Sam Carana is right - education needs to be reformed and here's only answer that will ever ever work.
Jason Lang
into the fray
here's an educational idea from australia. developed in my home state
of NSW as a replacement for the state syllabus from age 5 - 16.
unfortunately funding for the reform was axed due to the early 90's
recession and then the sydney olympics and then with sept 11 and
terrorist scares education reform was low on the list. It's being
implemented piecemeal which can be the death knell for really good
ideas.
traditional school education locks students into grade or years based
on age. diffrences in ability are catered for by setting up levels
within a subject eg Advanced math, regular math, math for dummies
within a single year. Students are locked into 'lower' ranking classes
permanently in subjects they do not excel in. This is a serious
demotivator as these students really have no way to move up, and are
talked down to as if they are imbeciles due to poor performance in that
single subject. School moves at a set pace through subject material,
regardless of the students ability to absorb information. tests are at
predetermined set points. for te most part it's a 'one size fits all'
system.
the reformed system in NSW contained all the same subject material +
some more as the regular syllabus.
the syllabus was divided into 6 main subject strands, eg english, math,
sci & tech, history & geography etc
each subject strand was divided into 8 levels and each level consists
of simple assertions of competence written in plain english
e.g. level 3 english contained statements like "can write a sentence
with a capital letter and a full stop".
this assertion is understandable by teacher, student, parent, young
earth creationist ;), anyone. For each living person, it is either
true, or it is false. There's no jargon required, the assertion is
unambiguous and contains enough information to contruct a test of it's
truth for any student of any age. It's grading, test and explanation
all in one sentence.
No marks are recorded other than true/false whether you have
demonstrated the competence. No concept of failure, only a concept of
what you have achieved and what you have not. a concept of 'Failure'
implies : (1) students competing to learn which is not implicit in the
concept of learning at all, (2) a deadline on learning which again is
hard to justify.
once you have ticks against every assertion ("outcomes" in higher ed.
terminology) you are able to move to the next level of that subject
area, thus allowing you to be at level 3 english, level 5 math, level 4
sci tech etc. The variable rates of movement account for differences of
ability that used to be catered for with math A, math B, math C etc but
without the condescension, and it's also more flexible.
It also effectively acts as a test of a teachers abilities by making
what the teacher claims they have taught the students explicit.
so if you move up to english level 4 but are unable to write a sentence
as per the level 3 example outcome shown above this is immediately
clear to your new teacher and also to the parents. Each outcome could
be written on the report card even rather than abstract stuff like
"english - achievement good, application average" which nobody could
possibly check for truth.
the outcomes are collected together in a student's 'portfolio'. the
portfolio is transferrable between any 2 schools adhereing to state
syllabus. the modular nature of the assertions (each assertion in
subject X level Y asumes knowledge only from subject X level Y-1) means
teachers are free to teach topics in any order or mixed up or whatever.
so you don't lose out by transferring to a school which teaches
subjects in a different order. you keep recognition of anything
completed at the last school, so no more sitting in classes you've
already completed, just because quietly sitting in class is what you're
supposed to do.
when discussing these ideas with others locally i usualy get knee-jerk
angry responses against them. i'd like to point out the most popular
arguments and my repsonses. i will refer to the above scheme from
herein as "the modular approach".
criticism - "your sheme fails to realize that often rote learning is
the best form to memorize basic facts"
response - the modular approach does NOT dictate teaching methods. this
is it's basic difference from most schemes which have come before. it
is minimal, flexible yet complete, so educators whether home, school,
trade etc are free to implement any study / marking system they want
above it, including a traditional school approach if that's what suits
them.
There's no reason the modular approach can't be reconciled with other
educational ideas.
criticism - "without the possibility of failure students will not be
motivated and their education will suffer" - this implies a reduction
in education efficiency due to students being lazy with a flexible
advancement system.
response - the usual form "failure" is to hold that student back a
year. eg repeat all subjects. so, lets define a 'par' level for each
subject which is the acceptable percent of that class you need to learn
to advance. currently 'par' would be 50% or 60%.
so, currently students can get through school (or home school) only
learning a little more than half of each subject.
say you are below par in *any* core subject the traditional wisdom that
you repeat *all* subjects because otherwise you would fall outside the
production-line system of education. so with 6 subjects, and one i
failed, i would be repeating totally 5 subjects for one year. eg i've
repeated 5 and a half subjects worth of classes which i didn't need to
satisfy bureaucratic requirements.
how much better to advance the student generally but keep them back in
*one* subject. Being held back wouldn't have the same stigma attached
because there would be a variation in ages of 1 or 2 years in each
subject class.
the current system uses fear as the main motivator - eg poor students
fear failure / expulsion. good students have fear of not going to a
good college held over their heads.
also, traditionally, tests are defined at specific points, you arenot
allowed to take a test outside their predetermined exam period. this
frustrates both good students and poor students. in the modular
approach you do a series of little tests on well defined criteria
rather than one big test on a whole bunch of loosely related items. you
either pass/fail all these items in one big block.
so if you fail on just long division you gotta sit through all the crap
in the same class again, or they say "nevermind" and put you through to
the next level fully knowing you didn't complete everything in the last
level. in the modular approach you could still be pushed up, but what
you did/did not learn in the last level is explicitly recorded.
- the modular approach outlined above allows you to move faster through
subjects you find easy, and/or to spend more time working on those
subjects you find hard. it deals with learning as individuals while
still being part of a community. Students have more understanding of
the learning process due to the explicit assertions in the portfolio.
Studies were done involving making primary students (9 - 12 yo)
responsible for their own portfolios, eg each morning students would
take their portfolio and check which outcomes were complete / non
complete. they would select which areas needed work and which could
wait. when they felt ready, they would request assessment and receive
the outcome if they passed. feedback in this way is very tightly
targeted to what concept you are learning rather than the
production-line model with a percentage awarded across a whole subject
area, thus speeding advance and put sharp focus on strengths and
weaknesses.
The students learn from this process as well - responsibility, logic,
prioritising, setting goals, communication and negotiation skills, and
the spark of an awareness of epistemology :-)
Sam Carana
zinnic
The educational scheme you outlined seems almost ideal in that it
'custom caters' to the needs of individual students rather than
requiring students to accomodate to a prefabricated system of learning.
