actually not as many. there were less people. parents were raising their kids better. back "in the day" they taught their kids to try harder and have pride in their work. plus there were less luxarys. now kids are more spoiled and take advantage of the easy life they have. ya there were slackers. just not near as many. and by the way i meant 20 not 21. haha.
Public Schools
- Thread starter Danoff
- 94 comments
- 2,974 views
actually not as many. there were less people. parents were raising their kids better. back "in the day" they taught their kids to try harder and have pride in their work. plus there were less luxarys. now kids are more spoiled and take advantage of the easy life they have. ya there were slackers. just not near as many. and by the way i meant 20 not 21. haha.
Because corporations work for the good of investors, that is, they are obligated to make money or no-one will invest in them.
In an unregulated enviroment, it would be in the best interest of the corporation to be a monopoly, because it could then charge whatever it wanted for its products.
It would also be in its best interest to use slavery, to cut costs on labour.
Monopoly is bad for capitalism because without competition there is little investment, less jobs, less research... etc, etc. which leads to a stagnant economy. In this sense you could call pure the economic system of communism a state-run monopoly displaying these problems.
Slavery is bad for the economy because it reduces consumers, which in return reduces the number of other companies , which would normally rely on these consumers. so there is less employment, leading to less consumers and it spirals.
Those are two examples of how I think that unrestricted capitalism can be its own worst enemy. However, we live in heavily regulated societies with lots and lots of corporate law to prevent this.
In an unregulated enviroment, it would be in the best interest of the corporation to be a monopoly, because it could then charge whatever it wanted for its products.
It would also be in its best interest to use slavery, to cut costs on labour.
Monopoly is bad for capitalism because without competition there is little investment, less jobs, less research... etc, etc. which leads to a stagnant economy. In this sense you could call pure the economic system of communism a state-run monopoly displaying these problems.
Slavery is bad for the economy because it reduces consumers, which in return reduces the number of other companies , which would normally rely on these consumers. so there is less employment, leading to less consumers and it spirals.
Those are two examples of how I think that unrestricted capitalism can be its own worst enemy. However, we live in heavily regulated societies with lots and lots of corporate law to prevent this.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,110
- Mile High City
Nope. Corporations work to make profits so that they can grow and grow. Why do they want to grow so much? Because then when its all said and done, they can sell their company for a ridiculous amount of money.
Yup. But thats extremely hard to do. The little guy is out there undercutting you all the time. Plus, youd be amazed at what people will stop using when it costs too much.
Except that that would infringe on the personal rights of others and what is government for if its not to protect personal rights. Thats why people would go to jail if you got shot or robbed, same thing with slavery.
Monopolies are bad for the people. But they dont happen often. I think a good argument could be made that there has never been a monopoly in American history. Some would say that there have been, but these are iffy cases. Regardless, its not hard to put laws in place to prevent them. It is, however, hard to enforce those laws in a way that doesnt infringe on the personal rights of business owners.
Yup slavery is bad for the economy but not necessary in capitalism and it infringes on personal rights.
We do live in a heavily regulated society, but there are far too many corporate laws that are chocking the economic growth of the country.
- 2,336
- Los Angeles, CA
- WRBWRXMAX
- Max Archer
I grew up in the LA public school system, one of the worst in the country. I can legitimately say that the system ruined my life.
I have Written Expressive Disorder, also known as Disgraphia. It's a condidtion somewhat opposite to Dyslexia. WED is, in effect, a situation in which the neurological pathways related to writing and symbolic manipulation are scrambled.
Imagine if someone took a computer keyboard and rerouted all the key connections. So, for example, pressing "A" would result in a "U". Imagine trying to type a coherent sentence with that keyboard, much less using that keyboard for everything. Now also imagine that those letter mismatches were changing constantly. Imagine trying to live with a brain that worked like that.
Now, add the fact that I spent almost all of elementary school with this condition undiagnosed. Imagine being insulted, demeaned, and punished by teachers, family, and other students because of this. While I eventually was able to conquer some of the physical effects of the disorder, the psychological effects remain with me to this day.
