• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

US vs. World

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Anyone have any ideas as to why the US consistently ranks below the rest of the civilized world in major testing and literacy rates. For example, the UK, France, and Germany all have literacy rates of 99-100% while the US hovers a bit lower, somewhere around 96-97%. This 2-3% may not seem like much to some people, but if you consider how many people this is you see it is a a problem.

Here's my theory of why this is. It's simple. While the three Euro countries I mentioned are pretty liberal economically, the US is going the other way. We are fiscally conservative (even the Democrats now thanks to Clinton and his "neo" liberals). As taxes are continually slashed, less and less of this tax money ends up in schools' hands. Consider that in my state of Indiana school budgets have dropped in each of the last four years. I'm wondering if anyone has stats on US literacy rates compared to Europes since the Reagan revolution of the 80's...
 

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
11,957
Reaction score
6,071
Location
Plano, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Here are my thoughts on why are are so low in literacy...

1. We have the victim mentality...whoa is me. i.e. Feminization of America.
2. Sports is more popular than reading. Many times kids are pushed through HS because they can bounce or throw a ball well.
3. We try to fix things by throwing money instead of energy to them - without demanding full account of funds. Oh, here is some more money, now maybe that school will do better. Make sure that you spend it all or you get no more.
4. Teachers are losing the battle. It is no longer a teachers classroom. If Sally gets offended - the school gets sued.
5. Parents. The parents are letting society teach the kids morals instead of doing it themselves.
6. Family stucture is on the brink. 70% of black kids are born out of wedlock. (only number I know) the numbers for other races are increasing at a very stagering rate.
7. Social Security for teachers is no longer available. Even though my wife is eligible - if she dies our kid and I get nothing of what she has contributed. Retirement is pathetic for teachers. Therefore it is hard to keep quality teachers in the classroom.
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I agree with most of what you say, but I hardly think morals (#5) has anything to do with the US literacy rate.
 

Gabo

Active member
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
336
Reaction score
1
Our education system is a FORCED monopoly.
Because of that, there is no incentive for the schools to provide a better service or product. They can continue to decline in quality and we still would be FORCED to go to them.

If schools were privatized, competition would create a market to provide the best education possible. Kids would be more inclined to enjoy education through innovative techniques and the fact that it is not FORCED upon them.


Privatize schools! :D
 

MeChMAN

Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
109
Reaction score
1
Location
Florida
anomaly said:
I agree with most of what you say, but I hardly think morals (#5) has anything to do with the US literacy rate.
#5 on Vauge's list has a lot to do with many things that are wrong with this country including the iliteracy rate in the US. The parent's should be the main influence in how a child turns out in adulthood IE: if a parent dosen't spend time with their child reading (for godsakes read a newspaper with them anything) the child will not read for anybody else.
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Gabo, the fact that schools are public in the US has absolutely NOTHING to do with why we are behind other public schools in Europe. Do you not realize yet that privatization is sometimes not the best path to take? Another question to others: apparently Gabo doesn't get it....anyone else willing to explain the ills of privatizing schools?
 

Gabo

Active member
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
336
Reaction score
1
anomaly said:
Gabo, the fact that schools are public in the US has absolutely NOTHING to do with why we are behind other public schools in Europe. Do you not realize yet that privatization is sometimes not the best path to take? Another question to others: apparently Gabo doesn't get it....anyone else willing to explain the ills of privatizing schools?
First, the topic is about the quality of schools here vs. elsewhere.
Sure, more and more taxpayer funded money towards school may help to increase our quality, but I'm proposing a much more logical and helpful solution of privatizing schools.

Second, I have yet to come across someone who has a valid arguement against privatizing schools.
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I've already given you some reasons that we should definitely NOT privatize schools, but here's another one I thought of: right now the gov't funds all public schools in the USA. I don't think that any business could successfully run any schools (and any business would inevitably want to manage more than one school) without a drastic increase in tuition rates. Even with these increases, a business (and I believe that any school business would have to focus on education and probably not anything else as it is such a huge area) would find it difficult to maintain a surplus of school materials as more and more students go to a school each year, there is a population increase in most schools of the USA each year. These tuition rates being so high means that not all students will receive an education (or another possibility is that, through competition tuition rates would become so low that the business could not afford quality materials) . In any rate, tuition rate increases would mean that not all students would be able to afford these business run schools. And your solution to this is charity run schools? Unlike taxes, people do not feel inclined to give charity. And you are depending on a tremendous amount of charity in each community to run these poor schools. Also, you must rely on a constant stream of charity, actually increasing amounts each year. Communities, though, obviously cannot all afford this. So what you would end up with is maybe 90% (and that's a kind estimate) of well educated students dominating 10% of poorly educated schools. I hope you realize that privatizing schools will NOT increase the literacy rate, as was my original question. Privatizing schools also means that not everyone will have a chance for education. This sort of thinking is based on the belief that the well-off kids somehow deserve better than poor kids. But if that's how you feel, then I guess privatizing schools is exactly what you want.

