Deficit Denial?

[eflatminor]

education is a hard target to mark, but when it comes to basics there is no excuse. like having reasonable class sizes (~15 as opposed to ~30) or paying a competitive salary so that any teacher who doesnt want to retire to poverty has to escape their profession, and the only ones who remain are those that cant.

Or, we could end the government monopoly on affordable education and let the people choose which schools and teachers suit their needs.

Once again, central planners that are just SURE they know what's best for everyone else...

 

[Underhill]

education is a hard target to mark, but when it comes to basics there is no excuse. like having reasonable class sizes (~15 as opposed to ~30) or paying a competitive salary so that any teacher who doesnt want to retire to poverty has to escape their profession, and the only ones who remain are those that cant.

Or, we could end the government monopoly on affordable education and let the people choose which schools and teachers suit their needs.

Once again, central planners that are just SURE they know what's best for everyone else...

Ahh yes. But you are forgetting one important detail.

They do know better than most people. Not everyone, but the majority of people have no clue.

 

[eflatminor]

education is a hard target to mark, but when it comes to basics there is no excuse. like having reasonable class sizes (~15 as opposed to ~30) or paying a competitive salary so that any teacher who doesnt want to retire to poverty has to escape their profession, and the only ones who remain are those that cant.

Or, we could end the government monopoly on affordable education and let the people choose which schools and teachers suit their needs.

Once again, central planners that are just SURE they know what's best for everyone else...

Ahh yes. But you are forgetting one important detail.

They do know better than most people. Not everyone, but the majority of people have no clue.

Spoken with the arrogance of a true central planner. Thank you for proving my point beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Personally, I believe individuals have an inalienable right to choose for themselves, to do what they believe is best for themselves and their families. It's what we used to call freedom.

 

[ReallyMeow]

A free market isnt the default state of the word, it is produced with meticulous govt oversight. You arnt fee to lie, you arnt free to coerce, you arnt free to hold a monopoly.

 

[Underhill]

Or, we could end the government monopoly on affordable education and let the people choose which schools and teachers suit their needs.

Once again, central planners that are just SURE they know what's best for everyone else...

Ahh yes. But you are forgetting one important detail.

They do know better than most people. Not everyone, but the majority of people have no clue.

Spoken with the arrogance of a true central planner. Thank you for proving my point beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Personally, I believe individuals have an inalienable right to choose for themselves, to do what they believe is best for themselves and their families. It's what we used to call freedom.

I think arrogance is claiming that the average American with no educational background knows better than those who's life long goal has been the education of our children.

So what is the downside? Do you think someone out there is scheming to undereducate your kids? Do you think think anyone involved in education, from the top on down to the teachers, wants kids to fail?

The problem with education is not the schools. It's the parents. We've become a country that believes, thanks primarily to the media, that those who are successful got there by luck. That a hundred dollars of lottery tickets is a retirement plan.

And these are the people you think should be in charge of education.

 

[editec]

We've become a country that believes, thanks primarily to the media, that those who are successful got there by luck

I went to school with the scions of America.

Let me tell ya, not one of them was wealthy because their own hard work or brilliance.

I'd call their happy state of affairs "luck".


Now that is NOT to say that every wealthy person just got lucky.

But to deny the fact that FATE plays a role in one's life is overstating things a bit, doncha think?

 

[Underhill]

We've become a country that believes, thanks primarily to the media, that those who are successful got there by luck

I went to school with the scions of America.

Let me tell ya, not one of them was wealthy because their own hard work or brilliance.

I'd call their happy state of affairs "luck".


Now that is NOT to say that every wealthy person just got lucky.

But to deny the fact that FATE plays a role in one's life is overstating things a bit, doncha think?

I would say that is true more of the rich than the successful. And it's an important distinction. Success implies hard work. Those born rich, or who fall into their positions thanks to family connections are not successful, simply lucky.

And there are a lot of people who are successful in life and who worked hard to get there. Of course my definition of success doesn't entirely line up with the medias. I would call success having enough money to live comfortably without undue stress while enjoying life and the relationships you have with those around you.

But either way, a society who focuses on the lucky and not the successful, will not prosper.

 

[eflatminor]

So what is the downside?

The current state of affordable education in this country.

Skyrocketing costs, lousy results and a shameful drop out rate among minorities. Without competition and consumer choice, that's what we get.

 

[eflatminor]

A free market isnt the default state of the word, it is produced with meticulous govt oversight.

I would agree with you, but you're wrong. It has to do with the division of labor and voluntary choice.

You arnt fee to lie, you arnt free to coerce, you arnt free to hold a monopoly.

