The Distribution of Wealth [W:446] (1 Viewer)

[Cardinal Fang]

Different, not more.

If you want to be blind to the rest.

Different would be jobs....as stated in the report, when the economy goes up, poverty goes down. Jobs tackle poverty, not handouts.

Which assistance programs do not include work requirements? I'll give you one -- WIC, the program that targets toddlers, infants, and moms-to-be. Any others that you're aware of?

Canada's economic system closely resembles the US. Venezuela's does not, it's socialist and failing it's people despite huge resources.

How much do you know about Venezuela? Do you know as much as how yesterday's election turned out?

Communism has failed everywhere it's been tried, and socialist governments have failed or are failing as we speak.

The Cold War is over. The USSR is no more, the Chi-Coms have all gone soft, and the march of international Communism has been turned back. All those phony Red Scares and Red Menaces are things of the past. Maybe post again once you've purged your pointless paranoia.

 

[Cardinal Fang]

This couldn't be farther from the truth. All private schools have to be accredited by the state they are in, that includes teacher licensing.

No, while state laws of course vary, in state after state school accreditation and teacher ceritification are optional. The fact that many schools and most teachers choose to obtain accreditation does not change the fact.

The school is directly accountable to the parents, who pay the tuition.

Yes, you can pull your kid out of the school. That's not what anyone means by accountability.

 

[Daize]

Canada's economic system closely resembles the US. Venezuela's does not, it's socialist and failing it's people despite huge resources.

Although unfortunately it does so to a larger extent then when I lived there, the Canadian system is still more similar to the French one then the American.

 

[Panopticon]

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS INDIVIDUAL ECONOMICS .... economics by its very nature is a social activity.

I feel for you lol...

 

[Federalist]

1. Arbitrary in the sense that you can apply almost anything, for example instead of the first to mix labor you can say ANYONE who mixes labor, or you can say that its just finders keepers, or you can say its based on need.

2. The fact that if mixing land and labor is the basis of ownership, then that ownership thus denies all the other later instances of mixing land and labor.

3. Not only exclusionary but also exclusive, making it not able to be a universal right.

4. Over those without access to property.

So I'm not sure what you're arguing here. Private property ownership has roots that go very deep in the English common law tradition. Are you saying that you would like to see legislation altering property law in some fundamental way? If so, how? And do you imagine that this would be state or federal legislation. (Personally, I don't think such legislation is appropriate at the federal level, and I would oppose such legislation were it to be under consideration in my own state.)

 

[Cardinal Fang]

Lets assume you are right and they each do the same thing with similar success rates. Then why is half the cost not a better option?

Parochial and other religious schools are heavily subsidized by the places of worship that run them. Private schools will also expect parents to contribute amounts well above the stated cost of tuition, and I'm not talking about buying a cookie or two at a PTA bake sale. Private schools as a group do not provide equivalent services in terms of transportation, before- and after-school care, accomodation for the disabled or IDEA kids, meals, health care, extra-curricular activities, guidance, tutoring, or support for speakers of English as a second language. This is not the complete list. It should still suggest some of the reasons why private school costs can appear at first glance to be below public school costs.

When you are paying them with a check every month, they are very interested in your opinion on how to better the education space. Private schools are accountable to the students and parents.

Yes, I'm very interested in your opinions as well. I hope you will continue to let me know whenever you have questions or want to know more about any of my posts. My monitor is always open. I do care deeply about the needs of my readers and am completely committed to making sure that each one continues to be fully informed of all the reasons why I post what I do. Your complete satisfaction is and always has been my #1 goal, and you have my pledge that this will never change.

Who is it you think the public school accountable to?

Voters and the locally elected school board. Ever served on one? Then there's parents and the PTA. Ever joined one? No, I mean really joined.

If there was no cost involvement, what school do you want your children to attend?

Unless it had just burned down or something, the local schools that their friends attended.

If there was no cost involvement, and you lived in a district with a "bad" high school, or the option of sending your child to charter school, which do you pick?

Charter schools ARE public schools, and I certainly would not want to send my daughter interested in poetry reading and writing to a charter school specializing in a math and science curriculum.