Also, I'd like to add that the USA will NEVER consider privatizing all schools, so your dream is and will always be just that, a dream.
 

Gabo

Active member
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
336
Reaction score
1
anomaly said:
right now the gov't funds all public schools in the USA. I don't think that any business could successfully run any schools (and any business would inevitably want to manage more than one school) without a drastic increase in tuition rates.
Tuition rates to current private schools average about half the tuition amount per student attending public schools. This would probably improve even further with more market competition. And many people would be interested in running a school. Lots of people like helping others and teaching, as well as upkeeping a business.


anomaly said:
Even with these increases, a business (and I believe that any school business would have to focus on education and probably not anything else as it is such a huge area) would find it difficult to maintain a surplus of school materials as more and more students go to a school each year, there is a population increase in most schools of the USA each year.
Smart businesses can easily learn to account for an annual increase in customers. Businesses everywhere right now already account for increase in consumers. Even if a school found it too difficult to guess what the increase would be, they could have their registration in the beginning of summer.


anomaly said:
These tuition rates being so high means that not all students will receive an education (or another possibility is that, through competition tuition rates would become so low that the business could not afford quality materials) . In any rate, tuition rate increases would mean that not all students would be able to afford these business run schools.
Like I said before, private schools reduce costs. There would inevitably be a variety of schools offering a variety of prices and different quality service. Less fortunate people could send their children to less cutting-edge schools, while wealthier people could provide radical new possiblities in education.


anomaly said:
And your solution to this is charity run schools? Unlike taxes, people do not feel inclined to give charity. And you are depending on a tremendous amount of charity in each community to run these poor schools. Also, you must rely on a constant stream of charity, actually increasing amounts each year.
I would say the majority of the people in the US believe less fortunate children deserve an education. Why else do you think they created public education in the first place? Public education basically started out as a government run charity for less fortunates.
Also, charity schools could run off a lot less money. Other schools could offer their old supplies to the charities. People who are involved with volunteer work could become teachers. Lessons could be taught with less sophisticated supplies that may take longer but can still work.


anomaly said:
So what you would end up with is maybe 90% (and that's a kind estimate) of well educated students dominating 10% of poorly educated schools. I hope you realize that privatizing schools will NOT increase the literacy rate, as was my original question. Privatizing schools also means that not everyone will have a chance for education. This sort of thinking is based on the belief that the well-off kids somehow deserve better than poor kids. But if that's how you feel, then I guess privatizing schools is exactly what you want.
There's the fact that public schooling is also extremely unfair to the poor. The quality of schooling in each district differs immensely, and the districts with better schooling have more expensive housing. In this way, our inefficient public school system creates winners and losers anyways.

Our education system as it is does a terrible job. The dropout rates in public high schools is catastrophically high, where private school dropout rates are close to none. With private schools we would see WAY fewer dropouts.

People not interested in an education could always work their way up the ladder of success with job experience instead of high education. People that may not have had a great education as a child can save up to go to adult school and learn more.

Your views seem to be based off the fact that you have the right to tell others what to do. Time for you to wake up! Every person on this earth deserves the right of self-ownership. That includes making decisions for themselves, and not being FORCED into anything. Supporting the use of FORCE to achieve something is anti-democratic, unconstitutional, and inhumane.



anomaly said:
Also, I'd like to add that the USA will NEVER consider privatizing all schools, so your dream is and will always be just that, a dream.
Considering TONS of people already want slips to choose which school gets their tax money, fully privatized schooling is not far off. Stop trying to crush my beliefs by pretending like my way is not possible. Not only will it work, it is becoming more and more popular among people.
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
vauge said:
Here are my thoughts on why are are so low in literacy...

1. We have the victim mentality...whoa is me. i.e. Feminization of America.

Huh?
2. Sports is more popular than reading. Many times kids are pushed through HS because they can bounce or throw a ball well.

