Mixed Economy

[Lafayette]

PPS: From the NCES here:
"For example, at public 4-year institutions, the average total cost of attendance was $24,900 for both students living on campus and students living off campus but not with family, compared with $14,600 for students living off campus with family."

Note that the above figures are NOT the annual cost but the total cost for a four-year education meaning arriving at a Bachelor's degree. Or, for those living off-campus with family the cost is about $3650K a year for students!

This annual sum ($3650) for a four-year degree is way, way beyond the ability of any family (of four) at the official Poverty Threshold earning $26,500 a year. It is nearly 15% of the poverty-threshold basic-salary!

In a country as rich as the USA, this average sum of $3650 à year per child should be allocated to anyone seeking a two- or four-year degree at a state-school. And that financing should be shared by both the state and the Federal Government.

The below 20 year-old population-percentage in American penitentiaries would be lowered dramatically ... !

 

[Lafayette]

METHINKS

In Europe, everyone graduates high school at age 16.

You get to continue your education if, and only if, you score high enough on the tests.

So, those kids that go to vocational school?

Yes, they graduate at age 18.

That depends upon "where in Europe". The factual graduation rates in Europe vary widely because Europe educational institutions "decide" whether a student is capable of continued secondary-schooling or not. If not, they obtain a "vocational option". If so, then, yes, they continue in "general schooling". (Meaning, I think, they are prepared to continue at university if they so decide.)

Thus, if considered unsuitable for tertiary education, the kids are pushed into vocational training. There is a LOT of debate as to whether that is "healthy". Some kids "wake-up" later than others and they should not be shunted by "silly rules".

Having said that, at least they get - for certain - a "training" that allows them to pursue their working careers. If they want to go back to university, I doubt anybody would stop them from entering.

I will insist upon the fact that the US does not offer that opportunity at a young enough age. Some miss the opportunity for any advanced-learning beyond secondary-schooling and "wake-up" to the mistake a decade later. When they should have been offered the opportunity much sooner. (And that is what turns them to burglary or worse!)

Once again America shows how the dissociation in terms of education/training between the government and states is negative - those who miss the opportunity to go directly from secondary- to tertiary-schooling are stuck with vocational-schooling.

Methinks. Teachers in America likely know far better what is really happening than I do here in Europe ...

 

[Mircea]

What consummate ignorance.

That's reality.

Education is not something one deserves because they are "smart". It is the backbone of any viable nation. It the sole factor that guarantees a decent economy because that economy is constituted by capable, well-educated people ...

That would be true of primary and secondary education.

Primary and secondary education are free because it is necessary that people be able to read, write and speak, perform basic math and have some knowledge of science in order to function in the community.

Beyond that, "smart" is very important.

You don't have the resources -- the money, the space or the instructors -- to waste on people who aren't smart.

People are born with innate skills and abilities and that's just the way it is and there is absolutely nothing you or anyone else can do to change that.

A lot of people with consummate ignorance are clamoring that we should expand the number of medical schools.

All surgeons are doctors, but not all doctors are surgeons nor could they ever be and they never will be, with never meaning "at no time ever."

They could spend the rest of their pathetic lives being educated and reading self-help books and attending retreats and seminars and webinars and being hypnotized and chanting --and all at tax payer expense -- and it just ain't gonna happen.

And you would waste valuable resources -- time, money, space -- trying to get them to be something they can never be.

Only a fraction of a given population has the innate ability to be a doctor and then only a fraction of doctors have the innate ability to be surgeons.

Only a doctor can teach another doctor and only a surgeon can teach another surgeon.

Unfortunately, only a fraction of a given population has the innate ability to teach and so we're looking at fractions of fractions because we need doctors and surgeons who also have the teaching skill-set.

Few of them do, and not all that do want to teach and they have no moral, ethical or legal duty to teach if they do not wish to do so and most don't.