However, custom 'tailoring' is vastly more labor intensive and
expensive than mass production, and this proves to be a factor in the
introduction of the new education program in NSW.
The ideal extreme in education would be to provide an individual tutor
for each student. Of course this would be absurdly expensive and
impractical but it does raise the question of diminishing returns on an
investment.
Thus the choice to learn at any pace is necessarily restricted by
economics, and the apparent lack of coercion to 'learn' would seem to
require the student be self-motivated or strongly motivated by parents
or peers.
I am sure this must be addressed in your system but I would think that
'incorrigable' students would not benefit from a too permissive
environment. In my experience, some of us required a boot in the
derriere for us to recognise the consequences of failure in school and,
more importantly, in the non-permissive post-school competition.
I support increased expenditure on modifying education such as you
advocate, provided it shows solid potential for success in real life.
It must not be a social experiment without informed consent. In the
past too many students have been irrevocably harmed by schemes
instituted on the bases of doctoral theses 'dreamed up' by Schools of
Education.
Great post. ...Z
goozlefotz
fact that funding is done on a "per student" basis. Thus the incentive
is to keep as many students as possible to keep the funding up as much
as possible. Thus, those who should have been kicked out never are and
drag the level of the entire group down. Also, the fact that, here in
the U.S., teaching is one of the lowest paying careers means that most
of the education majors are from the bottom of the abilities scale. At
a minimum, I think that the teacher of a class should be able to pass
the same test as will be given to the students at the end of the class.
Many of the teachers would fail.
Souvik
> Also, the fact that, here in
> the U.S., teaching is one of the lowest paying careers means that most
> of the education majors are from the bottom of the abilities scale.
I've seen some recent interest at major universities in the US to
attract doctorates in the sciences to high-school teaching with
reasonable salaries. But I seriously cannot imagine anyone giving up
the excitement of frontier science to teach high-school kids, unless
one is so inclined from the beginning of their careers or the pay is
really high.
> At
> a minimum, I think that the teacher of a class should be able to pass
> the same test as will be given to the students at the end of the class.
> Many of the teachers would fail.
Really?!!
Jason Lang
(espescially where the senior politicians went to school) get such a
ridicuolous amount of funding more than public schools, per student,
that a fair and equitable system of vouchers would destroy a system of
privilege which they have spent a century building up.
zinnic
You are becoming more and more agreeable. If you are not careful your
claim to be an "old curmudgeon" will wear thin!
The average GRE score for acceptance into graduate studies in
Education (combined verbal and quantitative, about 850 )is somewhat
lower than required for Doctoral studies in Schools of Nursing. It is
not my intention to put down nursing, but that the least accomplished
should be directing the education of our children is a digrace(this is
not to say that no educators possess phenomenal intellects). WE must be
more selective and more genorous inremuneration of teachers. But, I
dare say it--- teachers unions represent a serious hindrance to the
improvement of the societal status and reward for in-class
teachers.....Z
Jason Lang
Basically the revolution is in *not* telling schools *how* to teach but
*what*.
The escallating costs concern is balanced by several considerations:
1 It's up to the school how they implement it, the concept only
concerns itself with results, so the school can put in place whatever
works and/or is cost-effective. This way you get multiple schools
competing to have the best educational practices.
2. use of computers in the assessment process.
A web-based tutorial tool could be built, to guide students through the
syllabus. This could be shared among multiple schools, and allow
discussion directly between remote students on a specific syllabus
item. e.g similar to usenet. The iteractive tutorial could suggest when
it was appropriate to seek final assessment. This would be a very low
cost considering the large investment in IT schools are already making,
and would have educational value in itself.
2. Students directly involved in the asessment process. In the studies
with primary age children they were directly responsible for their
portfolios, and they encourages self paced learning, and working in
small groups. Traditional classroom teaching can be used as the bulk of
learning, using self paced learning/study groups only for specific
circumstances where it is most effective.
3. less figures. Teachers need trasnsmit far less numerical data about
their students to the educational authorities. Who cares whether you
got a 55% or 88% in long-division when you were 11 years old ? a yes/no
does just as well. Basically, most numerical data is redundant, so we
could reduce after-hours unpaid work for teachers, which would increase
morale and make teaching a marginally more attractive profession
without increasing wage costs. also, with less meaningless figures to
keep track of there could be a reduction in admin support and
government bereaucracy.
4. more freedom in teaching methods. You are free to adopt the syllabus
without the flexible paced learning ideas. or, you could be flaxible in
the adoption of flexible learning, ie special classes of students who
have proven they need less supervision, costing less because they are
supervised on a needs basis not supervised because we assume all
students require it, while the bulk of students learn in the
traditional classroom. This would help us more clearly ascertain which
methods are the most cost effective.
As for NSW i've not looked at the literature here for a couple of years
but last time i looked: first implement it in kindergarten, next year :
year 1, then year 2 etc. eg it grows with the students and no student
is forced to change to another system half-way through their schooling.
Thus, it will take 15 years (from a base of about 1998) to fully
implement the system at all levels within the pilot program schools.
also, the results from implementation of each year are used to adjust
the policy to increase performance and combat teething problems. Major
problems with the system can be detected by comparing the preformance
of the program against regular school performance.
Maybe students could be enrolled in normal classes, but self pace only
for areas of special interest eg i could have gone a lot further in
math if i could have been put in a group of about the best 5 math
students in the year. As it was, we were in a class with ppl with no
math interest whatsoever and all learning at the same rate regardless
of ability or interest. With NSW new syllabus gifted math students
could learn one or more suptopics from the next level (and be fully
acredited) of math while still being in normal classes for most of the
time. or, you could skip ahead in any subject in your own time.
Would this not reduce the overall cost/classroom time of teaching this
stuff to students ?
goozlefotz
Yes, sadly. I am talking here about primary and secondary school
teachers. They are supposed to have a degree in the general subject
area that they teach, but that does not happen all that often. My
brother has an M.S. in physics teaching and spent his career teaching
at a high school. He had been a machinist before becoming a teacher
and would make more during the summers as a machinist than he made all
year as a teacher.
I used to tutor in math while I was in college and some of the
education majors who came to me left me in a moral dilemma: I did not
WANT those people to get a degree and be imposed on some poor sixth
graders.