And because of the remaing effect, along with the depression and discouragement created by the worthless school system, I am still unable to pass second year algebra, despite the fact that I have an IQ of over 150. My grades were so consistently horrible that I eventually was kicked out of high school. I earned a diploma, through the California High School Profiency Exam program. But I have no grades, no school history, and lack the abilities necessary to make it through college even if I was accepted.
That's why I'm appalled at the public school situation. Because I know that if the personel and officials had done their job, and diagnosed my disability, and geven me the assistance I needed, I could have had a good life. Instead, here I am, contemplating a grim, bleak, future in low paying jobs. And I know I'm not the only one that has had an experience like this.
Something needs to change.
I have Written Expressive Disorder, also known as Disgraphia. It's a condidtion somewhat opposite to Dyslexia. WED is, in effect, a situation in which the neurological pathways related to writing and symbolic manipulation are scrambled.
Imagine if someone took a computer keyboard and rerouted all the key connections. So, for example, pressing "A" would result in a "U". Imagine trying to type a coherent sentence with that keyboard, much less using that keyboard for everything. Now also imagine that those letter mismatches were changing constantly. Imagine trying to live with a brain that worked like that.
Now, add the fact that I spent almost all of elementary school with this condition undiagnosed. Imagine being insulted, demeaned, and punished by teachers, family, and other students because of this. While I eventually was able to conquer some of the physical effects of the disorder, the psychological effects remain with me to this day.
And because of the remaing effect, along with the depression and discouragement created by the worthless school system, I am still unable to pass second year algebra, despite the fact that I have an IQ of over 150. My grades were so consistently horrible that I eventually was kicked out of high school. I earned a diploma, through the California High School Profiency Exam program. But I have no grades, no school history, and lack the abilities necessary to make it through college even if I was accepted.
That's why I'm appalled at the public school situation. Because I know that if the personel and officials had done their job, and diagnosed my disability, and geven me the assistance I needed, I could have had a good life. Instead, here I am, contemplating a grim, bleak, future in low paying jobs. And I know I'm not the only one that has had an experience like this.
Something needs to change.
- 2,336
- Los Angeles, CA
- WRBWRXMAX
- Max Archer
Hey, where did I say I was sitting on my ass? Honestly, my school problems aren't going to affect my true aspiration, which is to go to the LAPD academy, and work up to the position of Homicide Detective, so it hasn't trrly totally ruined my future, but it certainly has taken away many of my options. I suppose I should have said that I could say that it had ruined my life, as many people in my situation could have their dreams and hopes shattered. It's fortunate that my plans aren't hugely affected.
Still, I don't think I'll ever make enough to own that GT-R I've always wanted. Unless I marry a chick with some serious cash, that is.
Still, I don't think I'll ever make enough to own that GT-R I've always wanted. Unless I marry a chick with some serious cash, that is.
- 24,344
- Midlantic Area
- GTP_Duke
I'm not attacking or accusing you here, but I am questioning the assumption that it was entirely the school staff's job to diagnose you and prescribe a solution to your disability.
What did your parents do during this whole process? Did they take you to doctors or psychologists? Did they have you tested for anything identifiable? Did they take an active role in solving the problem, or did they expect the school to solve it for them?
- 2,336
- Los Angeles, CA
- WRBWRXMAX
- Max Archer
It officially was the school's responsibility. They had staff devoted exclusively to finding and rendering assistance in areas like this.
Those same officials assured my parents that I had no disability, even though they had a test (which they never thought to administer) that could have easily have identified my problem. So while my parents took me to psychologists, it was for all the wrong reasons. They all worked under the assumption that I refused to do work because I didn't want to.
It was only in fourth grade that someone suggested taking me for testing at a certain doctor who diagnosed my problem.
After that, the schools were legally obligated to render assistance. Yet, while they gave me the same damn test every year, and promised to help, they never delivered on their promises. Even informing my teachers that I had a disability could have helped. But, every year, I would discover that my teachers were never told a thing.
Eventually, it progressed to the point of insanity. This is pretty much a conversation with a district official, which actually happenned:
"Are you legally obligated to provide assistance?"
"yes" "
Can you?"
"yes"
"will you?"
"no"
"no? why not?!"