The point being expanding medical schools will create a massive shortage of teaching-doctors and teaching-surgeons and since Supply & Demand reign supreme that means the salaries will sky-rocket and then the great lot of you will whine and snivel that medical costs have sky-rocketed and driven up the cost of your health plan coverage.

Absolutely brilliant.

I'm smart. I have 3 undergrad degrees, a Masters and a PhD.

You wanna waste valuable money, time and other resources to train me to be a welder?

I can barely solder something so why in the hell would you do that?

I could never be a welder no matter how much money you spent on me and if you're going to live or work in a building where I was welding I-beams I sure hope you got life insurance because that building is gonna collapse.

I'm not a carpenter, plumber, mason, roofer, electrician or auto mechanic, either, but I don't have to be because there are others with those skill-sets whom I will gladly pay for their services and in their own way they are smart.

The point being what Liberals want is an education-free-for-all where people do whatever makes them feel good even though they aren't even remotely qualified to perform those duties. Unfortunately, Economics is not about feeling good -- which costs a helluva lot of money by the way -- rather it's about making the most efficient use of resources.

The purpose of testing is to figure out who is smart enough to do what and then use resources efficiently to develop those skill-sets.

 

[Mircea]

Grossly inflated, me arse! Tertiary Education is any and all education beyond Secondary-schooling. (Duhhhhhhhh!)

And in Europe, secondary education ends at the 10th Grade, not the 12th Grade.

My wife is Romanian. She graduated in the 10th Grade just like every Romanian has since whenever.

She's not too bright, but she's a lot of fun.

She got to go to seamstress school for a year, meaning she was totally finished with all her education in the 11th Grade. She makes wonderful shirts and my cuff-links look really cool.

The OECD would say she got "tertiary" education but in American they would say she didn't finish the 12th Grade.

Get it?

The OECD counts what Americans would call high school juniors and seniors as "tertiary education."

People like you are ignorant of the metrics and how they work.

Not hardly.

Most people would say Romania was a commie country, but Germany wasn't so I'll explain the German education system.

Your child has to score in the upper 5th Percentile to avoid going to the Hauptschule or the Schulart mit mehreren Bildungsgängen or Berufsschule, where they basically learn how to retread tires or change bed pans or be a barista or something like that.

Those kids will graduate at age 16 with no tertiary education for them.

On the next test, your child has to score in the upper 5th Percentile to be admitted to a Gymnasium. If your child doesn't score in the upper 5th Percentile, they'll have to go with hat in hand to find a union to train them in something useful.

Just like all other students, they will complete their secondary education at age 16.

The OECD calls union apprenticeship "tertiary education." They will begin their apprenticeships at age 17 or what Americans would acall the junior year of high school which is secondary school in the US.

After completion of the test in the 10th Grade, your child has to score in the upper 10th Percentile to be admitted to Gymnasiale Oberstufe for 2 years.

That is a college prep school and tertiary education, but still secondary education in the US.

If your child doesn't make it, but still scores high enough on the test your child will begin tertiary education equivalent to an American high school junior in a clerical or low-level tech school. They can be a phlebotomist (someone who draws blood samples) or something like that.

After completing 2 years of tertiary education at the Gymnasiale Oberstufe, your child will be equivalent to an American graduating high school at age 18 (yes, I know, some people are still 17 when they graduate).

If they score in the upper 10th Percentile, they get to go to university for free -- if they don't score high enough, then most likely they'll go to the Fachoberschule, which is like a technical school equivalent to a US 2-year college.

 

[Antiwar]

Every economy ever has been a mixed economy.

Our era"s problem is the environment. Industrial economies destroy the relative stability and the habitability of the environment. We needed to fix that decades or more ago.

 

[Lafayette]

She got to go to seamstress school for a year, meaning she was totally finished with all her education in the 11th Grade. She makes wonderful shirts and my cuff-links look really cool.

The OECD would say she got "tertiary" education but in American they would say she didn't finish the 12th Grade.

Get it?

The OECD counts what Americans would call high school juniors and seniors as "tertiary education."

Bullshat! Real-data is against you.