Sam Carana
They would love the voucher idea, except that private schools
(espescially where the senior politicians went to school) get such a ridicuolous amount of funding more than public schools, per student, that a fair and equitable system of vouchers would destroy a system of privilege which they have spent a century building up.
system that you referred to.
Jason Lang
> schools much more responsive. Public schools would be better off if they
> split up those large schools into multiple smaller schools, moving away from
why not multiple inpendent units within one campus, like faculties
within a university ?
that way you can reduce the problems of changeover, ans get the
benefits of economies of scale
along with the responsiveness of smaller administative units ?
btw about homeschooling :
have you heard about research into the link between junk food and
uncontrollable behaviour in children ?
i am willing to bet that any parent willing to input the time and
effort to homeschool is also providing decent home cooked meals.
this could account for the difference in behaviour better than 'the
system makes them do it'.
studies have shown that providing decent food to young people with
problems cam make them much better behaved without any need for extra
discipline. So, we gotta stop the serving junk food at schools !!!
goozlefotz
Jason Lang wrote:
>
> have you heard about research into the link between junk food and
> uncontrollable behaviour in children ?
>
history of mankind, it was a rare treat, not a staple.
Jason Lang
> history of mankind, it was a rare treat, not a staple.
according to docos i've seen the stereotype of the medieval european as
having rotten teeth is totally unjustified - the teeth only went bad
after refined sugar was imported from the new world post columbus,
(thus requiring the invetion of toothpaste - necessity is the mother of
invetion after all)
zinnic
> keep in mind that syllabus only dictacts outcomes not methods.
> Basically the revolution is in *not* telling schools *how* to teach but
> *what*.
This may strike at the core of one of the most serious problems in
education, especially in Junior high in the USA.. That is, the over
emphasis by Schools of Education on the "how' rather than the 'what'.
Teachers are trained in the 'how' in the art of teaching but many are
relatively ignorant of the 'what' they are assigned to teach!
> The escallating costs concern is balanced by several considerations:
>
> 1 It's up to the school how they implement it, the concept only
> concerns itself with results, so the school can put in place whatever
> works and/or is cost-effective. This way you get multiple schools
> competing to have the best educational practices.
Presumably, the prize is that other schools will adopt the winning
practices. The prize is not to attract students away from other
schools so that fail because of 'market' pressures? i.e. Survival of
the economic fittest (Hi!Sam)
> 2. use of computers in the assessment process.
>
> A web-based tutorial tool could be built, to guide students through the
> syllabus. This could be shared among multiple schools, and allow
> discussion directly between remote students on a specific syllabus
> item. e.g similar to usenet. The iteractive tutorial could suggest when
> it was appropriate to seek final assessment. This would be a very low
> cost considering the large investment in IT schools are already making,
> and would have educational value in itself.
>
> 2. Students directly involved in the asessment process. In the studies
> with primary age children they were directly responsible for their
> portfolios, and they encourages self paced learning, and working in
> small groups. Traditional classroom teaching can be used as the bulk of
> learning, using self paced learning/study groups only for specific
> circumstances where it is most effective.
The same sensible compromise was adopted in short order after Harvard
Medical school intitiated a 'self learning' curriculum. Even their
'cream of the cream' students rebelled against 'reinventing all of the
wheels' and demanded formal lectures that enabled them to "rote learn"
the discoveries and established knowledge of their medical
predecessors.
> 3. less figures. Teachers need trasnsmit far less numerical data about
> their students to the educational authorities. Who cares whether you
> got a 55% or 88% in long-division when you were 11 years old ? a yes/no
> does just as well. Basically, most numerical data is redundant, so we
> could reduce after-hours unpaid work for teachers, which would increase
> morale and make teaching a marginally more attractive profession
> without increasing wage costs. also, with less meaningless figures to
> keep track of there could be a reduction in admin support and
> government bereaucracy.
Herein lies another serious problem in education. The lack of high
paying positions that are directly related to teaching practices. IMO
Teaching Inspectors should be recruited from the best teachers and
should hold administrative positions at a rank that effectively
influences general education policy and funding.
> 4. more freedom in teaching methods. You are free to adopt the syllabus
> without the flexible paced learning ideas. or, you could be flaxible in
> the adoption of flexible learning, ie special classes of students who
> have proven they need less supervision, costing less because they are
> supervised on a needs basis not supervised because we assume all
> students require it, while the bulk of students learn in the
> traditional classroom. This would help us more clearly ascertain which
> methods are the most cost effective.
Surely it would be self defeating to allow the 'flexible system' not
to be used? It does not make sense to me that schools 'selected' to
institute flexible programs (at no little cost) be allowed to use the
additional funds for the same old,same old.
> As for NSW i've not looked at the literature here for a couple of years
> but last time i looked: first implement it in kindergarten, next year :
> year 1, then year 2 etc. eg it grows with the students and no student
> is forced to change to another system half-way through their schooling.
> Thus, it will take 15 years (from a base of about 1998) to fully
> implement the system at all levels within the pilot program schools.
> also, the results from implementation of each year are used to adjust
> the policy to increase performance and combat teething problems. Major
> problems with the system can be detected by comparing the preformance
> of the program against regular school performance.
>
> Maybe students could be enrolled in normal classes, but self pace only
> for areas of special interest eg i could have gone a lot further in
> math if i could have been put in a group of about the best 5 math
> students in the year. As it was, we were in a class with ppl with no
> math interest whatsoever and all learning at the same rate regardless
> of ability or interest. With NSW new syllabus gifted math students
> could learn one or more suptopics from the next level (and be fully
> acredited) of math while still being in normal classes for most of the
> time. or, you could skip ahead in any subject in your own time.
>
> Would this not reduce the overall cost/classroom time of teaching this
> stuff to students ?
I am with you on this. I assume this is a government sponsored scheme
and not a for-profit private enterprise project that would abandon
students as soon as it smells the possibility of financial loss. You
know how it is with private enterprise. If you do not succeed, go into
bankruptcy in order not to pay your debts (Hi! Sam)
Jason Lang
>> 1 It's up to the school how they implement it, the concept only
>> concerns itself with results, so the school can put in place whatever
>> works and/or is cost-effective. This way you get multiple schools
>> competing to have the best educational practices.
