How to raise employment

[akelch]

You dont get to determine what is a cogent argument or not. And you calling me delusional is rich, after you've done nothing but spouted a bunch of bullshit you can't support.

Ah, but I can call you delusional. Because, you see, you are. You are making the argument that other countries education systems are immaterial. I see that as self serving and stupid. You would need to do some research. I have done so. But this is not math. There is no right or wrong. Just base logic, which is obvious enough: you should never invent wheels if it has been done before by someone else. And, if there is a good idea, like yours of private education, then it surely has been done successfully somewhere else. So, you should look. Then determine if it is material or not. Not determine it is not material, and refuse to look.

You can call me Barack Obama if you want. Doesn't make it true.
We did not have public education in this country until the mid 19th century. And we did just fine. England worked about the same.
On the flip side, the cultural differences between the US and, e.g. Singapore are so huge you cannot attribute academic performance solely to their educational system.
You lose. Again.

If you all are interested....Milton Friedman and mix group talk about education. All sides are represented.

http://vimeo.com/m/11501693

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Ah, but I can call you delusional. Because, you see, you are. You are making the argument that other countries education systems are immaterial. I see that as self serving and stupid. You would need to do some research. I have done so. But this is not math. There is no right or wrong. Just base logic, which is obvious enough: you should never invent wheels if it has been done before by someone else. And, if there is a good idea, like yours of private education, then it surely has been done successfully somewhere else. So, you should look. Then determine if it is material or not. Not determine it is not material, and refuse to look.

You can call me Barack Obama if you want. Doesn't make it true.
We did not have public education in this country until the mid 19th century. And we did just fine. England worked about the same.
On the flip side, the cultural differences between the US and, e.g. Singapore are so huge you cannot attribute academic performance solely to their educational system.
You lose. Again.

If you all are interested....Milton Friedman and mix group talk about education. All sides are represented.

Free To Choose (1980) Vol. 6 - What's Wrong With Our Schools on Vimeo

let me quess, Friedman wants change since our kids are about the dumbest in the civilized world and the liberal unions want the status quo since they don't care about our kids??

 

[akelch]

No...it is a good program if you care to watch it.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

No...it is a good program if you care to watch it.

let me quess, Friedman wants change since our kids are about the dumbest in the civilized world and the liberal unions want the status quo since they don't care about our kids??

 

[jaymiewilson]

What do you guys think?

I think until you understand what money and debt really are?


You will forever be fooled.


Read a book about macro economics.

Understanding accounting principles will NOT help you understand why everything you have been taught about economics is WRONG.

Good idea!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

"Stimulus" is a joke. It is the most discredited theory out there.

OMG yes, government does not invent products so what ever it spends is wasted. All economic progress from the stone age to here came from private sector inventions.
.

It rests on the idea that there is a multiplier effect of gov't spending. There isn't.

imagine the perfect ignorance required to think that when they steal your money and spent it, it multiplies, but when you spend your own hard earned money it does not!!

I do think though that the liberal idiocy rest on the idea that government spending might instantly increases the velocity of money. While this may be true, especially if they can find shovel ready projects, it is important to remember that velocity does not lead to growth, just to churning, churning or mal investment that crowds out real sustainable private sector investment and growth.

 

[The Rabbi]

Except we've seen studies that show the "multiplier" is less than 1. That means for every dollar the gov't spends, less than one dollar is actually created in the economy. Which makes sense. You are taxing from productive people and giving it to inefficient people.

 

[Rshermr]

It's not relevant because there are dozens of other socio-economic factors at play that would equally explain a better outcome than we get. The proof is looking at children of immigrants who come here but attend US public schools. They always outperform their native born peers.

How do you know those socio-economic factors aren't the real weakness in our education system?

I dont.
Except we've had similar SE factors for 50 years and education was much better 50 years ago.

Was it. Opinion, or do you have some proof? I am pretty sure it is opinion, and you know how much I respect your opinion.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Except we've seen studies that show the "multiplier" is less than 1.

not to mention that the effective multiplier from private sector spending must be 10 times that of public sector spending.
After all, the private sector invents new products that grew the economy from the stone age to here while the government bureaucrats have the exact oppposite soviet mentality. I wonder if Steve Jobs considered working as a libturd bureaucrat?

I wonder what the multiplier was on Stalin's and Mao's 5 year stimulus plans.

 

[JimmieD]

Except we've seen studies that show the "multiplier" is less than 1. That means for every dollar the gov't spends, less than one dollar is actually created in the economy. Which makes sense. You are taxing from productive people and giving it to inefficient people.

There is no consistent measure of the fiscal multiplier. Estimates range anywhere from -.5 to 2. This could be due to the statistical tests that are used, the parameters that are used, the initial conditions, the assumptions of the model, the assumption that the multiplier doesn't fluctuate over time, etc... This should cause us to pause before using such a thing for actual policy since finding the actual fiscal multiplier (if it even exists) depends on selecting the correct model.