Europe graduates more post-secondary educated students than the rest of the world. And why? Because it is nearly free, gratis and for nothing!

See that factual evidence here: Tertiary Level Graduation Rate

 

[Lafayette]

That is a college prep school and tertiary education, but still secondary education in the US.

If your child doesn't make it, but still scores high enough on the test your child will begin tertiary education equivalent to an American high school junior in a clerical or low-level tech school. They can be a phlebotomist (someone who draws blood samples) or something like that.

After completing 2 years of tertiary education at the Gymnasiale Oberstufe, your child will be equivalent to an American graduating high school at age 18 (yes, I know, some people are still 17 when they graduate).

If they score in the upper 10th Percentile, they get to go to university for free -- if they don't score high enough, then most likely they'll go to the Fachoberschule, which is like a technical school equivalent to a US 2-year college.

Blah, blah, blah and more blah.

I've posted the stats on graduation rates. Go look at them ...

 

[Mircea]

Blah, blah, blah and more blah.

I've posted the stats on graduation rates.

It's not about graduation rates and I never even mentioned it but I guess you felt it necessary to side-track from reality.

It's about metrics.

The US metric is tertiary education begins the freshman year of college or post-secondary vocational or technical school.

The EU metric is tertiary education begins the junior year of high school.

If the US changed its metric so that junior and senior high school vocational school students were in tertiary education, then the US would boast the same numbers as the EU.

Once again for the hard-of-hearing: In the EU, secondary education ends at age 16; in the US at age 18.

The US says juniors and seniors in a high school vocational program are in secondary education, while the EU says they're in tertiary education.

 

[Mircea]

See that factual evidence here: Tertiary Level Graduation Rate

Nobody gives a goddam about graduation rates.

What we are talking about is the difference in the way the US and EU define secondary and tertiary education.

In the EU, you are graduated at age 16 in what is the sophomore year of high school in the US.

The EU defines tertiary education as any education past the age of 16.

A German kid gradates high school at age 16 and scores high enough to go to college prep school.

College prep school is tertiary education in Germany. We would say no, he's a high school junior/senior still in secondary education.

 

[Lafayette]

Nobody gives a goddam about graduation rates.

And especially if one is ignorant of the definition because they never aspired to achieve it ...

 

[Ringo Stalin]

FED: "The US can finance its debts as long as the dollar is the world's reserve currency."

Just like that, without being shy and without coming up with something about the efficiency and power of the American economy, the FED officials say directly: we will print dollars as long as the world tolerates it..

 

[Ringo Stalin]

 

[Lafayette]

FED: "The US can finance its debts as long as the dollar is the world's reserve currency."

Just like that, without being shy and without coming up with something about the efficiency and power of the American economy, the FED officials say directly: we will print dollars as long as the world tolerates it..

Your quoting from the FED as shown above is called Blind Faith - "because it has always been that way".

"That way" is changing an Uncle Sam will not be given any quarter if it makes the slightest mistake on international financial markets.

I discussed this some time ago with Brits who work in London-finance, and they were not kidding: When push-comes-to-shove with the dollar there's always the Euro-option. So, "screw the dollar"? Not so fast.

The Euro-option also has nonetheless its misgivings. The Euro-economies are not all as strong as, say, Germany. So, some are talking about the Chinese Renmimbi as a "real alternative".

Right! What about it? Would YOU buy it?

I wouldn't ...

 

[Mircea]

And especially if one is ignorant of the definition because they never aspired to achieve it ...

Why don't you just admit you lost and we'll move on.

The issue is not and never was graduation rates.

The issue is the metrics various countries use in defining secondary and tertiary education.

I'll try to explain this as easily as possible. In the US, secondary education is Grades 9-12. In most EU-States it is Grades 9-10.

If the US redefined secondary education to Grades 9-10 then the US would boast awesome graduation rates, because nearly all kids who drop-out do so in their junior or senior year.