"explain to me what benefit it will be to the district"
"what about the welfare of the student?!"
"that's not our concern"
This is the state of the public school system. It's almost as bad a deregulation. They act as if they have no duty to the public, all they care about is making a profit.
Those same officials assured my parents that I had no disability, even though they had a test (which they never thought to administer) that could have easily have identified my problem. So while my parents took me to psychologists, it was for all the wrong reasons. They all worked under the assumption that I refused to do work because I didn't want to.
It was only in fourth grade that someone suggested taking me for testing at a certain doctor who diagnosed my problem.
After that, the schools were legally obligated to render assistance. Yet, while they gave me the same damn test every year, and promised to help, they never delivered on their promises. Even informing my teachers that I had a disability could have helped. But, every year, I would discover that my teachers were never told a thing.
Eventually, it progressed to the point of insanity. This is pretty much a conversation with a district official, which actually happenned:
"Are you legally obligated to provide assistance?"
"yes" "
Can you?"
"yes"
"will you?"
"no"
"no? why not?!"
"explain to me what benefit it will be to the district"
"what about the welfare of the student?!"
"that's not our concern"
This is the state of the public school system. It's almost as bad a deregulation. They act as if they have no duty to the public, all they care about is making a profit.
- 23
If you really had a conversation that went like that, especially in Kalifornia, you wouldn't need to worry about a career. You'd be set for life with the proceeds from the lawsuit.
- 1,823
Being as I've had plenty of experience in public school, and private, I'd say public schools are about 1/4 how good the teachers are, 1/2 the student's willingness to learn, and 1/4 the parent's responsibility to make sure their kids are doing OK.
I learned how to read and write when I was 3, because my mother insisted that I have a good education. Throughout all my years of school, public and private, the only times I never learned anything new were the times when I just wasn't trying to learn. I used to finish my work way ahead of the class, and then skip ahead to the next assignment and start studying that out of boredom.
Now, I should add the fact that, out of every school I've ever been to (6 public, 2 private), I was kicked out of every one multiple times, and expelled from every one (I'm sure someone will comment on this, but it's done and over with, so people shouldn't worry about it) except for the last high school I went to.
In the schools I went to, what you learned was entirely dependant on what you wanted to learn. I can't say whether or not it's completely like that in all schools, but what you learn is largely based off of what you're willing to learn.
Also note, last year and two years ago, I was "home schooled". I didn't actually have the text books, but I still made an effort to learn the material, and scored grade equivelant of 13 on every subject except math (I'm no good at any of it but geometry).
So, are public schools good? Yes, I think so. Are private schools better? Maybe so, but I didn't notice a big difference between the public and private schools I went to. Cost effective? Couldn't tell you, but it's probably for the better that they exist.
I learned how to read and write when I was 3, because my mother insisted that I have a good education. Throughout all my years of school, public and private, the only times I never learned anything new were the times when I just wasn't trying to learn. I used to finish my work way ahead of the class, and then skip ahead to the next assignment and start studying that out of boredom.
Now, I should add the fact that, out of every school I've ever been to (6 public, 2 private), I was kicked out of every one multiple times, and expelled from every one (I'm sure someone will comment on this, but it's done and over with, so people shouldn't worry about it) except for the last high school I went to.
In the schools I went to, what you learned was entirely dependant on what you wanted to learn. I can't say whether or not it's completely like that in all schools, but what you learn is largely based off of what you're willing to learn.
Also note, last year and two years ago, I was "home schooled". I didn't actually have the text books, but I still made an effort to learn the material, and scored grade equivelant of 13 on every subject except math (I'm no good at any of it but geometry).
So, are public schools good? Yes, I think so. Are private schools better? Maybe so, but I didn't notice a big difference between the public and private schools I went to. Cost effective? Couldn't tell you, but it's probably for the better that they exist.
Sorry, I thought people had lost interest, if you like, I'll continue.
you say 'nope' but then agree. Saying that they 'grow and grow so people are interesting in buying them' - is exactly the same as 'make money so that people invest in them'.