 

[boedicca]

How much economic growth have we gotten for $6T of additional debt since Obama took office?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

How much economic growth have we gotten for $6T of additional debt since Obama took office?

yes the economy should be in ultra hyperdrive!! And just think we have the $500 billion Christmans churning going on now. That will mean super ultra hyperdrive for sure!!

 

[The Rabbi]

How do you know those socio-economic factors aren't the real weakness in our education system?

I dont.
Except we've had similar SE factors for 50 years and education was much better 50 years ago.

Was it. Opinion, or do you have some proof? I am pretty sure it is opinion, and you know how much I respect your opinion.

So you have proof that the sociology of this country has changed radically over the last 30 years to explain the steady drop in standardized scores?
No, of course not. Just running your mouth.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Except we've seen studies that show the "multiplier" is less than 1. That means for every dollar the gov't spends, less than one dollar is actually created in the economy. Which makes sense. You are taxing from productive people and giving it to inefficient people.

There is no consistent measure of the fiscal multiplier. Estimates range anywhere from -.5 to 2. This could be due to the statistical tests that are used, the parameters that are used, the initial conditions, the assumptions of the model, the assumption that the multiplier doesn't fluctuate over time, etc... This should cause us to pause before using such a thing for actual policy since finding the actual fiscal multiplier (if it even exists) depends on selecting the correct model.

Well firstly it depends on a theory and then on evidence. Have you ever heard of a theory that could explain how stealing someone's money for bureaucrats to spend makes that money magical rather than depressing ??

The truth is, its magical to brainwashed Marxist liberals not because it stimulates the economy but because it fulfills the deadly Marxist lunacy that killed 200 million about how the rich stole the money they have through capitalism.

Is it coincidental that liberals support every kind of new welfare scam there is, and the luney tunes multiplier too?

 

[The Rabbi]

Except we've seen studies that show the "multiplier" is less than 1. That means for every dollar the gov't spends, less than one dollar is actually created in the economy. Which makes sense. You are taxing from productive people and giving it to inefficient people.

There is no consistent measure of the fiscal multiplier. Estimates range anywhere from -.5 to 2. This could be due to the statistical tests that are used, the parameters that are used, the initial conditions, the assumptions of the model, the assumption that the multiplier doesn't fluctuate over time, etc... This should cause us to pause before using such a thing for actual policy since finding the actual fiscal multiplier (if it even exists) depends on selecting the correct model.

Estimates are called gueeses in the real world. Robert Barro has actually studied the issue and he concludes it is less than 1.
Here's an artcle about it.
The Myth of the Multiplier - Reason.com

 

[Rshermr]

I dont.
Except we've had similar SE factors for 50 years and education was much better 50 years ago.

Was it. Opinion, or do you have some proof? I am pretty sure it is opinion, and you know how much I respect your opinion.

So you have proof that the sociology of this country has changed radically over the last 30 years to explain the steady drop in standardized scores?
No, of course not. Just running your mouth.

What I said, me poor con dipshit, is do you have proof that education was better 50 years ago. It is your assertion. I feel no reason to show anything. You waste time by posting dogma, then expect someone else do disprove it. Try being a little less lazy, and actually prove your statement. If you can. Which I thoroughly doubt. Because, Rabbi, you never, ever do. Because, Rabbi, you are way to lazy. Just a typical con, posting dogma, and expecting someone to believe you.
dipshit.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Try being a little less lazy, and actually prove your statement.

it would be a silly game to play because of course the proof would never be proof to a goof anti-American liberal.

Why don't you for once show us proof (since you're the expert on proof) that one substantive thing about liberalism is not based on pure ignorance.

Show us how its done or admit to being just another low IQ liberal.

 

[Rshermr]

So Rabbi says:

We did not have public education in this country until the mid 19th century. And we did just fine.

You are wrong about public education, of course. It did exist prior to the mid 1800's.

1647
The General Court of the Massachusetts Bay Colony decrees that every town of fifty families should have an elementary school and that every town of 100 families should have a Latin school. The goal is to ensure that Puritan children learn to read the Bible and receive basic information about their Calvinist religion.

1779
Thomas Jefferson proposes a two-track educational system, with different tracks in his words for "the laboring and the learned." Scholarship would allow a very few of the laboring class to advance, Jefferson says, by "raking a few geniuses from the rubbish."

1785
The Continental Congress (before the U.S. Constitution was ratified) passes a law calling for a survey of the "Northwest Territory" which included what was to become the state of Ohio. The law created "townships," reserving a portion of each township for a local school. From these "land grants" eventually came the U.S. system of "land grant universities," the state public universities that exist today. Of course in order to create these townships, the Continental Congress assumes it has the right to give away or sell land that is already occupied by Native people.

1790
Pennsylvania state constitution calls for free public education but only for poor children. It is expected that rich people will pay for their children's schooling.

1805
New York Public School Society formed by wealthy businessmen to provide education for poor children. Schools are run on the "Lancasterian" model, in which one "master" can teach hundreds of students in a single room. The master gives a rote lesson to the older students, who then pass it down to the younger students. These schools emphasize discipline and obedience qualities that factory owners want in their workers.