I think you may be on to something here.


3. We try to fix things by throwing money instead of energy to them - without demanding full account of funds. Oh, here is some more money, now maybe that school will do better. Make sure that you spend it all or you get no more.

Yeah, 'em school's have way too much money as it is- let's take some away. Hey maybe we could give some more to a CEO or a CFO. I hear they've been hurting lately, you know interest rates aren't raising as fast as you hear.


4. Teachers are losing the battle. It is no longer a teachers classroom. If Sally gets offended - the school gets sued.

Teachers shouldn't be offending Sally, should they?


5. Parents. The parents are letting society teach the kids morals instead of doing it themselves.

Again, think you may have something here.


6. Family stucture is on the brink. 70% of black kids are born out of wedlock. (only number I know) the numbers for other races are increasing at a very stagering rate.

Yeah, them dumb black kids. No wait. Where are you getting your numbers from? And Fox News Network and the KKK are no longer credible sources.

7. Social Security for teachers is no longer available. Even though my wife is eligible - if she dies our kid and I get nothing of what she has contributed. Retirement is pathetic for teachers. Therefore it is hard to keep quality teachers in the classroom.

I'm sorry teachers in Texas don't qualify for social security? Man, I thought it would have taken Bush at least another year to push through his plan to steal from hard working honest folks and give the cash to Wall Street fat cats. Guess you guys in Texas are getting ripped off ahead of the rest of us, lucky you.
Honestly, I know what you're saying at times- other times I want some of what you're wifes putting in your Koolaid.
 
Last edited:

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
11,957
Reaction score
6,071
Location
Plano, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Yeah, them dumb black kids. No wait. Where are you getting your numbers from? And Fox News Network and the KKK are no longer credible sources.


http://www.acton.org/ppolicy/comment/print.php?id=169

Second sentence.

I'm sorry teachers in Texas don't qualify for social security? Man, I thought it would have taken Bush at least another year to push through his plan to steal from hard working honest folks and give the cash to Wall Street fat cats. Guess you guys in Texas are getting ripped off ahead of the rest of us, lucky you.
Teachers are government employees and do not qualify for SS and the retirement system the gov has.

Yeah, 'em school's have way too much money as it is- let's take some away. Hey maybe we could give some more to a CEO or a CFO. I hear they've been hurting lately, you know interest rates aren't raising as fast as you hear.
Not sure you got my meaning. We can throw millions at a problem, but first a problem has to exist and then a plan to fix it has to be in place. After that - accountability is the key to success.
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
vauge said:
[/size]

http://www.acton.org/ppolicy/comment/print.php?id=169

Second sentence.



Teachers are government employees and do not qualify for SS and the retirement system the gov has.


Not sure you got my meaning. We can throw millions at a problem, but first a problem has to exist and then a plan to fix it has to be in place. After that - accountability is the key to success.
You think that teachers and government employees don't qualify for SS? I have two retired teacher friends. Called both of them and they both get SS. I was a gov. employee- I paid into SS and according to the last bi-annual statement I got I should get somewhere around 1421.00 a month when I reach age 67. My dad worked for the government, Treasury Dept., for nearly 40 years he also gets SS.

http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/cgi-bin/ssa.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=499&p_created=975946740&p_sid=hAGVwfxh&p_lva=&p_sp=cF9zcmNoPTEmcF9zb3J0X2J5PSZwX2dyaWRzb3J0PSZwX3Jvd19jbnQ9MTQwJnBfc2VhcmNoX3R5cGU9c2VhcmNoX25sJnBfY2F0X2x2bDE9JnBfY2F0X2x2bDI9JnBfcGFnZT0xJnBfc2VhcmNoX3RleHQ9ZmVkZXJhbCB3b3JrZXJz&p_li=