And if the US did like Germany and said kids in Grades 11 & 12 are now in a tertiary education program, whether it's a college prep school or a vocation or technical school, then the US would boast high numbers there, too.

 

[Lafayette]

Why don't you just admit you lost and we'll move on. The issue is not and never was graduation rates.

The issue is the metrics various countries use in defining secondary and tertiary education.

Enough of this drivel! Secondary- and tertiary-level metrics DO NOT CHANGE MEANING from country to country. They vary somewhat and that's about all!

Because it took numerous international conferences to obtain an agreement as to HOW the metric could vary from country-to-country! That differences are not all that varying ...

 

[ttwtt78640]

Well put!

But there are certain aspects of any economy that should not be treated as "markets". Europe got that right a long, long time ago. The UK was the first to create a National Healthcare System in the early 1950s. The rest of today's European Union has done so since.

Only the US cannot see beyond an historical mistake. Both Healthcare and Tertiary Education are the primary key-elements to any successful Market Economy.

So, what does the US do? It spends more half of its annual Discretionary Income on the ... DoD! To wit, see here:

Where's the war?!? National support for Education is that red-sliver on the left. And it is a miniscule expenditure when, in fact, Tertiary Education has become the key-instrument for obtaining the income necessary for a decent standard-of-living ... !

The difference between mandatory and discretionary spending is completely subjective, as has become the difference between federal, state and local government powers and responsibilities.

Why, exactly, is there any federal spending on eduction, housing or community development? BTW, what is the difference between education and training and what happened to “agriculture” spending (most of which is giving folks money to spend on grocery items)?

 

[ttwtt78640]

The key-reason Socialism never worked is precisely what you give above. Nobody wants to innovate if they earn the money as Joe Blogs who parks cars at a restaurant.

The best reason for public-ownership of any service is the common-necessity of that service to all&sundry and the fact that competition would likely diminish the number of users who could afford it.

I don't from where it comes, but the notion that competition ipso-facto offers automatically the lowest-cost price to the most people is assinine. What matters most is the nature of the service and its utility (or necessity) to people.

And at the bottom of the totem-pole, people need first and foremost to be able to afford a place to live and feed-themselves decently. And there are some parts of America where that has become Mission Impossible ... !

The basic problem with collectivism (whether you choose to call it socialism or communism matters little) is that it seeks to separate personal production from personal consumption. To be able to “afford” anything means that you must produce something of at least equal value, or demand (mandate?) that someone else do so on your behalf.

 

[ttwtt78640]

SURPRISE! SURPRISE!



There is only one way to assure "fairness" or "equitability" in any economy - and it is by means of taxation. Which does not infer that we tax the rich to feed the poor!



It is evident from the above that there is no "common basic-value for below standard cost-of-living" across the US. Nonetheless, each state can know fairly well how much it costs basically to get by in most of its cities and towns. It can therefore have a very good idea of what is a decent Minimum Income that can be assured by the state (if funded also by the US government).

Which is a a big IF because such a national system of basic income assurance has never be tried. The US has a hodgepodge of state individual/family subsidy systems. Neither is such employed in Europe - though government subsidies there are far more progressive than in the US.

What's the tradeoff? Crime-levels, that's what. Whether a people want more crime or not (silly notion!), the rate of criminality is closely linked to personal/family income. Don't believe that?

Then try this list of countries descending in order (from highest to lowest) crime-rates. Surprise, surprise! High-paying economies demonstrate also higher crime rates ... !

Let’s examine that “basic income assurance” idea. You noted that it is a variable amount, based largely on household size and geographic location. Basically that means how much “income assurance” (aka public assistance) one “deserves” is based on household size and where they choose to live (less any income that household earned).

You then got extremely mushy on which level of government federal, state or local should make up any difference (deficit?) between a household’s income and what that household “deserved”. It seems that the only logical means of achieving that “fairness” is to take (via taxation) from those who have household income in excess of their “deserved” amount and then use those funds to supplement the household incomes of those who did not have income to pay for what they “deserve”.