If the cost was the same, the best private university Harvard, Yale, etc, or the best public university.

Egad! What sort of differences do you imagine to exist at university level?

Failed how?

Completely. As in not producing any of the promised patterns of improved outcomes for students.

Urban Prep Graduates All College-Bound For Third Consecutive Year

Urban Prep is a public school. KIPP Bridge is also a public school.

I am not the one touting the company lines... I am supporting the rights of minorities and poor to have an option to the currently failing public school system...

Open all the charter schools you want. Some of them have performed very well. But get it through your head that charter schools are PUBLIC schools, not private schools.

Why do you think public school teachers are against charter schools?

Typically because charter schools tend to skim from the top, leaving the most challenging students behind along with fewer funds to educate them with.

The word you need to google is "union".

No, I'm not some trained seal. I already know what a union is and why unions are not the handiwork of Satan, but rather an important part of processes seeking economic equity and balance in a society that badly needs it.

What is wrong with motivated students being in the best environment for success and having that money chase success? Seriously, why shouldn't smart motivated students be surrounded by other smart motivated students? Do you somehow think disruptions or needing to backtrack for those who are not motivated is a benefit to those who are trying?

What? Are you simply not aware of the diverse curricula taught within public school systems? Are notions such as IB, AP, GT, and language immersion programs not known to you?

And do you further believe that we simply do not need to bother with educating any of those "lesser" children who do not fall into any of your favored classifications as the best and brightest at anything? Are there no resources at all that are to be left over for them? I'm beginning to find your whole approach to this matter disgraceful and downright contemptible.

 

[mac]

If you want to be blind to the rest.

There's no blind about it.

Which assistance programs do not include work requirements? I'll give you one -- WIC, the program that targets toddlers, infants, and moms-to-be. Any others that you're aware of?

Subsidized housing, student grants, Rural development....there's a whole host of programs with no work requirement.

How much do you know about Venezuela? Do you know as much as how yesterday's election turned out?

Chavez was re-elected, so? What do you know about the poverty levels there?

The Cold War is over. The USSR is no more, the Chi-Coms have all gone soft, and the march of international Communism has been turned back. All those phony Red Scares and Red Menaces are things of the past. Maybe post again once you've purged your pointless paranoia.

Maybe post again when you have a valid point. Communism and socialism don't work. Proved by history...failed policies of the past.

 

[Kushinator]

Communism and socialism don't work. Proved by history...failed policies of the past.

Communism is a similar utopia to that of laissez faire. They have never existed in the real world and are a purely theoretical framework used for educational and research purposes.

 

[Missed AB]

Communism is a similar utopia to that of laissez faire. They have never existed in the real world and are a purely theoretical framework used for educational and research purposes.

Sounds like your stock buying and selling scenarios.

 

[Panopticon]

Communism and socialism don't work. Proved by history...failed policies of the past.

scandinavia is arguably the most socialist region in the world and is highly successful. Your argument is thus disproven.

 

[Xerographica]

There isn't a disparity at all, and I have already explained why the founders built the government that they did and why every sensible person since has been able to understand the logic in that.

A sensible person might be able to understand the logic of checks and balances...but a sensible person with an understanding of economics would certainly fail to see the logic of representative economics. This is simply because an economically sensible person would understand the value of each and every taxpayer's opportunity cost decisions. Aggregating preferences/priorities is how we ensure that limited resources are efficiently allocated. Why is that? Because how could people's values not matter to economic outcomes? It's absurd to argue that what taxpayers truly value, which can only be determined by their opportunity cost decisions, has no relevance to economics. Yet, this absurdity forms the basis of socialism.

I'd really love to hear your explanation as to why democracy should trump economics. Let's vote on how resources should be distributed? Seriously? We don't need to spend our money for economics to work? LOL C'mon...make me laugh some more...

Yes, you're right on top of things there. It's all the economics of individuals named Exxon Mobil, Wal-Mart, Archer Daniels Midland, and the like. Just everyday, ordinary individuals. That's what the private sector is made up of.