I suggest you have much to learn about economics. For your consideration:

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Liberalism-Ludwig-von-Mises/dp/1469971917/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1360769047&sr=8-6&keywords=ludwig+von+mises]Liberalism: Ludwig von Mises: 9781469971919: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0048EJXCK/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_1?pf_rd_p=486539851&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=0226320618&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=0PAQC6NASSBXWKCRWB2X]The Road to Serfdom: Text and Documents--The Definitive Edition (The Collected Works of F. A. Hayek, Volume 2): F. A. Hayek, Bruce Caldwell: Amazon.com: Kindle Store[/ame]

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Milton-Friedman-Influence-Free-Market-Economist/dp/0857190369/ref=sr_1_10?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1360769198&sr=1-10&keywords=milton+friedman]Milton Friedman: A Concise Guide to the Ideas and Influence of the Free-Market Economist: Eamonn Butler, Eamonn F. Butler: 9780857190369: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]

 

[Underhill]

So what is the downside?

The current state of affordable education in this country.

Skyrocketing costs, lousy results and a shameful drop out rate among minorities. Without competition and consumer choice, that's what we get.

Right, except in those test markets where they have opened it up, the outcomes aren't markedly better. Some are great. Some average. Some below average. Oh there are great charter schools out there. But there are also great public schools out there. My kids public school boast a 90+% graduation rate.

I think the difference is easy to see. It's the parents. In poor neighborhoods where parents are uneducated and don't see the value in education, kids do poorly.

How are charter schools and more choice going to fix that? The answer is they aren't.

Look at countries with the highest educational standards in the world and you find it is not countries with lots of private schools. It's countries where the culture puts education on top of their priority list.

 

[Redbone]

The debt is so large that it is impossible to pay off, Right now it is at 16.4 trillion dollars and the ceiling has been, or shortly will be, raised to 20 trillion dollars.
If you pay a billion dollars a year (plus the interest) it would take a thousand years to pay back each trillion dollars. That means 16000 years and it is still not paid off.
If you pay 100 billion dollars each year (plus interest) then paying off 16 trillion dollars takes 160 years.
To pay off the national debt in a single presidential term would require paying 4 trillion dollars (plus interest) for each of the four years. The taxes collected last year were less than 3 trillion dollars. That includes Social Security taxes that are separate from income tax.

One can destroy a nation in the same way as a company. By forcing it into bankruptcy that forces drastic and violent change . A pattern I see being employed now. One must first destroy the existing house before building a new one on the same property. We are seeing the systematic demolition of the old house now. Problem is the house is not empty nor have its occupants been informed that it is being demolished. When the plaster starts falling and the walls start buckling a lot of people will wake up and decide to abandon the house , the rest will decide to go out and stop the demolition. When that happens America and the rest of the world will quickly discover what has been being purposely done to our nation.

 

[eflatminor]

So what is the downside?

The current state of affordable education in this country.

Skyrocketing costs, lousy results and a shameful drop out rate among minorities. Without competition and consumer choice, that's what we get.

Right, except in those test markets where they have opened it up, the outcomes aren't markedly better.

The market for affordable education has never been "opened up". Charter schools do not represent anything close to a free market. They're still government controlled, from what's in the text books to how many tater tots are served at lunch.

Perhaps Carolyn Lochhead said it best:

"Public educators, like Soviet farmers, lack any incentive to produce results, innovate, to be efficient, to make the kinds of of difficult changes that private firms operating in a competitive market must make to survive."

 

[Underhill]

The market for affordable education has never been "opened up". Charter schools do not represent anything close to a free market. They're still government controlled, from what's in the text books to how many tater tots are served at lunch.

Perhaps Carolyn Lochhead said it best:

"Public educators, like Soviet farmers, lack any incentive to produce results, innovate, to be efficient, to make the kinds of of difficult changes that private firms operating in a competitive market must make to survive."

Wow, what a load of shit.

There is a difference between a farmer growing potatoes and a teacher trying to educate kids. Ideally about 15-20 differences in each classroom.

 

[eflatminor]

The market for affordable education has never been "opened up". Charter schools do not represent anything close to a free market. They're still government controlled, from what's in the text books to how many tater tots are served at lunch.

Perhaps Carolyn Lochhead said it best:

"Public educators, like Soviet farmers, lack any incentive to produce results, innovate, to be efficient, to make the kinds of of difficult changes that private firms operating in a competitive market must make to survive."

Wow, what a load of shit.

There is a difference between a farmer growing potatoes and a teacher trying to educate kids. Ideally about 15-20 differences in each classroom.

Strawman argument.