It's the basic principle of capitalism (capital - invest - get it?) and is enshrined in law.
not is an unregulated enviroment. large corporations can use lots of things to wipe out smaller competitors. A favourite used to be undercutting - you sell your product at a much smaller price than the 'little guy', absorbing the cost with capital, then once the 'little guy' has gone broke, continue your monopoly.
Or you could do the microsoft thing and buy out your opponents.
Involve them in costly legal disputes.
Collude with suppliers.
And the list goes on...
That's because there are laws preventing them. Monopolies would and do happen without regulation.
There already are laws against monopoly, when the law is enforced the business will lose out, which is why there are no monopolies. Also, note that capitalism is not at all linked to personal freedoms. It's an economic system.
It is not necessary, but I'm sure some companies would jump at the chance to use it if there were no regulation.
Personal rights are not linked to the economic system.
None the less, some legislation is required otherwise the conditions stated above can occur. Which is why I maintain that some regulation is required to prevent capitalism from being bad for itself.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,110
- Mile High City
Rather than go point by point... I'll make it quick. What you're citing are not problems with the model of capitalism, you're pointing out that capitalism is not sufficient to describe the manner in which society acts.
I don't think anyone would claim that an economic structure is sufficient. It is also necessary to have laws in place that protect personal rights and freedoms.
So these points you make are not capitalism being self distructive, they're saying that capitalism is not more than an economic policy, which is pointing out the obvious.
Also, you defeated your own argument about slavery. And we're not talking about the same thing when you say invest and I say buy. And capitalism and freedom are linked and imply each other. You cannot have freedom without having a free economic policy. Capitalsim is the free economic structure.
I don't think anyone would claim that an economic structure is sufficient. It is also necessary to have laws in place that protect personal rights and freedoms.
So these points you make are not capitalism being self distructive, they're saying that capitalism is not more than an economic policy, which is pointing out the obvious.
Also, you defeated your own argument about slavery. And we're not talking about the same thing when you say invest and I say buy. And capitalism and freedom are linked and imply each other. You cannot have freedom without having a free economic policy. Capitalsim is the free economic structure.
- 1,645
I only have one major gripe about the public school system, and that would be the way a school operates.
In history the other day, we were talking about 19th century factories, and the Industrial Revolution. While doing my homework, I realized an amazing parallel between 19th century factories, and public (and heck, even private) schools.
Similarities
1. Start kids at as early an age as 4
2. Bells dictate when class begins and ends
3. Halls are monitered
4. Teachers are the law, and can hand out punishment
5. Working conditions aren't the greatest
6. We aren't paid
7. Students are taught to obey
There are more, but at the moment, I'm freezing, and I have to shovel, and I have homework. $0.02
In history the other day, we were talking about 19th century factories, and the Industrial Revolution. While doing my homework, I realized an amazing parallel between 19th century factories, and public (and heck, even private) schools.
Similarities
1. Start kids at as early an age as 4
2. Bells dictate when class begins and ends
3. Halls are monitered
4. Teachers are the law, and can hand out punishment
5. Working conditions aren't the greatest
6. We aren't paid
7. Students are taught to obey
There are more, but at the moment, I'm freezing, and I have to shovel, and I have homework. $0.02
- 1,645
I'm not saying that they are similar, I'm just saying that many policies of public schooling are derived from factories.
Wrong on that also. A capitalist system has two features:
a. private companies and
b. private investment in those companies.
Although most modern societies have both these, there are many older societies that boast many personal freedoms to the majority of the population that were never capitalist.
Two spring immediately to mind, the early republican Romans and the democratic Athenians. So no, Freedom does not imply Capitalism.
I never said that an economic system could be standalone. By definition there must be a social system of some type, even if the two are closely linked (such as in communism)
I would also like you to point out how I "contradicted" myself, atm I think you're making it up.
a. private companies and
b. private investment in those companies.
Although most modern societies have both these, there are many older societies that boast many personal freedoms to the majority of the population that were never capitalist.
Two spring immediately to mind, the early republican Romans and the democratic Athenians. So no, Freedom does not imply Capitalism.
I never said that an economic system could be standalone. By definition there must be a social system of some type, even if the two are closely linked (such as in communism)
I would also like you to point out how I "contradicted" myself, atm I think you're making it up.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,110
- Mile High City
You defeated your argument about slavery by saying
The only system that allows merchants to trade freely with proper protection is capitalism. You listed societies that are non-free but are capitalist. Name some that are free but not capitalist.