Those corporations reflect the aggregated preferences of consumers...just like government organizations should reflect the aggregated preferences of taxpayers. The alternative is to allow a small group of government planners to override all our preferences, priorities, values, interests, expertise, partial knowledge, concerns, hopes and dreams. Our greatest strength is our diversity and the public sector will always fail as long as it fails to put our diversity to work.

The rest of your post is only further extension of the fact that you have accumulated the gist of a few unrelated pebbles of information and are far too grandiosely attempting to extrapolate from them. You have a great deal of work and study ahead of you before being able to contribute things of actual worth or note. Good luck with that, though I have little reason for any great confidence at this point.

You want to decide for yourself whether what I'm contributing is of actual worth? That's MY argument!!! LOL That's not grandiose...that's basic economics! It should be entirely up to you whether you buy my argument just like it should be entirely up to taxpayers whether they buy the arguments of government organizations that want more funding. Without that vetting process people would be forced to buy things that they do not value.

According to your argument you shouldn't have a choice whether you buy my argument. That would certainly be in my interest...but it certainly wouldn't be in your interest. That's why the interests of consumers are the interests of the human race...which is exactly why taxpayers should be allowed to choose which government organizations they give their taxes to. Taxpayers would have to pay taxes anyways...so government organizations should produce no more and no less public goods than taxpayers are willing to buy.

 

[Kushinator]

Sounds like your stock buying and selling scenarios.

No need to follow me throughout threads because you lack the reading comprehension skills necessary to answer a simple finance problem. If you have anything relevant to contribute, then by all means.....

 

[Missed AB]

Parochial and other religious schools are heavily subsidized by the places of worship that run them.

They don't pay taxes, it's the least they can do. Regardless, the quoted number was the amount SPENT per child, not the amount taken in for each child. You have shown no evidence to show public schools are able to provide a similar education at a cheaper cost ratio.

You're to stuck with bigger is better you forget that every level of public schools has a lot more administrative costs involved - that add nothing to education, only to taxes and waste.

Private schools will also expect parents to contribute amounts well above the stated cost of tuition, and I'm not talking about buying a cookie or two at a PTA bake sale.

I have not had that experience. Prove it.

Private schools as a group do not provide equivalent services in terms of transportation,

My child's does.

before- and after-school care

Babysitting should not be included in the cost of school. Or is this another way to not educate children at school?

meals,

Are already subsisidized by the state for public schools. Do you want to discuss the difference in quality of food at those lunch tables?

health care,

What health care is not offered by private schools that is offered by public schools?

extra-curricular activities

Private schools are very competitive with sports. And I see nothing wrong with paying an extra 350/year per sport. Why have everyone pay for something that only a few use?

tutoring

Go to a good school and have a quality teacher, and your child won't need this.

or support for speakers of English as a second language.

Like i said, my private school when I was a child was educating me in FRENCH IN K and 1 grade. We learned how to sign too! Prove it.

It should still suggest some of the reasons why private school costs can appear at first glance to be below public school costs.

All the excuses you make are wrong. The reason for the high costs to schools is ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS. I have a friend who is an executive for HP. She just sold 100 HP FOLIO notbooks to admins at a couple school districts. These did not go to children or teachers. to the upper level admins. At the discounted rate of 1000/each. What's that cost per child?

Voters and the locally elected school board.

explain the procedure to fire a tenured teacher because he/she is not having the best results in the classroom.

Charter schools ARE public schools,

PROBABLY THE MOST IGNORANT POST YOU HAVE WRITTEN TO DATE!!!! SINCE WHEN? CHARTER SCHOOLS ARE NOT PART OF THE PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM!!! THEY GET SOME PUBLIC MONEY, WHICH ONLY MAKES THEM ACCOUNTABLE TO CERTAIN STANDARDS TO KEEP GETTING THAT MONEY, BUT THEY ARE NOT PART OF THE PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM. AND NEVER HAVE BEEN PART OF THE PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM. CHARTER SCHOOLS OPERATE OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM HAVE THEIR OWN ADMINS.... PROVE WHAT YOU WROTE!!!