Now while it is true that some federal empoyees prior to 1984 didn't pay into SS and therefore didn't qualify for payments. The reason for this was they had a solid federal retirement system that they did pay into and didn't need SS. The above link takes you the US Gov. SS site that answers the question dealing with whether or not federal workers qualify for SS. It doesn't go into it but basically their retirement plan often paid them nearly as much as their wages while working and the retirement benefits were not taxed. That became a major dispute in some states, Oregon being one of them. Oregon sued and began taxing federal employee benefits. Later the federal retirees sued back, won and their retirement earnings were agian not taxed. I honestly have idea what ever happend to this case; I stopped following it after a federal retiree I was working with retired from the state of Oregon job he was then working. I know when he retired he had two seperate retirement plans he was earning monthly income from. Don't know if they were taxed.
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Well, Gabo, although I know longer have the right to express my opinion that you are wrong (its because I'm wrong, right?) I will do so anyway. The first part of your argument is based on your fact that private schools tuition is half that of public schools. Where are you getting your numbers? Where I live, the two pivate schools cost a ton more than do the public schools. The rest of your reply is more or lessed based on speculation about how things will work when schools are privatized. Now assuming that you are right and all will be well when schools are privatized (which I completely disagree with) you have to take into account what kind of environment this school would require. It is said that schools are a reflection of the larger society, so for schools to be private, you must have a private, or completely capitalistic laissez-faire (spelling might be off on that) society. This is no restrictions on business at all, letting business run itself. This doesn't work so well. It has been tried once before (1870's-1920's) and this resulted in, among other things, the Great Depression. So now it seems, Gabo, that you must move from schools to the economy and argue this laissez-faire society that historically has failed.
 

Gabo

Active member
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
336
Reaction score
1
anomaly said:
Well, Gabo, although I know longer have the right to express my opinion that you are wrong (its because I'm wrong, right?) I will do so anyway. The first part of your argument is based on your fact that private schools tuition is half that of public schools. Where are you getting your numbers? Where I live, the two pivate schools cost a ton more than do the public schools. The rest of your reply is more or lessed based on speculation about how things will work when schools are privatized. Now assuming that you are right and all will be well when schools are privatized (which I completely disagree with) you have to take into account what kind of environment this school would require. It is said that schools are a reflection of the larger society, so for schools to be private, you must have a private, or completely capitalistic laissez-faire (spelling might be off on that) society. This is no restrictions on business at all, letting business run itself. This doesn't work so well. It has been tried once before (1870's-1920's) and this resulted in, among other things, the Great Depression. So now it seems, Gabo, that you must move from schools to the economy and argue this laissez-faire society that historically has failed.
Check that other thread for the reasons why the gov caused the Greate Depression.

Here is proof of public schools costing double private schools:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp-025.html
 

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
11,957
Reaction score
6,071
Location
Plano, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Pacridge said:
I have two retired teacher friends.
The word retired is the key here. Teachers are no longer able to 'double dip' for retirement. There is a government retire system for teachers. Regardless if they put money in or not, if they did not retire last year - they are not elligble.

We just spoke to a finacial adviser on Thursday about this. My wife is now putting into a 403b hoping that it will suffice where SS is no longer available.

Social Security Protection Act of 2004
http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/cgi-bin/ssa.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=1265&p_created=1062097673&p_sid=LHHUjlxh&p_lva=499&p_sp=cF9zcmNoPTEmcF9zb3J0X2J5PSZwX2dyaWRzb3J0PSZwX3Jvd19jbnQ9MTQmcF9zZWFyY2hfdHlwZT1zZWFyY2hfbmwmcF9jYXRfbHZsMT0mcF9jYXRfbHZsMj0mcF9wYWdlPTEmcF9zZWFyY2hfdGV4dD1BcmUgdGVhY2hlcnMgZWxsaWdibGU-&p_li=
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
vauge said:
The word retired is the key here. Teachers are no longer able to 'double dip' for retirement. There is a government retire system for teachers. Regardless if they put money in or not, if they did not retire last year - they are not elligble.

We just spoke to a finacial adviser on Thursday about this. My wife is now putting into a 403b hoping that it will suffice where SS is no longer available.

Social Security Protection Act of 2004
http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/cgi-bin/ssa.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=1265&p_created=1062097673&p_sid=LHHUjlxh&p_lva=499&p_sp=cF9zcmNoPTEmcF9zb3J0X2J5PSZwX2dyaWRzb3J0PSZwX3Jvd19jbnQ9MTQmcF9zZWFyY2hfdHlwZT1zZWFyY2hfbmwmcF9jYXRfbHZsMT0mcF9jYXRfbHZsMj0mcF9wYWdlPTEmcF9zZWFyY2hfdGV4dD1BcmUgdGVhY2hlcnMgZWxsaWdibGU-&p_li=
I stand corrected. The laws have changed I did not know about the change. Under what adminstration did the law change? Sounds like a typical GOP move to me.