Zinnic Said :
> Presumably, the prize is that other schools will adopt the winning
> practices. The prize is not to attract students away from other
> schools so that fail because of 'market' pressures? i.e. Survival of
> the economic fittest (Hi!Sam)
Parents can choose schools now so competition exists anyway. By making
assessment more portable you really level the playing field. I'm sure
Sam will pip in with a 'Vouchers' suggestion about now.
Yes, the true prize is that all schools improve their teaching methods,
it could be due to fear that they might lose students to other more
elightened schools. Obviously, transparency is of utmost importance
here, otherwise schools could copyright their
teaching methods and then it'd be almost impossible to avoid a
'McClassroom' culture.
would help us more clearly ascertain which
> methods are the most cost effective.
> Surely it would be self defeating to allow the 'flexible system' not
> to be used? It does not make sense to me that schools 'selected' to
> institute flexible programs (at no little cost) be allowed to use the
> additional funds for the same old,same old.
Not really, the syllabus *allows* for the flexible system but it would
violate the central tenet of the syllabus to *enforce* any particular
interpretation of the possible learning structures. The idea is that
all techniques should be able to be directly compared once we have a
syllabus which is neutral to all methods. The syllabus itself *in no
section* refers to flexible paced learning. In fact, it doesn't refer
to pace of learning at all. Any guidelines about timetables, spending
for specific programs etc are outside the scope of the syllabus, so
schools are free to experiment. Free to experiment includes not
changing. consider the schools which choose not to explore the
possibilities as the necessary 'control' cases in a broad scientific
study.
zinnic
I hope this system works out. Just one question.
You state that students have the opportunity to choose schools. How
does this work? My experience is that 'better' schools are preferred
by parents but logistics 'trumps'their preference. Consequently,
'better' schools were selective and so cemented their status.
....Zinnic
.
Sam Carana
I hope this system works out. Just one question. You state that students have the opportunity to choose schools. How does this work? My experience is that 'better' schools are preferred by parents but logistics 'trumps'their preference. Consequently, 'better' schools were selective and so cemented their status.
....Zinnic
Below is the eighth-grade final exam from 1895 in Salina , Kansas , USA . It was taken from the original document on file at the Smokey Valley Genealogical Society and Library in Salina , KS , and reprinted by the Salina Journal. The exam took five hours to complete.
8th Grade Final Exam: Salina , KS -1895
Grammar (Time, one hour)
1. Give nine rules for the use of capital letters.
2. Name the parts of speech and define those that have no modifications.
3. Define verse, stanza and paragraph
4. What are the principal parts of a verb? Give principal parts of"lie,""play," and "run."
5. Define case; Illustrate each case.
6 What is punctuation? Give rules for principal marks of punctuation.
7 - 10. Write a composition of about 150 words and show therein that you understand the practical use of the rules of grammar.
Arithmetic (Time, 1.25 hours)
1. Name and define the Fundamental Rules of Arithmetic.
2. A wagon box is 2 ft. deep, 10 feet long, and 3 ft. wide. How many bushels of wheat will it hold?3. If a load of wheat weighs 3942 lbs., what is it worth at 50cts/bushel, deducting 1050 lbs. for tare?
4. District No 33 has a valuation of $35,000. What is the necessary levy to carry on a school seven months at $50 per month, and have $104 for incidentals?
5. Find the cost of 6720 lbs. coal at $6.00 per ton.
6. Find the interest of $512.60 for 8 months and 18 days at 7 percent.
7. What is the cost of 40 boards 12 inches wide and 16 ft. long at $20 per metre?
8. Find bank discount on $300 for 90 days (no grace) at 10 percent.
9. What is the cost of a square farm at $15 per acre, the distance of which is 640 rods?
10. Write a Bank Check, a Promissory Note, and a Receipt.
U.S. History (Time, 45 minutes)
1. Give the epochs into which U.S. History is divided.
2. Give an account of the discovery of America by Columbus.
3. Relate the causes and results of the Revolutionary War.
4. Show the territorial growth of the United States.
5. Tell what you can of the history of Kansas.
6. Describe three of the most prom inent battles of the Rebellion.
7. Who were the following: Morse, Whitney, Fulton, Bell, Lincoln, Penn, and Howe?
8. Name events connected with the following dates: 1607, 1620, 1800, 1849, 1865.
Orthography (Time, one hour)
1. What is meant by the following: Alphabet, phonetic, orthography, etymology, syllabication
2. What are elementary sounds? How classified?
3. What are the following, and give examples of each: Trigraph, subvocals, diphthong, cognate letters, linguals
4. Give four substitutes for caret 'u.'
5. Give two rules for spelling words with final 'e.' Name two exceptions under each rule.
6. Give two uses of silent letters in spelling. Illustrate each.
7. Define the following prefixes and use in connection with a word: bi, dis, mis, pre, semi, post, non, inter, mono, sup.
8. Mark diacritically and divide into syllables the following, and name the sign that indicates the sound: card, ball, mercy, sir, odd, cell, rise, blood, fare, last.
9. Use the following correctly in sentences: cite, site, sight, fane, fain, feign, vane, vain, vei n, raze, raise, rays.
10. Write 10 words frequently mispronounced and indicate pronunciation by use of diacritical marks and by syllabication.
Geography (Time, one hour)
1 What is climate? Upon what does climate depend?
2. How do you account for the extremes of climate in Kansas?
3. Of what use are rivers? Of what use is the ocean?
4. Describe the mountains of North America.
5. Name and describe the following: Monrovia, Odessa, Denver, Manitoba, Hecla, Yukon, St. Helena, Juan Fernandez, Aspinwall and Orinoco.
6. Name and locate the principal trade centers of the U.S.
7. Name all the republics of Europe and give the capital of each.
8. Why is the Atlantic Coast colder than the Pacific in the same latitude?
9. Describe the process by which the water of the ocean returns to the sources of rivers.
10. Describe the movements of the earth. Give the inclination of the earth.
Gives the Flat Earth a whole new meaning, doesn't it?
Sam
Jason Lang
> aspects should be looked at in great detail (considering vouchers, tax
> deducations, etc).
Sam, who has the better car ? a rich man or a poor man ?
Who has the better house ? a rich man or a poor man ?
if you deregulate education then education will depend on wealth.
if you deregulate security then security will depend on wealth.