EVERYTHING AFTER THIS THAT YOU WROTE IS NOT WORTH MY TIME BECAUSE YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND BASICS.

 

[mac]

scandinavia is arguably the most socialist region in the world and is highly successful. Your argument is thus disproven.

Limited, nearly homogeneous populations with high resources. We have cities with higher populations than each of the countries of Scandinavia.

You should read about Sweden's current situation, being that Sweden is often the gem of the Socialist crown...and yet it has unemployment on par with the US...

 

[hikari]

Lol missed ab, rage much? You know you lost when you not only post a wall of text but one in caps lock. So much fail there, I don't even care to concern myself with it.

 

[Xerographica]

Lol missed ab, rage much? You know you lost when you not only post a wall of text but one in caps lock. So much fail there, I don't even care to concern myself with it.

But if Cardinal Fang is right...then why would he be so opposed to allowing taxpayers to decide how much of their taxes they gave to public education? Either public education is producing taxpayers...or it isn't. If it isn't producing taxpayers then maybe it's producing the employees that taxpayers benefit from hiring. So given that Cardinal Fang is so opposed to giving taxpayers a choice...it means that he believes that public education is neither producing taxpayers nor producing the employees that taxpayers hire. Of course, if those are truly his beliefs then they would totally contradict his current argument that the benefits of public education are worth the cost to taxpayers.

When somebody consistently engages in blatant double speak like that...then while I might not necessarily use all caps myself...I can certainly understand and sympathize with somebody who does so in response to such flagrant duplicity.

 

[Missed AB]

Lol missed ab, rage much? You know you lost when you not only post a wall of text but one in caps lock. So much fail there, I don't even care to concern myself with it.

The truth is I really don't care what you think of me, if I win or lose. But when someone lies, I will call them out on it. When someone lies, I will make sure that lie is noticed. If you did not read the caps because they are caps, then you are a fool. If your eye grabbed that and you read it, then my point is made. It's called emphasis. I could do it with bold, or underline, or different color... I choose caps. And if he were here in front of me I would have shouted it at him for being that ignorant of a basic fact while he carries himself with such arrogance.

If you feel a wall of quotes is a sign of desperation, what is your opinion of post 506 when he did it?

In fairness, it is a lot easier to follow what the point being discussed is when things are broken down into sections. However when I can't get past the first few lines he wrote, without making that wall of quotes, it is a sign of his ignorance and how many holes are in his "facts", and not a direct result of any of my social problems. To further my point, why don't you take a stab at answering my counter to his lies and misinformation...

In other words stick up for your buddy with some facts instead of attacking me personally.

 

[RGacky3]

So I'm not sure what you're arguing here. Private property ownership has roots that go very deep in the English common law tradition. Are you saying that you would like to see legislation altering property law in some fundamental way? If so, how? And do you imagine that this would be state or federal legislation. (Personally, I don't think such legislation is appropriate at the federal level, and I would oppose such legislation were it to be under consideration in my own state.)

What I'm arguing is that when we discuss economic issues saying "THAT IS MINE I DESERVE IT BECUASE ITS MY PROPERTY NO MATTER WHAT AND NO SOCIAL INSTITUTION HAS THE RIGHT TO TELL ME ANYTHING." when it comes to thinkgs like land and capital is not the right argument.

I'm arguing that we shoudl start our arguments or economic framework with that knowledge and figure out what works best.

The only legislation altering property law I would propose ... at least right now, is corporate law, i.e the corporation is accountable to stakeholders not ONLY stockholders (such as variations on Co-Determination laws), but that wasn't my point in this discussion, it was to set the framework of talking economics and fundemental rights, because unfortunately in many economic arguments right wingers argue with things like "no one has to right to MY property" or other arguments assuming property beyond possession is a fundemental natural right.

 

[Federalist]

What I'm arguing is that when we discuss economic issues saying "THAT IS MINE I DESERVE IT BECUASE ITS MY PROPERTY NO MATTER WHAT AND NO SOCIAL INSTITUTION HAS THE RIGHT TO TELL ME ANYTHING." when it comes to thinkgs like land and capital is not the right argument.