But your wife does have a retirement plan? It just now sucks because she's no longer able to double dip? Well at least you two sound smart enough to realize it now and take action while you're young enough to plan and save. Wonder how many people are out there that will be caught unaware of the change?

Personally I think we pay our soldiers, police, fire and teacher's pennies on the dollar of what they're really worth. I really feel that way about our armed forces members at the moment. When I was in nothing was going on. But now it seems there's more being asked of them and we should most certainly pay up. The amount we're currently giving to families when they lose a loved one is insulting. And some of the stories I read and seen concerning the way we treat our injuried soldiers is also a slap in their face. I saw one last month where a guy had his leg blown off in Baghdad only to come home to live in his car. Whomever let that happen at DOD should be fired and made live in their car for a month. Sadly I think there are stories of soldiers that are treated rather well. We don't see those stories. Just like we rarely hear any good news about anything on the TV news. Good news just doesn't make the cut I guess. But even if only one of these guys comes home to live in his car it's an outrage.
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
First off, I would like to get some more recent info onthis (the latest graph was from '95). Second, do you have any proof of these private succeses? If they are so successful, why does no industrialized country (that I know of) have all private schools? I still do not think the problem with education today is private schools, my school district is very, very good. Perhaps teachers are simply better in my district? Does anyone have any stats on the teacher/pupil ratio avg? Also, you said before that a "school monopoly" would never occur as monopolies do not tend to develop in capitalist societies. Go to your grocery store! Proctor and Gamble and Unilever own hundreds of brands of soap powder, detergents, dishwater tablets etc. These two companies have arisen out of hundreds of companies that once existed. In post-WWII Europe, there were hundreds of car manufacturers. Now you can count them on the fingers of two hands. Monopolies are a dangerous and real occurence in capitalism, and they threaten its very existence. So there is no reason to not expect monopolies to develop in private education.

Pacridge, apparently I can't quote in editing, but this is addressed to Gabo's reply with the cato website.
 
Last edited:

Gabo

Active member
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
336
Reaction score
1
anomaly said:
First off, I would like to get some more recent info onthis (the latest graph was from '95). Second, do you have any proof of these private succeses? If they are so successful, why does no industrialized country (that I know of) have all private schools? I still do not think the problem with education today is private schools, my school district is very, very good. Perhaps teachers are simply better in my district? Does anyone have any stats on the teacher/pupil ratio avg? Also, you said before that a "school monopoly" would never occur as monopolies do not tend to develop in capitalist societies. Go to your grocery store! Proctor and Gamble and Unilever own hundreds of brands of soap powder, detergents, dishwater tablets etc. These two companies have arisen out of hundreds of companies that once existed. In post-WWII Europe, there were hundreds of car manufacturers. Now you can count them on the fingers of two hands. Monopolies are a dangerous and real occurence in capitalism, and they threaten its very existence. So there is no reason to not expect monopolies to develop in private education.
There is no reason to keep schooling away from the competitive market. And if you are worried about private schools, then keep public schooling but make it optional. Those who decide against public schooling will be exempt from related taxes, free to choose education of their own liking, while the others may continue to use the existing system.

If the public schools in your district are very good, I am guessing you live in a wealthier neighborhood. Reason being, the property around the better public schools increases in value, which once again makes quality of education dependant on wealth.

Also, monopolies do not usually exist long in the free market. They only exist as long as they provide the best product or service. If they try to raise prices or decrease quality, consumers are likely to try a less known company that will provide them with a better product or service. The power is held with the people, rather than in the hands of a few government officials.
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Actually, I live in a pretty poor neighborhood, but most of the people who go to my school are, yes, wealthier than avg. It seems to me that the best public schools are always in pretty small cities. So that's why I'm wondering about the teacher/pupil ratio for big cities especially. I don't really see anything wrong with your idea of keeping them both (although, isn't that what we have right now?? we have your standard public school, but their are also private schools...). But making the citizens whose children do not attend public school "exempt from related taxes? As your website points out, their is no standard to how much money goes to public schools (it can be seen that there is less now with Bush's tax cuts) so I'm not sure you can make people exempt from these taxes.
Regarding monopolies, I feel you misunderstand how they work. Using the supermarket example, I'm sure a competitor pops up often that Proctor and Gamble simply doesn't like for whatever reason, so Proctor will just buy out this company. This is the huge danger with monopolies, that they destroy all competition. When their is more than one competitor, yes these two will continue to lower prices (as much as they can) until one of them is defeated, for whatever reason. You must see that their are winners and losers in capitalism, usually more losers than winners. Now, when one company remains they will raise prices tremendously. Yes, small companies can rise and attempt to compete with this giant, but they will quickly be bought out. Monopolies destroy competition and thus destroy capitalism...that is why most if not all capitalists feel that the government should atleast set restrictions in this area.
 