The difference of education or security quality will be equal to the
difference between living a mansion and living on the street, or
between a chauferred limousine and a push bike.
This is where all your analogies to the free market fall down, Sam. You
have not proven that the free market "enriches us all".
Sam Carana
Jason Lang
>> Who has the better house ? a rich man or a poor man ?
>> if you deregulate education then education will depend on wealth. if you
>> deregulate security then security will depend on wealth.
>> The difference of education or security quality will be equal to the
>> difference between living a mansion and living on the street, or between a
>> chauferred limousine and a push bike.
>> This is where all your analogies to the free market fall down, Sam. You
>> have not proven that the free market "enriches us all".
> What kind of flat-earth communist dogma are you now quoting, Jason? There's
It's called common sense, Sam. Bill Gates owns more and better stuff
than you do, do you debate this ? It is a basic truth that rich people
can afford more and better stuff than poor people.
If education and security are turned into commodities ("stuff" to
buy/sell) then the best quality will be reserved for the rich, in the
interests of maximizing profits. "best quality for the rich"
automatically means you *must* provide some sort of a sub-standard
service to everyone else to justify exactly why the rich are paying so
much for the "quality" service.
Don't bullshit me that corporations are all touchy-feely. Business is
war and consumers are pawns, no matter how big a smile you put on and
how loud you say "have a nice day", if you can't pay you are worthless
to a free market system.
>an abundance of evidence, among which the collapse of the Soviet Union, that
>sufficiently proves that choice between suppliers leads to better services
>and lower prices, to the benefit of all. Competition policy isn't some
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You should know better than that Sam, or maybe not. NOTHING is "to the
benefit of ALL" unless you are a politician.
Lower prices in the USA than in the Soviet Union ? are you mad ? You
might argue better/mode abundant services (for those who can afford it)
but never "lower prices".
Actually considering that USA is in more debt than the GDP of the
Soviet Union, you could argue that USA survived partly because it has
better lines of credit. Also, the USA consumes a huge amount of world
resources, so it's completely laughable to talk about the "efficiency"
of the US system.
In fact, the USA is completely dependent on undepaid third-world labour
to make anything work at all now.
Your health system is damned expensive by any measure. I hear you gotta
pay big dollars if you have a heart attack and need surgery ? In most
other countries this is considered a right not a privelege. Why do you
never quote this example of privatised services in your analogies, Sam
?
> invention of the right, it's accepted across the political divide and often
> supported more vigorously by the left than the right. Note also once more
> that I'm not advocating to "deregulate" or "privatize" the military in their
> present shape. I advocate reform, ensuring that we have a well regulated
> militia. Structural separation should take place so that we end up with a
> number of pieces of the military, so that there will be no collusion between
> these pieces.
all the better in case of terrorism invasion hey ? brings to mind the
keystone cops anyone ?
Provide details of how your idea will work in practice, not theory.
Exactly who will pay and when ?
Sam Carana
>> Sam, who has the better car ? a rich man or a poor man ?
>> Who has the better house ? a rich man or a poor man ?
>> if you deregulate education then education will depend on wealth. if you
>> deregulate security then security will depend on wealth.
>> The difference of education or security quality will be equal to the
>> difference between living a mansion and living on the street, or between a
>> chauferred limousine and a push bike.
>> This is where all your analogies to the free market fall down, Sam. You
>> have not proven that the free market "enriches us all".
> What kind of flat-earth communist dogma are you now quoting, Jason? There's
It's called common sense, Sam. Bill Gates owns more and better stuff than you do, do you debate this ? It is a basic truth that rich people can afford more and better stuff than poor people.
If education and security are turned into commodities ("stuff" to buy/sell) then the best quality will be reserved for the rich, in the interests of maximizing profits. "best quality for the rich" automatically means you *must* provide some sort of a sub-standard service to everyone else to justify exactly why the rich are paying so much for the "quality" service.
Don't bullshit me that corporations are all touchy-feely. Business is war and consumers are pawns, no matter how big a smile you put on and how loud you say "have a nice day", if you can't pay you are worthless to a free market system.
>an abundance of evidence, among which the collapse of the Soviet Union, that
>sufficiently proves that choice between suppliers leads to better services
>and lower prices, to the benefit of all. Competition policy isn't some
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You should know better than that Sam, or maybe not. NOTHING is "to the benefit of ALL" unless you are a politician.
Lower prices in the USA than in the Soviet Union ? are you mad ? You might argue better/mode abundant services (for those who can afford it) but never "lower prices".
Actually considering that USA is in more debt than the GDP of the Soviet Union, you could argue that USA survived partly because it has better lines of credit. Also, the USA consumes a huge amount of world resources, so it's completely laughable to talk about the "efficiency" of the US system.
In fact, the USA is completely dependent on undepaid third-world labour to make anything work at all now.
Your health system is damned expensive by any measure. I hear you gotta pay big dollars if you have a heart attack and need surgery ? In most other countries this is considered a right not a privelege. Why do you never quote this example of privatised services in your analogies, Sam ?
> invention of the right, it's accepted across the political divide and often
> supported more vigorously by the left than the right. Note also once more
> that I'm not advocating to "deregulate" or "privatize" the military in their
> present shape. I advocate reform, ensuring that we have a well regulated
> militia. Structural separation should take place so that we end up with a
> number of pieces of the military, so that there will be no collusion between
> these pieces.
all the better in case of terrorism invasion hey ? brings to mind the keystone cops anyone ?
Provide details of how your idea will work in practice, not theory. Exactly who will pay and when ?
Jason Lang
> while bad-quality service will disappear.
So why aren't all the poor people driving Trans-Ams and living in
Mansions ?
being "offered" a service is meaningless if you can't afford the
entrance price.
Remember, the car industry was *your* analogy.
Jason Lang
> Political views, and more political views, lacking argument (and common
> sense) all the time. Should I really reply to this kind of nonsense?
How is the massive debt of the USA "nonsense" ?
How is the huge resource use of the USA "nonsense" ?
How is US economic dependence on imported material and cheap labour
"nonsense" ?
How is the massive wreck of the US Health System "nonsense" ?
you are quick to label anyone who disagrees with you as idiots blindly
supporting a failed "trabant model" system, so why are you so keen to
defend these disasters ?
