off all or most of the alternatives? The reason why you're so worried or scared or have so many reservations over private schools is because of the fact that socialized schooling completely killed their abilities to function at affordable rates.

My point is that there are examples of other businesses of the same type (capitalist) that do gouge "customers" (*I wouldn't consider myself a customer if paying for education), and do exploit necessities for their own gain.

Sure they do when they're unchecked. If people are being "gouged" they'll be looking for alternatives. That's where those parents that were fired from that job band together and found their own school, bringing down prices. School is no different than any other service.

You say, "go elsewhere", "you have choices"—who's going to pay for an electric car with batteries that die in 8 years? Who's going to pay for an ethanol fuel vehicle with no ethanol service stations around? Who's going to pay for $1.10/litre gasoline? Oh wait- we all do because we have no practical choice.

(1) I will if the price is right. (2) If ethanol was really the messiah of alternatives, I'd sure as hell buy my ethanol vehicle and start an ethanol station to boot. (3) And what's usually the biggest barrier to entry keeping that practical choice from becoming available? The government.

Luckily, schools and education don't have the natural barriers to entry that the oil/fuel market has. The only thing holding them back is government intervention in the form of socialist school systems.

My final, underlying point of this all, was: Would you want to risk throwing away all subsidized options of education in favor of a privatized one? Or would you want both, with the option of choosing between either—after all, the government is their competition; wouldn't that be incentive enough to lower prices to become available to the less-than-middle-class?

Yes. As I said to Yssman, you just can't have it both ways. When you have government vs. private sector, you wind up with a private sector consisting of big business, oligopoly, rising prices, and everything you don't want. Look at healthcare. The government's role in education should be referee, just as it should be in every other part of the economy. The only way to lower prices is through competition within the private sector.

 

[YSSMAN]

Yssman, are you not reading my posts? Everything you want is what a free market delivers.

At what cost to the current system of education? How many teachers will be out of jobs? Furthermore, will private companies be willing to pay them enough for their otherwise underpaid services. Last time I checked, private schools pay far less than public ones, which already don't pay enough as it is...

The public education system works in some instances, and in others it clearly does not. When the system has been completely destroyed with too much regulation and legislation over the years, there comes a time when the government needs to do a bit of a reboot and clean stuff up. Can that happen?

Like I said, probably not. But certainly, there are modest reforms that can be done to help out.

Of course, one more hurdle is that its the states that actually control the schools, not the federal government. Like I said, its constitutionally guaranteed that students receive a free education here in Michigan, and since we're already out of cash, I doubt they would do anything to be able to support the cost of a market-based education system.

Furthermore, something that I'm not sure we've addressed, these market-based schools you continually talk about will likely require just as much government oversight as we would already have with the public education system. Beyond that, I don't think there is enough concrete evidence to prove that private schools perform better than public schools, that is, enough to justify the extra costs involved.

What do you mean by fair?

I mean fair in the sense that the schools that need and or deserve the money get it first before schools like mine (that are already swimming in money) get theirs. Certainly the standard rates would have to apply, but one would think that it would be better for the extra cash to be given to schools that need it?

...You know, the ones with asbestos problems, textbooks from 1977, running Apple IIs, etc...

I know my former school district donates a lot of their extra cash to the Grand Rapids Public schools, but it seems like it would be better in general for them to just have the money they need instead of having other schools give them theirs that they don't need...

===

Just my opinion: I don't have all of the answers, but I'm happy to discuss it.

 

[BayConRong]

In America, yes. According to an educational survey done by the OECD, all nordic countries but Denmark (which scored below average) scored in the above average bracket (Canada being #2), with America 1 place above Denmark.

and this means that everyone in my school district are abnormal considering that I score off the charts on the standardized tests we have and everyone at my school at least passes.

and were they all given the same tests? or were the OECD going off local standardized test results?