Examining that on a very small level (only two households) would mean that household A and household B would have to work out a deal (taxation scheme) where if either household earns above they “deserve” then they must give enough “excess” income to the other household to bring that other household’s income up to the level which they “deserve”. That system only works (becomes effective) if one of those households makes “too much” (more than they “deserve”) income and the other makes “too little” (less than they “deserve”.

The political pressure then becomes for the “needy” households to seek to expand the pool of donor (taxable) households to the highest level of government possible.

 

[aociswundumho]

Public ownership of the means of production means that the activities of all spheres of the national economy are directed in the interests of the entire society, while at the same time, the distribution of material goods takes into account the labor contribution of everyone. Capitalists are sick of this simplicity.

No, they are directed in the interests of politicians and bureaucrats.

 

[aociswundumho]

The best reason for public-ownership of any service is the common-necessity of that service to all&sundry and the fact that competition would likely diminish the number of users who could afford it.

Food is more important than healthcare or education, and all of the famines which occurred during the 20th century were caused by public ownership/control of the means of production regarding food.

I don't from where it comes, but the notion that competition ipso-facto offers automatically the lowest-cost price to the most people is assinine. What matters most is the nature of the service and its utility (or necessity) to people.

And at the bottom of the totem-pole, people need first and foremost to be able to afford a place to live and feed-themselves decently. And there are some parts of America where that has become Mission Impossible ... !

The sky-high housing prices in the US are caused entirely by local governments restricting competition via planning and zoning regulations, and by the federal government control over interest rates.

 

[Lafayette]

A SOCIETAL PROBLEMATIC

The basic problem with collectivism (whether you choose to call it socialism or communism matters little) is that it seeks to separate personal production from personal consumption. To be able to “afford” anything means that you must produce something of at least equal value, or demand (mandate?) that someone else do so on your behalf.

We are not debating about the evils of socialism/collectivism. They are well known, and the fact that Communism is dead in Europe is proof-positive of socialism's collective-incompetence to grow its economies suitably.

Socialism being dead does not mean that Social-Democracy is also dead - and I can assure you that Social Democracy is thriving in Europe. Whyzat? Because the Europeans are not intoxicated by the accumulation of wealth. The problem in America about Socialism is that we in America remain somewhat ignorant of the real-effect of the fall of Communism in Europe. What took its place? A political philosophy called Social Democracy.

I maintain that if the accumulation of wealth remains a mainstay of American democracy, then the poor are in for some Great Troubles. American penitentiaries are not bursting at the seems? Higher taxation of the super-rich will allow the Federal government the funds necessary to help states build primry-secondary-tertiary educational programs that will reduce the number of poor in America.

All Americans would be better off - and if we want only a tiny, tiny percentage to be Immensely Wealthy, one day that will prove to be an enormous societal-problematic. Nobody in any country can become immensely rich without that happening because most of those who are not rich did the work that allowed them to purchase the goods/services owned by the super-rich ...

 

[ttwtt78640]

A SOCIETAL PROBLEMATIC



We are not debating about the evils of socialism/collectivism. They are well known, and the fact that Communism is dead in Europe is proof-positive of socialism's collective-incompetence to grow its economies suitably.

Socialism being dead does not mean that Social-Democracy is also dead - and I can assure you that Social Democracy is thriving in Europe. Whyzat? Because the Europeans are not intoxicated by the accumulation of wealth. The problem in America about Socialism is that we in America remain somewhat ignorant of the real-effect of the fall of Communism in Europe. What took its place? A political philosophy called Social Democracy.

I maintain that if the accumulation of wealth remains a mainstay of American democracy, then the poor are in for some Great Troubles. American penitentiaries are not bursting at the seems? Higher taxation of the super-rich will allow the Federal government the funds necessary to help states build primry-secondary-tertiary educational programs that will reduce the number of poor in America.