Also note that my statement
Is talking about one direction of implication, even though I said otherwise. I was never really thinking that capitalism implied freedom, only that freedom implied capitalism.
The only system that allows merchants to trade freely with proper protection is capitalism. You listed societies that are non-free but are capitalist. Name some that are free but not capitalist.
Also note that my statement
Is talking about one direction of implication, even though I said otherwise. I was never really thinking that capitalism implied freedom, only that freedom implied capitalism.
You are confused as to what Capitalism is. Capitalism is a system that basically started with modern economics. Adam Smith is best thought of as the father of capitalism, as it is his theories that have lead to Capitalism in its current form. That's only 250 odd years old.
Just because you have freedom for merchants, does not mean you have a Capitalism.
I have listed 2 societies that were free, but not capitalist.
Just because you have freedom for merchants, does not mean you have a Capitalism.
I have listed 2 societies that were free, but not capitalist.
- 24,344
- Midlantic Area
- GTP_Duke
How exactly were ancient Rome and Athens not "capitalist", and how exactly were they "free"? Certain classes in both city-states operated under capitalist principles: landowners grew and sold food and other resources, merchants retailed those products, and importers travelled the Mediterranean trading goods from place to place.
Yet at the same time, despite the nice sound of "Athenian Democracy", voting rights were restricted to adult male landowners. In Rome few people had a role in governmental determination; the Senate was usually picked by money or favor. Also, both societies depended on slave labor to great extent.
So neither Rome nor Athens was non-Capitalist, nor were they free societies. I think you need to study a little more before you call someone who knows what they're talking about "confused".
Yet at the same time, despite the nice sound of "Athenian Democracy", voting rights were restricted to adult male landowners. In Rome few people had a role in governmental determination; the Senate was usually picked by money or favor. Also, both societies depended on slave labor to great extent.
So neither Rome nor Athens was non-Capitalist, nor were they free societies. I think you need to study a little more before you call someone who knows what they're talking about "confused".
I like this definition:
An economic system in which individuals and companies own the main means of production, through which they hope to make profits. The government would not be involved in business affairs in a pure capitalist economy. The United States is not a capitalist economy, but rather a Mixed Economy.
(from investordictionary.com)
Which is why I would not describe their economies as capitalist.
The same site would define most non-modern economies as market-economies:
An economy in which prices are mostly determined by the laws of supply and demand.
However the exact nature and name to give it is currently the subject of much debate, in which I don't think any of the protagonists would describe the system as 'Capitalist'.
As for freedom of Roman or Democratic Athenian societies, they were not free, but can be compared with, say, America pre-emancipation and 'universal' sufferage. As this system also had slavery and only males could vote.
I don't think any society could be described as 'fully free' unless it were in anarchy - where anyone can do as they please.
An economic system in which individuals and companies own the main means of production, through which they hope to make profits. The government would not be involved in business affairs in a pure capitalist economy. The United States is not a capitalist economy, but rather a Mixed Economy.
(from investordictionary.com)
Which is why I would not describe their economies as capitalist.
The same site would define most non-modern economies as market-economies:
An economy in which prices are mostly determined by the laws of supply and demand.
However the exact nature and name to give it is currently the subject of much debate, in which I don't think any of the protagonists would describe the system as 'Capitalist'.
As for freedom of Roman or Democratic Athenian societies, they were not free, but can be compared with, say, America pre-emancipation and 'universal' sufferage. As this system also had slavery and only males could vote.
I don't think any society could be described as 'fully free' unless it were in anarchy - where anyone can do as they please.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,110
- Mile High City
Wrong again. You can't be truely free unless your basic rights are protected (so that you cannot be enslaved). If we lived in anarchy we would each live under fear of the militant group that had the most guns. That's not freedom.
If you're going to get picky on me and say that America is not capitalist because it doesn't exactly follow capitalist theory, I'm going to say that America isn't truely free either.
However, I think any reasonable person would say that America is largely free (today, not pre-emancipation) and that America is capitalist.