I'm arguing that we shoudl start our arguments or economic framework with that knowledge and figure out what works best.

If you would like to argue that people don't have a right to their property, that's fine. Just be aware that you will be going against centuries of cultural values and common law.

The only legislation altering property law I would propose ... at least right now, is corporate law, i.e the corporation is accountable to stakeholders not ONLY stockholders (such as variations on Co-Determination laws), but that wasn't my point in this discussion, it was to set the framework of talking economics and fundemental rights, because unfortunately in many economic arguments right wingers argue with things like "no one has to right to MY property" or other arguments assuming property beyond possession is a fundemental natural right.

Again, in our society, the right to property is fairly well ingrained, both culturally and legally. Also, corporate law is a state function, not a federal function, so you need to push your co-determination law in your own state legislature.

 

[RGacky3]

If you would like to argue that people don't have a right to their property, that's fine. Just be aware that you will be going against centuries of cultural values and common law.

No I'm saying that their property is the result of common law ... I'm arguing that its a societal construct, Monarchies have been around for centuries and they were also based on cultural values, doesn't make monarchies a natural right.

Again, in our society, the right to property is fairly well ingrained, both culturally and legally. Also, corporate law is a state function, not a federal function, so you need to push your co-determination law in your own state legislature.

Thats not entirely true, corporations are formed in the state but a ton of laws applicable to them, including their accountability, is federal.

Also the right to property is well ingrained, but its also well ingrained that the right to property is not absolute, i.e. taxation is well ingrained, as are things like the commons, and Eminent domain.

Infact property as we have it today, i.e. Capitalist private property is NOT that old.

 

[Federalist]

No I'm saying that their property is the result of common law ... I'm arguing that its a societal construct, Monarchies have been around for centuries and they were also based on cultural values, doesn't make monarchies a natural right.

Whether or not property is a natural right, it is a concept with a long history, both culturally and legally. As far as your proposals to regarding property, I'm reminded of a quote I ran across many years ago:

"Thieves respect property. They merely wish the property to become their property that they may more perfectly respect it." ~ G.K. Chesterton

Thats not entirely true, corporations are formed in the state but a ton of laws applicable to them, including their accountability, is federal.

So are you saying that you would like your co-determination law to be enacted at the federal level? Under which one of Congress' enumerated powers would this law fall?

Also the right to property is well ingrained, but its also well ingrained that the right to property is not absolute, i.e. taxation is well ingrained, as are things like the commons, and Eminent domain.

I'm not arguing against taxes or eminent domain. If that's all you want, then we have no quarrel.

Infact property as we have it today, i.e. Capitalist private property is NOT that old.

I have no idea what you mean by "capitalist private property" or how that is distinguished from any other private property.

 

[RGacky3]

Whether or not property is a natural right, it is a concept with a long history, both culturally and legally. As far as your proposals to regarding property, I'm reminded of a quote I ran across many years ago:

"Thieves respect property. They merely wish the property to become their property that they may more perfectly respect it." ~ G.K. Chesterton

property has had different concepts and interpretations and there have been different institutions, I'm talking very specifically capitalist private property, which is relatively new and eurocentric.

So are you saying that you would like your co-determination law to be enacted at the federal level? Under which one of Congress' enumerated powers would this law fall?

The same powers that allow them to regulate any buisiness, anyway, I don't want to get into a constitutional debate here.

I'm not arguing against taxes or eminent domain. If that's all you want, then we have no quarrel.

You're missing the point, those concepts add to my point that property is not a natural right and thus not absolute, I'm arguing against those people who say that ANY societal restriction, regulation or so on of property is a violation of a natural right.

I have no idea what you mean by "capitalist private property" or how that is distinguished from any other private property.

Property beyond personal possession which enables the capitalist mode of production, so for example it would'nt include a Garden, but it would include a plantation, the former doesn't need a state institution necessarally to enforce, the latter does.

 

[Federalist]

property has had different concepts and interpretations and there have been different institutions, I'm talking very specifically capitalist private property, which is relatively new and eurocentric.

Yes, I understand. You are arguing against our current system of property.