All Americans would be better off - and if we want only a tiny, tiny percentage to be Immensely Wealthy, one day that will prove to be an enormous societal-problematic. Nobody in any country can become immensely rich without that happening because most of those who are not rich did the work that allowed them to purchase the goods/services owned by the super-rich ...

You have drifted into the federalize (centrally plan?) everything mode rather quickly. WIth unlimited funding comes unlimited power and control. The DSA concept places all “needs” under government (collective?) control - dangerously close to requiring work (production?) to become required only to secure wants (luxuries?) since all “needs” would be met by public assistance.

 

[Lafayette]

EDUCATION, EDUCATION, EDUCATION

The basic problem with collectivism (whether you choose to call it socialism or communism matters little) is that it seeks to separate personal production from personal consumption. To be able to “afford” anything means that you must produce something of at least equal value, or demand (mandate?) that someone else do so on your behalf.

We are not debating about the dysfunctions of socialism/collectivism. They are well known, and the fact that Communism is dead in Europe is proof-positive of its collective incompetence to grow its economies

Socialism being dead does not mean that Social-Democracy* is also - and I can assure you that it is thriving in Europe. Whyzat? Because the Europeans are not intoxicated by the accumulation of wealth. The problem in America as regards Socialism is that we yanks are totally ignorant of the real-effect of the fall of Communism in Europe. What took its place? Social Democracy.

I maintain that if the accumulation of wealth remains a fixation of American democracy then the poor are in for some Very Great Troubles long-term. American penitentiaries are not already bursting at the seems? What is happening? People turn to crime because they haven't the ability to gain a decent living honestly. And whyzat?

Because the higher income-rates are earned by those with a post-secondary degree. The once much hailed American Industry is now a Services economy - for which learned talents/know-how are the major components. That know-how however is very expensively learned in the US. Far too expensive for a great number of America's youth.

Far too many American kids are under-educated - and of these some fall out of education during secondary schooling!. What's the problem? Not enough good schools, not enough GOOD teachers? Probably both, but the Real Consequence is that the US is not graduating enough with post-secondary degrees. because tuition is far too expensive. My Point? Let's simply make sure that anyone who wanted a post-secondary degree could get one because it would not be terribly expensive. Which is what Europe has done ... !

*Definition:

Social-democracy is a political, social and economic philosophy variant of socialism that supports political and economic democracy. As a policy regime, it is described by academics as advocating economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a liberal-democratic polity and a capitalist-oriented mixed economy.

 

[ttwtt78640]

EDUCATION, EDUCATION, EDUCATION



We are not debating about the dysfunctions of socialism/collectivism. They are well known, and the fact that Communism is dead in Europe is proof-positive of its collective incompetence to grow its economies

Socialism being dead does not mean that Social-Democracy* is also - and I can assure you that it is thriving in Europe. Whyzat? Because the Europeans are not intoxicated by the accumulation of wealth. The problem in America as regards Socialism is that we yanks are totally ignorant of the real-effect of the fall of Communism in Europe. What took its place? Social Democracy.

I maintain that if the accumulation of wealth remains a fixation of American democracy then the poor are in for some Very Great Troubles long-term. American penitentiaries are not already bursting at the seems? What is happening? People turn to crime because they haven't the ability to gain a decent living honestly. And whyzat?

Because the higher income-rates are earned by those with a post-secondary degree. The once much hailed American Industry is now a Services economy - for which learned talents/know-how are the major components. That know-how however is very expensively learned in the US. Far too expensive for a great number of America's youth.

Far too many American kids are under-educated - and of these some fall out of education during secondary schooling!. What's the problem? Not enough good schools, not enough GOOD teachers? Probably both, but the Real Consequence is that the US is not graduating enough with post-secondary degrees. because tuition is far too expensive. My Point? Let's simply make sure that anyone who wanted a post-secondary degree could get one because it would not be terribly expensive. Which is what Europe has done ... !

*Definition:

OK, but that ignores the DSA policy positions.

 

[Lafayette]

OK, but that ignores the DSA policy positions.

What DSA policy positions?

Elaborate ...