But feel free to explain to us how public school teachers innovate, operate efficiently, and produce results their customers demand. What choice do those customers have if they're not rich enough to afford the choice private education offers?

The fact remains that the government monopoly on affordable education has produced crappy results and skyrocketing costs, just like any centrally controlled market. Sorry if that doesn't fit your agenda.

 

[Underhill]

The market for affordable education has never been "opened up". Charter schools do not represent anything close to a free market. They're still government controlled, from what's in the text books to how many tater tots are served at lunch.

Perhaps Carolyn Lochhead said it best:

"Public educators, like Soviet farmers, lack any incentive to produce results, innovate, to be efficient, to make the kinds of of difficult changes that private firms operating in a competitive market must make to survive."

Wow, what a load of shit.

There is a difference between a farmer growing potatoes and a teacher trying to educate kids. Ideally about 15-20 differences in each classroom.

Strawman argument.

But feel free to explain to us how public school teachers innovate, operate efficiently, and produce results their customers demand. What choice do those customers have if they're not rich enough to afford the choice private education offers?

The fact remains that the government monopoly on affordable education has produced crappy results and skyrocketing costs, just like any centrally controlled market. Sorry if that doesn't fit your agenda.

It isn't true.

You can see what our education puts out, the potential, if you look at schools in the best neighborhoods. Those schools turn out a lot of well educated kids.

What you are trying to claim is that because some schools don't meet that same level of education, the whole system is faulty.

But clearly that just isn't the case. The problem is with the parents in these neighborhoods.

As for innovation, go to the web. There are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of innovations across the country on any given day made by public school teachers.

 

[Underhill]

Oh and about the straw man.

You posted this quote,

"Public educators, like Soviet farmers, lack any incentive to produce results, innovate, to be efficient, to make the kinds of of difficult changes that private firms operating in a competitive market must make to survive."

Lack any incentive....

And I pointed out the incentive.

Please explain to me how that is a straw man?

 

[eflatminor]

Wow, what a load of shit.

There is a difference between a farmer growing potatoes and a teacher trying to educate kids. Ideally about 15-20 differences in each classroom.

Strawman argument.

But feel free to explain to us how public school teachers innovate, operate efficiently, and produce results their customers demand. What choice do those customers have if they're not rich enough to afford the choice private education offers?

The fact remains that the government monopoly on affordable education has produced crappy results and skyrocketing costs, just like any centrally controlled market. Sorry if that doesn't fit your agenda.

It isn't true.

You can see what our education puts out, the potential, if you look at schools in the best neighborhoods. Those schools turn out a lot of well educated kids.

Even better educated are those kids that went to private schools. Now why should kids of more modest means not have choice in education?

What you are trying to claim is that because some schools don't meet that same level of education, the whole system is faulty.

The whole system is faulty because the whole system would be so much better for ALL students if they had competition and choice. You don't get that with monopolies, particularly government controlled monopolies.

But clearly that just isn't the case. The problem is with the parents in these neighborhoods.

Right, parents don't know what's best for their kids, government does...

As for innovation, go to the web. There are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of innovations across the country on any given day made by public school teachers.

Oh my goodness that's precious. Yea, all those public teachers out there fighting every day to earn the tuition dollars of their prospective customers...

Horse hockey.

 

[eflatminor]

Oh and about the straw man.

You posted this quote,

"Public educators, like Soviet farmers, lack any incentive to produce results, innovate, to be efficient, to make the kinds of of difficult changes that private firms operating in a competitive market must make to survive."

Lack any incentive....

And I pointed out the incentive.

Please explain to me how that is a straw man?

And what would that incentive be?

They face no competition for affordable education. They face no need to earn their customer's education dollars. Their customers have no choice in the matter.

So, tell us, with specificity please, what is the incentive for public teachers to produce excellent results and to operate efficiently and cost effectively?

 

[ReallyMeow]

Exactly what magical elixir do private schools posses which public schools are innately prohibited from possessing? Nothing. Its a marketing gimmick. Just like housing prices always go up, you are a chump and you are going to be taken for a ride.

Republican-backed for-profit school caught deleting bad student grades | The Raw Story

 

[eflatminor]

Exactly what magical elixir do private schools posses which public schools are innately prohibited from possessing?

The pressure of competition. The existence of which requires that providers please their customers, lest they loose them and therefore loose their very livelihood. In public education, we have exactly the opposite: no choice, no competition, and it's next to impossible to fire anyone...the results of which are self evident.

Nothing. Its a marketing gimmick. Just like housing prices always go up, you are a chump and you are going to be taken for a ride.

One, this is supposed to be clean. Two, I haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about.