So, Sam, what do you think of the Federal Reserve (a private body which
buys money from the Treasury at printing cost , then loans it to banks
at full-price, making all the profits for individuals) ?
If you nationalised the Federal Reserve, or combined it with the
Treasury, you could radically cut taxes and still have enough money for
services, or vouchers if you like, Sam. Plus, without the vested
interests in there printing money all the time, inflation could be more
easily controlled.
A "win-win" situation wouldn't you say ?
- Jason
Sam Carana
Sam Carana
> Political views, and more political views, lacking argument (and common
> sense) all the time. Should I really reply to this kind of nonsense?
How is the massive debt of the USA "nonsense" ?
How is the huge resource use of the USA "nonsense" ? How is US economic dependence on imported material and cheap labour "nonsense" ?
How is the massive wreck of the US Health System "nonsense" ?
you are quick to label anyone who disagrees with you as idiots blindly supporting a failed "trabant model" system, so why are you so keen to defend these disasters ?
So, Sam, what do you think of the Federal Reserve (a private body which buys money from the Treasury at printing cost , then loans it to banks at full-price, making all the profits for individuals) ?
If you nationalised the Federal Reserve, or combined it with the Treasury, you could radically cut taxes and still have enough money for services, or vouchers if you like, Sam. Plus, without the vested interests in there printing money all the time, inflation could be more easily controlled.
A "win-win" situation wouldn't you say ?
- Jason
A government monopoly is inherently incapable of managing commercial affairs, since decisions are taken on narrow-minded political views that fly in the face of economics. On top of that, it's more in line with our rights to allow people to decide for themselves.
Jason Lang
> stock will replace money as a fascilitator of trade.
You'd like to replace currency with the stock market ? Actually maybe
we are not so disagreeing after all !
I am intrigued, tell me more of your bold proposal ;-) !
Sam Carana
Sam
Jason Lang
> (either with stockbrokers or directly with companies) that allow them to
> make payments in shares of, say, IBM, SONY or whatever stock they feel
> comfortable with.
So you are saying we should convert the entire wealth of the US into
stocks to 'strengthen and stabilize' the economy ?
So, blue chip stocks would replace large denomination bills, while fail
dotcoms could be traded as the pennies ?
Jason Lang
> itself will gradually loose value in comparison to stock, so people will
> replace their (dollar-denominated) bank accounts for "stock" accounts
Yeah just like gold was *such* a bad investment just before the stock
crash of 1929 ....
Do you propose that no stock market crash could ever happen again ? We
must truly live in blessed times .... :)
Sam Carana
Sam Carana
Jason Lang
> as a (rather inflexible) form of shares, there really isn't much difference
> with companies. One other difference is in their tax-status, and I propose
> to change that. Non-profit organizations should be accounted for in a
> similar way as companies and should similarly be liable for tax. If an
If you do this then you must allow non-profits to run at a profit. The
tax-free status and the non-profit status are trade-offs. If you remove
the tax concessions, then it's basically just a handicapped corporation
not allowed to turn a profit.
There will be NO no-profit organisations after your overhaul of
society.
> organized from time to time, to see whether reform is appropriate. Such
> discussion should not be portrayed as efforts to "hand over public assets to
> greedy commercial enterprises". It's simply a discussion that has to be held
but vouchers is just a way to funnel tax payers funds into private
education. It will have an inflatory effect on private education fees
(more people with more money trying to go to the same good schools) and
federal goverments will use it as an excuse to strip funding. If you
believe taxes will drop in equal measure you are a fool. (no
company/government ever passes on 100% of their savings, it's called
making a profit if you didn't know).
It's the same rubbish as funneling money out of social security into
private banks in the name of 'freedom' that bush is going on with - a
blatant excuse to shovel tax money into the banks.
> Schools, universities and other educational institutions should similarly
> be held accountible, including public schools. By incorporating, public
> schools simply provide more accountibility and their expenses can be
> scrutinized through the tax system. I see a luxury car for a Principal more
Come on, show me evidence that public schools aren't audited now. Just
'Incorporating' is not some magic formula for fiscal probity. Didn't
Enron alert you at all to some of the problems ?
> as a way to avoid higher personal income tax and I wouldn't approve tax
> deducations for that. I much rather see the institution sponsor the
> education of poor students instead. Alternatively, government could tax the
> school and fund vouchers with the money currently spent on a luxury car for
> the Principal. Vouchers come with a choice how and where to spend them, so
tax the school ? from what income ? and which Principal of which school
EXACTLY is driving this luxury car ? until you quote a source for your
assertion that public school principals are driving luxury cars paid
for by us, then i'll have to assume you made it up off the top of your
head.
> cartel legislation onto educational institutions, in aprticualr to
professional qualifications and accreditation schemes.
> in terms of accountibility and flexibility. Take Lloyds insurance, they used
you've got to be kidding about the accountability of corporations. the
modern corporation is accountable to no country, no government, no
elections, no tax system.
> haven't yet been invented. Therefore, I propose a pledge for scientists,
> similar to the Hippocratic Oath for doctors.
since everyone is allowed to do science then i think very many people
must take this pledge. Remember, Einstein was not an establsihment
'scientist', nor were many famous inventors. Your pledge would be more
draconian and monolithic than the 'trabant model' you claim to be
otherthrowing. Maybe we could go knocking door-to-door and force
everyone to take the pledge not to use science irresponsibly (because
anyone is capable of this).
> speculation. Instead of making deals in currency, it makes ever more sense
> to agree on shares of a reputable company to facilitate trade. Shares
> typically outperform other forms of investment, so it makes more sense to
> have an account in shares than in currency. One's people understand the
> basics, they will shift to shares, especially in regard to larger amounts of
> money.
Yeah right, just like they did before 1929 ! People already understand
'the basics' and rarely want to bet the bank on shares.
High-tech currency speculation is the option of choice for speculators
these days, anyone can check this out. Shares are too unpredictable and
if the market takes a dive your shares proposal would wipe out the
entire economy.
> instead of government-issued coins. In the end, the assets and the prospects
> of the company issuing the coins constitute the back-up, just like they
> constitute the back-up for shares such a company may issue. In the case of
> coins, anti-trust and cartel legislation should be imposed to ensure that no
> such company (nor any government agency) will be able to unfairly exploit a
> monopoly.