Gabo

Active member
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
336
Reaction score
1
anomaly said:
I don't really see anything wrong with your idea of keeping them both (although, isn't that what we have right now?? we have your standard public school, but their are also private schools...). But making the citizens whose children do not attend public school "exempt from related taxes? As your website points out, their is no standard to how much money goes to public schools (it can be seen that there is less now with Bush's tax cuts) so I'm not sure you can make people exempt from these taxes.
First off, current private schools are still very much under government control. They must follow the provided curriculum and guidelines set by the government.

I do not know exactly how the taxes would be exempted. I'm guessing the best way is to just have the tuition that would go to the public school go to the people instead. If I decide not to go to public school, I get my tuition money to spend as I please.



anomaly said:
Regarding monopolies, I feel you misunderstand how they work. Using the supermarket example, I'm sure a competitor pops up often that Proctor and Gamble simply doesn't like for whatever reason, so Proctor will just buy out this company. This is the huge danger with monopolies, that they destroy all competition. When their is more than one competitor, yes these two will continue to lower prices (as much as they can) until one of them is defeated, for whatever reason. You must see that their are winners and losers in capitalism, usually more losers than winners. Now, when one company remains they will raise prices tremendously. Yes, small companies can rise and attempt to compete with this giant, but they will quickly be bought out. Monopolies destroy competition and thus destroy capitalism...that is why most if not all capitalists feel that the government should atleast set restrictions in this area.
You need to understand that price discrimination is highly ineffective and costly.

A big company cannot handle all the strain of buying out every company it comes up against. Furthermore, if your company gets defeated once you can go ahead and start it up again! Heck, as long as there's a monopoly everyone might as well make their own small businesses and get bought out repeatedly to make tons of cash!

Here is a link to some basic principles on why free market monopolies don't actually work:
http://www.fff.org/freedom/0592c.asp
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I'd just like to point out that your link is to a right-wing professor. There are PLENTY of left-wing professors out there who say almost the opposite. But hey, they're just wrong, right? I suppose we can't know if monopolies exist in a completely free-market society as such a society has not yet existed. So it is then up to what one thinks will happen. And personally I think this professor is kinda wacko. Monopolizing is a real and disturbing occurence in free market capitalism. Note my car example: The amount of car-making companies in Europe has dwindled from hundreds right after WWII to now less than ten. And I don't think government (the evil antagonist) had anything to do with this.
 

Gabo

Active member
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
336
Reaction score
1
anomaly said:
I'd just like to point out that your link is to a right-wing professor. There are PLENTY of left-wing professors out there who say almost the opposite. But hey, they're just wrong, right? I suppose we can't know if monopolies exist in a completely free-market society as such a society has not yet existed. So it is then up to what one thinks will happen. And personally I think this professor is kinda wacko. Monopolizing is a real and disturbing occurence in free market capitalism. Note my car example: The amount of car-making companies in Europe has dwindled from hundreds right after WWII to now less than ten. And I don't think government (the evil antagonist) had anything to do with this.
Please, I would like to see a ling to your "lef-wing professor" and his opinion on the matter.

The number of competitors in an industry depends on the demand of the people. If the people are perfectly fine with having only a handful of car companies to choose from, it will remain that way. But when enough people start to demand change within the car industry, new companies will arise.
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Go to the economics forum, and then to ss & hc. Click on the link to see a Princeton economics professor talk about the ills of privatising SS, something I'm sure your against. Now I'm not sure if that's what your looking for, but that's something. As for admitting that state intervention is required for monopolies, consult some of the great capitalist thinkers: Adam Smith and Friedrich von Hayek.
 

Gabo

Active member
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
336
Reaction score
1
SS indeed should be privatized, but an ACTUAL privatization. Not the hoax that Bush is proposing.


I'll go check out that thread anyways...
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
So then can't you agree that Bush's plan is plain awful? I mean what he wants to do would not save SS nor would it save money, nor would it ensure guarunteed retirement money for the poor.
 
Top Bottom