The Impending Death of Modern Capitalism
Let's make sure we're all on the same page on the definition of capitalism.
It's basically a system in which private owne
Private has won and continues to win because of competition, adaptability and greed.
all of these things exist within public institutions
public schools, staying with your example, fiercely compete with one another for staffing, are constantly adapting their approaches, and seek to maximize their funding by playing to testing standards
then again, none of these I would expect to be particularly prevalent in religious "private" schools, which (again) skew the data, dramatically, on cost
"private is more efficient than public"why, though?the answer is scope, and in this is revealed that the above claim is a total illusionprivate scope is limited to specific concerns, whereas public scope must be more holistically sensitive.by way of a very simple example, a private enterprise can dump its waste into another's space, thereby "saving" the cost of dealing with tha
For sure, but the argument there leads into selectively choosing the kinds of areas where this scope argument performs the best, and inevitably, where public provision works best.. healthcare, police, utilities, transportation and so forth -even schools if you want keep it easy here. Pricing out folks from healthcare is going to spill over and cause problems for everyone, and the same goes for fire and police services not being adequately met. These aren’t optional systems - they are completely intertwined and affect everyone.
The issue in when you begin to enter areas such as tech, restaurants, entertainment, smartphones, apps and about a billion other areas. There is a demand signal that you just won't be able to ignore that creates a continuous feedback loop that creates the things people both want and make the world run better. The public role here is to tax the ever loving **** and to regulate and set boundaries in the space. If they can't manage that, I'd question their ability to accomplish the former since it's going to be mostly the same fools attempting it.
But this conversation is about one notch below religion so the argument always starts at the finish line and builds from there ... but a fully public model across all sectors (not that you're even arguing for this) is just willfully ignorant at best when you're dealing with millions to billions of people who are too diverse in preferences, behavior and needs. At worst, it's just another abstract fantasy discussion for some to dream up a scenario where they get to control others the way they'd prefer - which is often where this clown show of stupidity often ends up going.
private schools provide fewer services than public schools, lowering their spend and focusing their provision (see above re scope narrowing)
private schools also generally cater to a more advantaged student body, skewing their "results"
There is a reason why govt teachers, govt edu administrators and dems are fighting hard to prevent a school voucher system and it isn’t only to try to control education. They know that once school vouchers become popular and have some history the age of govt run schools is over. Govt run schools just can’t compete with the private sector.
all of these things exist within public institutionspublic schools, staying with your example, fiercely compete with one another for staffing, are constantly adapting their approaches, and seek to maximize their funding by playing to testing standardsthen again, none of these I would expect to be particularly prevalent in religious "private" schools, which (again) skew the data
Yes, there is some competition in govt schools but comparing the competition private schools face vs govt schools is like saying my sons 3rd grade basketball team has competition just like nba teams face each week. Remember that private schools have to convince parents their product is so much better than the govt schools that they have to pay for whether they go or not.
Is that the reason they stated they are fighting against vouchers? Or is there some inference to that effect? If so you should show it. I oppose voucher programs for different reasons than that and never met anyone that had that reason to oppose vouchers.
It sounds like it’s made up to be honest.
Is that the reason they stated they are fighting against vouchers? Or is there some inference to that effect? If so you should show it. I oppose voucher programs for different reasons than that and never met anyone that had that reason to oppose vouchers.
It sounds like it’s made up to be honest.
No, teachers, admins and their unions can’t openly state the reason they are against allowing parents to choose which school their kid goes to (using vouchers) is because parents will overwhelmingly choose private schools. However, they have seen what happens when red states move to the voucher system - it starts the slow death of govt run schools.
“Students using vouchers to attend private schools were somewhat less successful than those who were attending without a voucher, she says, but “both types of students … were less likely than traditional public school students to ever fail a course, or to ever be suspended in high school, and they were more likely to enroll in college within one year of high school graduation.”
https://www.usnews.com/education/k12/art...
Why do you oppose giving parents the choice of what school they think will be best for their child?
You are right that rich people spend less of what they bring in than poor people and spending more money helps the economy. However, what people who make your argument always forget is what rich people do with their money they don’t spend and how that helps the economy as well. They keep more money in the bank and the bank uses that money to give people car loans and mort
This post contains a fundamental misunderstanding of banking, and also lack of knowledge of how the ultra-wealthy hold their wealth.
You do not loan other people's deposits. A loan has two sides. The first is what you owe to the bank, which is an asset for them. The second side is the money you can spend, which is a liability for them.
So, let us say you borrow 10k. You owe the bank 10k, so this is 10k in assets for the bank. You can spend 10k, which is a liability for the bank. So, +10k and -10k for the bank, but since you actually pay interest, this puts the bank in the black. And this money is created, not held. Sure, this created money is secured against assets, but far from fully covered. Deposits are not those assets, because a deposit is actually a liability (money a bank has to pay when withdrawn).
Basically, the bank sells you money for more than it is worth. Though if we are going to use non-technical terms in this manner, it might be better to say that they are renting money to you.
As for the role of the ultra-wealthy in bank deposits, these people are typically not fans of bank accounts. They prefer their money to be tied up in stocks, property, other tangible assets and investment. This way when inflation strikes, you are not holding the bag. Bonus points for being first in line for stimulus and freshly printed money when government tackles recession, so you can buy even more assets before the money reaches the average citizen and inflation strikes to make it worth less. This can best be described as the world's most reckless game of musical chairs.
(People will have to forgive me if I miss out on some technical terms of economics and banking, English is not my first language. Even though I know it well enough, technical terms outside one's field is always tricky.)
Private has won and continues to win because of competition, adaptability and greed.