1817
A petition presented in the Boston Town Meeting calls for establishing of a system of free public primary schools. Main support comes from local merchants, businessmen and wealthier artisans. Many wage earners oppose it, because they don't want to pay the taxes.

1820
First public high school in the U.S., Boston English, opens.

1827
Massachusetts passes a law making all grades of public school open to all pupils free of charge.
Applied Research Center - Historical Timeline of Public Education in the US
And you sounded so sure of yourself. Not that the 1850's have a lot to do with today. We were a primarily agrarian economy. You could get by pretty well without education. No aeronautical engineers needed. No software developers. Etc, etc. Or had you not noticed.

England worked about the same.

As what? As the US did, or as you think the us did?
You would be wrong again. Public education in england has been going on longer than in the US, and has been more widespread. Sorry, very little private education there, except for the wealthy.

On the flip side, the cultural differences between the US and, e.g. Singapore are so huge you cannot attribute academic performance solely to their educational system.

Who said solely. But it is not just Singapore. There is Germany, France, the UK, Spain, France, portugal, and a number of others with better systems. All predominately public systems.

You lose. Again.

Who told you that you had the authority to determine who wins or looses. You should be very, very angry with them. Because they lied to you.

 

[The Rabbi]

Was it. Opinion, or do you have some proof? I am pretty sure it is opinion, and you know how much I respect your opinion.

So you have proof that the sociology of this country has changed radically over the last 30 years to explain the steady drop in standardized scores?
No, of course not. Just running your mouth.

What I said, me poor con dipshit, is do you have proof that education was better 50 years ago. It is your assertion. I feel no reason to show anything. You waste time by posting dogma, then expect someone else do disprove it. Try being a little less lazy, and actually prove your statement. If you can. Which I thoroughly doubt. Because, Rabbi, you never, ever do. Because, Rabbi, you are way to lazy. Just a typical con, posting dogma, and expecting someone to believe you.
dipshit.

Have test scores gone up or done, dunce? The proof is on this board. Actually your own posts. You are a total fool. You cannot distinguish one piece of evidence from another.

 

[The Rabbi]

So Rabbi says:

We did not have public education in this country until the mid 19th century. And we did just fine.

You are wrong about public education, of course. It did exist prior to the mid 1800's.

1647
The General Court of the Massachusetts Bay Colony decrees that every town of fifty families should have an elementary school and that every town of 100 families should have a Latin school. The goal is to ensure that Puritan children learn to read the Bible and receive basic information about their Calvinist religion.

1779
Thomas Jefferson proposes a two-track educational system, with different tracks in his words for "the laboring and the learned." Scholarship would allow a very few of the laboring class to advance, Jefferson says, by "raking a few geniuses from the rubbish."

1785
The Continental Congress (before the U.S. Constitution was ratified) passes a law calling for a survey of the "Northwest Territory" which included what was to become the state of Ohio. The law created "townships," reserving a portion of each township for a local school. From these "land grants" eventually came the U.S. system of "land grant universities," the state public universities that exist today. Of course in order to create these townships, the Continental Congress assumes it has the right to give away or sell land that is already occupied by Native people.

1790
Pennsylvania state constitution calls for free public education but only for poor children. It is expected that rich people will pay for their children's schooling.

1805
New York Public School Society formed by wealthy businessmen to provide education for poor children. Schools are run on the "Lancasterian" model, in which one "master" can teach hundreds of students in a single room. The master gives a rote lesson to the older students, who then pass it down to the younger students. These schools emphasize discipline and obedience qualities that factory owners want in their workers.

1817
A petition presented in the Boston Town Meeting calls for establishing of a system of free public primary schools. Main support comes from local merchants, businessmen and wealthier artisans. Many wage earners oppose it, because they don't want to pay the taxes.

1820
First public high school in the U.S., Boston English, opens.

1827
Massachusetts passes a law making all grades of public school open to all pupils free of charge.
Applied Research Center - Historical Timeline of Public Education in the US
And you sounded so sure of yourself. Not that the 1850's have a lot to do with today. We were a primarily agrarian economy. You could get by pretty well without education. No aeronautical engineers needed. No software developers. Etc, etc. Or had you not noticed.

England worked about the same.

As what? As the US did, or as you think the us did?
You would be wrong again. Public education in england has been going on longer than in the US, and has been more widespread. Sorry, very little private education there, except for the wealthy.

On the flip side, the cultural differences between the US and, e.g. Singapore are so huge you cannot attribute academic performance solely to their educational system.

Who said solely. But it is not just Singapore. There is Germany, France, the UK, Spain, France, portugal, and a number of others with better systems. All predominately public systems.

You lose. Again.

Who told you that you had the authority to determine who wins or looses. You should be very, very angry with them. Because they lied to you.

Your "research" and "evidence" are laughable. They do not prove anything you think they prove. You are a prime example of the decline of education. An inability to read and understand simple paragraphs.
You lose. Again.