The same powers that allow them to regulate any buisiness, anyway, I don't want to get into a constitutional debate here.

That's fine. But just know that any federal legislation that significantly changes property law will have to pass constitutional muster.

You're missing the point, those concepts add to my point that property is not a natural right and thus not absolute, I'm arguing against those people who say that ANY societal restriction, regulation or so on of property is a violation of a natural right.

I know of no state in which the right to property is absolute and inviolate, nor am I arguing that it should be. So I have to assume that you're not arguing against me then.

Property beyond personal possession which enables the capitalist mode of production, so for example it would'nt include a Garden, but it would include a plantation, the former doesn't need a state institution necessarally to enforce, the latter does.

Plantation, huh? Interesting choice of words. Since I am unaware of any plantations in any of the united states, I will assume you are using the word simply for effect and really mean a large farm where the owner workers. So do I understand you that you would change the property laws so that such a farm would be...what? I'm not sure. Would such a farm be illegal? Would all capitalist production be illegal? I'm not quite sure what you're after here.

 

[RGacky3]

Yes, I understand. You are arguing against our current system of property.

No in this thread, I'm arguing against the framework in which arguments are made, this argument goes way back in the thread, arguing against people who base their arguments on the fallacy that property is a fundemental right.

That's fine. But just know that any federal legislation that significantly changes property law will have to pass constitutional muster.

That wasn't the point of the argument right now, the point was the framework over which discussions over economic policy are based.

I know of no state in which the right to property is absolute and inviolate, nor am I arguing that it should be. So I have to assume that you're not arguing against me then.

Not really, I'm arguing against strict propertarians.

Plantation, huh? Interesting choice of words. Since I am unaware of any plantations in any of the united states, I will assume you are using the word simply for effect and really mean a large farm where the owner workers. So do I understand you that you would change the property laws so that such a farm would be...what? I'm not sure. Would such a farm be illegal? Would all capitalist production be illegal? I'm not quite sure what you're after here.

plantation was the first word that came into my head, I'm talking about a large private farm.

I'm not arguing to make such a farm illigal, I'm explaining the distinction between capitalist private property (in marxian terms just private property) and other forms of property, such as personal possession.

This is not an argument over policy perse, if you go back in the thread its an argument about the fundemental philisophical framework which policy is determined. I.e. I believe that property is a social construct whose purpose is to make society run smoothest, and should be defended in the situations it does work and not when it does not, whereas others (not you aparently), see it as a fundemental natural human right that is prior to any social institution.

 

[Federalist]

No in this thread, I'm arguing against the framework in which arguments are made, this argument goes way back in the thread, arguing against people who base their arguments on the fallacy that property is a fundemental right.

I understand you believe it to be a fallacy, just as others believe that it is a fallacy to think that property is NOT a natural right. When one starts with different premises, one will reach different conclusions.

That wasn't the point of the argument right now, the point was the framework over which discussions over economic policy are based.

Not really, I'm arguing against strict propertarians.

Yes, I understand that you don't believe that property is a natural right. Obviously, that is your belief and there's nothing I can do to change your fundamental premises that lead you to this conclusion. So I have come to realize that there's really no point in continuing to argue the point.

However, while your beliefs don't impact my life, the law does. So my primary concern is what sorts of legislation you propose and support based upon your belief that people have no natural right to property.

plantation was the first word that came into my head, I'm talking about a large private farm.

I'm not arguing to make such a farm illigal, I'm explaining the distinction between capitalist private property (in marxian terms just private property) and other forms of property, such as personal possession.

This is not an argument over policy perse, if you go back in the thread its an argument about the fundemental philisophical framework which policy is determined. I.e. I believe that property is a social construct whose purpose is to make society run smoothest, and should be defended in the situations it does work and not when it does not, whereas others (not you aparently), see it as a fundemental natural human right that is prior to any social institution.

Again, you are certainly free to hold whatever opinions your wish regarding property rights. You have laid out your argument and I have done likewise. Neither of us has convinced the other. Therefore, my only concern now is what action you intend to undertake that will effect me and my property.