Let's give everyone vouchers and see how the private schools do with (1) more toxic children and (2) MANY more students in a every classroom.
Vouchers are stupid.
choosing not to utilize a government provided option does not mean you should get a voucher.
Are you giving a Roads Voucher to people who walk everywhere?
Hush, I haven't thought about that part yet.
No, teachers, admins and their unions can’t openly state the reason they are against allowing parents to choose which school their kid goes to (using vouchers) is because parents will overwhelmingly choose private schools. However, they have seen what happens when red states move to the voucher system - it starts the slow death of govt run schools. “Students using vouchers to a
You’ll notice that’s not an argument that they have the motivation you are ascribing to them, it’s just a burden shift. Pointing out that students who self-select with vouchers do better than their peers in public school doesn’t actually mean that if you oppose vouchers that means you want to keep the worse system going because
“There is a reason why govt teachers, govt edu administrators and dems are fighting hard to prevent a school voucher system and it isn’t only to try to control education. They know that once school vouchers become popular and have some history the age of govt run schools is over. Govt run schools just can’t compete with the private sector.”
It could very well be that they oppose vouchers for any number of reasons unrelated to whether government schools can compete with private schools. In fact that could be true that they believe that, and it’s still not the reason they oppose it.
I oppose the voucher system because I don’t think people need a refund for choosing to opt out of the public school system. That’s my background belief and I haven’t heard a good reason why that would be the case. That doesn’t mean I think that every dollar collected that could go to public schools should go there regardless of attendance, I just don’t see the reason to subsidize private schools with vouchers, which is what vouchers are. They aren’t a refund of tax dollars, they are an appropriation of tax dollars towards private schools.
OK I thought about it and they don't give vouchers in Ohio for homeschooling so the vouchers have nothjng to do with the mandate.
Not sure that's relevant. Presumably vouchers would be for parents to send their kids to a private school which meets certain standards set by the government.
Home skooling is also supposed to meet standards. It doesn't, but it's supposed to.
Not sure that's relevant. Presumably vouchers would be for parents to send their kids to a private school which meets certain standards set by the government.
Why wouldn’t vouchers also be given to home schoolers if the point is that you are being given money for their education that otherwise they would receive indirectly at a public school? Because it’s a subsidy for private schools.
Why wouldn’t vouchers also be given to home schoolers if the point is that you are being given money for their education that otherwise they would receive indirectly at a public school? Because it’s a subsidy for private schools.
I have no problem with vouchers for home schooling. I was discussing Ohio, which apparently doesn't use 'my' UBI approach to private education.
This post contains a fundamental misunderstanding of banking, and also lack of knowledge of how the ultra-wealthy hold their wealth.You do not loan other people's deposits. A loan has two sides. The first is what you owe to the bank, which is an asset for them. The second side is the money you can spend, which is a liability for them. So, let us say you borrow 10k. You owe the
I truly enjoyed you telling me I don't understand what the rich do with their money by responding to my post where I mentioned they keep some in the bank, invest in their own companies, invest in our companies, and other things only for you to say they do all of the things I said in my post.
In terms of you explanation on banking: I'm not sure if there is a language barrier thing going on, but I think you explained exactly what I said, but just added more detail.
In closing, you told me I am wrong on two issues and then you appear to be explaining why you agree with me on both issues.
Let's give everyone vouchers and see how the private schools do with (1) more toxic children and (2) MANY more students in a every classroom.
Please see my post below that addressed your issue. The quote refers to a study done showing kids moving from govt run to private using vouchers are better off than kids that stay in govt run.
It isn't clear why you think there will be more toxic kids or bigger classrooms when we start a voucher system. Sure a lot of kids from govt run schools will go to private schools but if a kid beats up a new kid every week it isn't going to be long before he is kicked out and when more kids start coming to a private school the private school will have more money to hire more teachers and build more classrooms.
“Students using vouchers to attend private schools were somewhat less successful than those who were attending without a voucher, she says, but “both types of students … were less likely than traditional public school students to ever fail a course, or to ever be suspended in high school, and they were more likely to enroll in college within one year of high school graduation.”
Vouchers are stupid.
choosing not to utilize a government provided option does not mean you should get a voucher.
Are you giving a Roads Voucher to people who walk everywhere?
Yes, I don't think we should force people who don't drive to pay the gas tax in this country.
Vouchers have an added benefit in that they will save tax payers a lot of money.
Save taxpayers money in terms of budget or in terms of cutting taxes?
I oppose the voucher system because I donÂ’t think people need a refund for choosing to opt out of the public school system. ThatÂ’s my background belief and I havenÂ’t heard a good reason why that would be the case. That doesnÂ’t mean I think that every dollar collected that could go to public schools should go there regardless of attendance, I just donÂ’t see the reason to
My opinion is that if tax payers are willing to fund education why not allow parents the options to give their kid a better education while also saving the taxpayer some money (private schools are cheaper than govt schools per kid).
Injecting so much money into a free market system would also lead to private schools working even harder to provide a better product for cheaper as they would be competing for a large share of kids every year. Public schools would have to choose to either keep the status quo and lose a majority of their students or would have to work hard to provide a better product.
You appear to be viewing it from the lenses of not wanting to give private schools money and I am viewing it from the lenses of a parent who wants to give their child the best chance to succeed. I don't think either of our views are wrong or right - just two different ways to look at the same problem.
Fell free to point out what you think I am wrong about. OR be intentionally vague so I can't defend a position since I don't know which position you are attacking.
On a per kid basis private schools are cheaper than govt run schools so if tax payers are going to pay for edu either way they would owe less under the voucher system. So to answer your question, under a voucher system, the govt budget would go down which would lead to less taxes that would need to be collected.