It's strange then, that the Europeans would switch to a single
currency, given the 'vast superiority' of the multiple competing
currencies they had before. Why did they 'hamper' their economy in this
'uncompetitive' way ? they are obviously all closet communists from
living with too many Trabants within view.
- Jason
Jason Lang
> attractive as a replacement of money, compared to gold (or silver).
Well tell me when you expect this decline to begin, because gold is
almost double the value from when i was a kid.
You also confuse "once kept huge stocks of gold" with "once pegged the
value of their currency against gold", two very different concepts.
Gold hasn't been linked to major currency prices for years now.
My main point was that in a declining market, gold (or other
non-perishable commodities) is a very good investment. In these market
conditions, shares are a very bad investment.
If shares were so great, everyone would already use them instead of
cash, so why don't they ?
so how long have you been investing and what shares are in you
portfolio ?
Sam Carana
> Non-profit organizations don't issue shares, but if you regard membership
> as a (rather inflexible) form of shares, there really isn't much difference
> with companies. One other difference is in their tax-status, and I propose
> to change that. Non-profit organizations should be accounted for in a
> similar way as companies and should similarly be liable for tax. If an
If you do this then you must allow non-profits to run at a profit. The tax-free status and the non-profit status are trade-offs. If you remove the tax concessions, then it's basically just a handicapped corporation not allowed to turn a profit.
There will be NO no-profit organisations after your overhaul of
society.
> organized from time to time, to see whether reform is appropriate. Such
> discussion should not be portrayed as efforts to "hand over public assets to
> greedy commercial enterprises". It's simply a discussion that has to be held
but vouchers is just a way to funnel tax payers funds into private education.
It will have an inflatory effect on private education fees
(more people with more money trying to go to the same good schools) and federal goverments will use it as an excuse to strip funding. If you believe taxes will drop in equal measure you are a fool. (no company/government ever passes on 100% of their savings, it's called making a profit if you didn't know).
> Schools, universities and other educational institutions should similarly
> be held accountible, including public schools. By incorporating, public
> schools simply provide more accountibility and their expenses can be
> scrutinized through the tax system. I see a luxury car for a Principal more
Come on, show me evidence that public schools aren't audited now. Just 'Incorporating' is not some magic formula for fiscal probity. Didn't Enron alert you at all to some of the problems ?
> as a way to avoid higher personal income tax and I wouldn't approve tax
> deducations for that. I much rather see the institution sponsor the
> education of poor students instead. Alternatively, government could tax the
> school and fund vouchers with the money currently spent on a luxury car for
> the Principal. Vouchers come with a choice how and where to spend them, so
tax the school ? from what income ? and which Principal of which school EXACTLY is driving this luxury car ? until you quote a source for your assertion that public school principals are driving luxury cars paid for by us, then i'll have to assume you made it up off the top of your head.
> cartel legislation onto educational institutions, in aprticualr to
professional qualifications and accreditation schemes.
> in terms of accountibility and flexibility. Take Lloyds insurance, they used
you've got to be kidding about the accountability of corporations. the modern corporation is accountable to no country, no government, no elections, no tax system.
> haven't yet been invented. Therefore, I propose a pledge for scientists,
> similar to the Hippocratic Oath for doctors.
since everyone is allowed to do science then i think very many people must take this pledge. Remember, Einstein was not an establsihment 'scientist', nor were many famous inventors. Your pledge would be more draconian and monolithic than the 'trabant model' you claim to be otherthrowing. Maybe we could go knocking door-to-door and force everyone to take the pledge not to use science irresponsibly (because anyone is capable of this).
> speculation. Instead of making deals in currency, it makes ever more sense
> to agree on shares of a reputable company to facilitate trade. Shares
> typically outperform other forms of investment, so it makes more sense to
> have an account in shares than in currency. One's people understand the
> basics, they will shift to shares, especially in regard to larger amounts of
> money.
Yeah right, just like they did before 1929 ! People already understand 'the basics' and rarely want to bet the bank on shares.
High-tech currency speculation is the option of choice for speculators these days, anyone can check this out. Shares are too unpredictable and if the market takes a dive your shares proposal would wipe out the entire economy.
> instead of government-issued coins. In the end, the assets and the prospects
> of the company issuing the coins constitute the back-up, just like they
> constitute the back-up for shares such a company may issue. In the case of
> coins, anti-trust and cartel legislation should be imposed to ensure that no
> such company (nor any government agency) will be able to unfairly exploit a
> monopoly.
It's strange then, that the Europeans would switch to a single
currency, given the 'vast superiority' of the multiple competing
currencies they had before. Why did they 'hamper' their economy in this 'uncompetitive' way ? they are obviously all closet communists from living with too many Trabants within view.
- Jason
Sam Carana
> gradual decline in the value of gold that I foresee, makes shares more
> attractive as a replacement of money, compared to gold (or silver).
Well tell me when you expect this decline to begin, because gold is almost double the value from when i was a kid.
You also confuse "once kept huge stocks of gold" with "once pegged the value of their currency against gold", two very different concepts. Gold hasn't been linked to major currency prices for years now.
My main point was that in a declining market, gold (or other
non-perishable commodities) is a very good investment. In these market conditions, shares are a very bad investment.
If shares were so great, everyone would already use them instead of cash, so why don't they ?
Jason Lang
> the national currency is used on a government-supported monopoly basis. One
> way to encourage a shift towards shares is by allowing tax and government
> services to be paid in shares. Furthermore, more companies should be allowed
> to mint and issue coins, be it under strict anti-trust and cartel provisions.
Governments issue coins with very little value (they don't use precious
metals anymore).
Coins do not have much intrinsic value, they are only worth what the
market values them at.
What will back up these private currencies ? and who will enforce the
anti-trust and cartel provisions ?
- Jason
Jason Lang
you phrase a few posts back about putting all your money in "a few
reputable stocks" to ensure financial probity, was ludicrous to say the
least. Any fool knows you need some sort of diversified portfolio
unless you are a gambler.
Also, commodity and future trading is in no way limited by the
bulkiness of the traded commodity.
Commodities are always going to be a good bet (even if they lose market
value, they retain intrinsic value, unlike shares).
Or don't you accept the notion of resources possessing intrinsic value
(value outside market systems) ?
- Jason
Sam Carana
The cost of coinage can indeed be higher than the value of the coins itself. However, casinos happily issue plastic tokens that seem to work well. In Japan, people increasingly use their mobile phones to make small (wireless) transactions. Once more competition is introduced, better ways of handling things will emerge. Some methods will go broke, some will prosper. Back-up will constitute a crucial element in their success, which makes it likely that a number of large companies will need to put their weight behind some initiatives to get them off the ground. On the other hand, PayPall started as a small company, so corporate power definitely isn't the only criterion. That's how free markets work and it works better than central planning by government bureacrats. The key is indeed to prevent monopolies and cartels, hence the urgency in splitting up the military. There's no need to use force to implement such a split-up, because the military is fully owned by government. Once the military is split up and competition is established, the majority of people and organizations will acknowledge the benefits and support it, so even in the unlikely case that one company went astray and desired a monopoly position, public condemnation would suffice to make such a company go broke. It's an unlikely scenario, because a company is controlled by shareholders who will typically be convinced that, rather than exploiting a monopoly, it makes more sense to split up the company into structurally-separated pieces, resulting in a combined growth of their wealth.
Jason Lang
> desired a monopoly position, public condemnation would suffice to make such
> a company go broke. It's an unlikely scenario, because a company is
> controlled by shareholders who will typically be convinced that, rather than
> exploiting a monopoly, it makes more sense to split up the company into
> structurally-separated pieces, resulting in a combined growth of their
> wealth
I can't believe you suggest this, there are monopolies all over the
place which have evolved from competitive situations (usually through
mergers or one or the other companies floundering). The two-party
system exists in so many nations becuase it is one of the stable
configurations. You can see this 'two-party' system in economics as
well as government, where two players dominate a large percentage of
some market.
Now, take Microsoft as the canonical modern example, they are
anti-competitive, monopolistic and monolithic, and they laugh at
government regulation and public condemnation.
ALL companies desire a monopolistic or near-monopolistic situation,
with themselves at the top. To suggest otherwise is to deny human
nature and good business sense. To say they fear having a monopoly is
ridicuolous.
Show me real-world examples of this 'public condemnation' send
monpoly-seeking companies 'broke' within the capitalist system.
Yeah I just know you'll be thinking of quoting the Trabant company or
some such but that's a cop-out.
- Jason
Sam Carana
The "intrinsic value" of commodities like gold isn't really very intrinsic, given that any ownership claim hinges on military support. Yes, it makes sense to diversify, and commodities are not always the best bet. A growing proportion of people move out of agriculture, mining and industry, to find work in services and information technology. Developing one's talents through better education seems to have more intrinsic qualities and seems a better bet. But why not let free markets work this out?
Sam Carana
> support it, so even in the unlikely case that one company went astray and
> desired a monopoly position, public condemnation would suffice to make such
> a company go broke. It's an unlikely scenario, because a company is
> controlled by shareholders who will typically be convinced that, rather than
> exploiting a monopoly, it makes more sense to split up the company into
> structurally-separated pieces, resulting in a combined growth of their
> wealth
I can't believe you suggest this, there are monopolies all over the place which have evolved from competitive situations (usually through mergers or one or the other companies floundering).
The two-party system exists in so many nations becuase it is one of the stable configurations. You can see this 'two-party' system in economics as well as government, where two players dominate a large percentage of some market.
Now, take Microsoft as the canonical modern example, they are anti-competitive, monopolistic and monolithic, and they laugh at government regulation and public condemnation.
ALL companies desire a monopolistic or near-monopolistic situation, with themselves at the top. To suggest otherwise is to deny human nature and good business sense. To say they fear having a monopoly is ridicuolous.
Show me real-world examples of this 'public condemnation' send monpoly-seeking companies 'broke' within the capitalist system.
Yeah I just know you'll be thinking of quoting the Trabant company or some such but that's a cop-out.
- Jason
Jason Lang
>>> structurally-separated pieces, resulting in a combined growth of their
>>> wealth
>> I can't believe you suggest this, there are monopolies all over the place
>> which have evolved from competitive situations (usually through mergers or
>> one or the other companies floundering).
> Quite often, such mergers are pushed through by management or large
> investors who seek short-term financial gain. Rumors of a merger will push
> up the price of shares, which initially may make it look as if the merger
> itself was a success. But long-term, a number of competing companies will
> result in more growth, compared to an industry monopolized by a single
> company. Informed shareholders are aware of this and will favor a split-up
> of a company, long before it evolved into a monopoly.
Informed shareholders promote the quick mergers for the short-term
financial gain. They will at least be in favor of the rumours pushing
up share prices, i mean, wouldn't you ? If the share price rises then
the merger is a 'success' in regards to the shareholders, regardless of
the long-term company prospects. They can then divest themselves of the
overpriced stocks and move to the next one. Why should shareholders
care about something which does not directly affect them financially
such as 'long term growth in the industry' unless they have some sort
of emotional vested interest ?
Where are these monopoly - fearing shareholders right now ? The federal
reserve is a monopoly, i don't see calls from it's shareholders for a
split-up, nor do i hear those calls from Microsoft shareholders,
exactly which shareholders of which corporations are advocating
split-ups of their own companies ?
>> The two-party system exists in so many nations becuase it is one of the
>> stable configurations. You can see this 'two-party' system in economics as
>> well as government, where two players dominate a large percentage of some
>> market.
> Sure, a duopoly is better than a monopoly, but it's even better to have
> more competition. A duopoly typically hinges on government control. To
> establish even more competition and to bring decision closer to people is in
> line with our rights and supported by economic argument.
If monopoly / duopoly is contrived and hinges on government control and
then why do you advocate strong anti-cartel legislation ?
Why not ignore them and let competition take it's own route ? If
competition is the great regulator you claim ...
>> Now, take Microsoft as the canonical modern example, they are
>> anti-competitive, monopolistic and monolithic, and they laugh at government
>> regulation and public condemnation.
> Microsoft gained its position because people were fed up with the dominant
> position of IBM. Similarly, people are now fed up with MS and they favor
Rubbish Microsoft gained their position due to running software on the
very successful IBM machines, then doing deals with the Asian companies
producing PC clones. Their rise coincides with the rise of the PC (an
area IBM dismissed as irrelevant).
People bought MSDOS *because* it was a monopoly (standardized).
What you say above is like saying that the oil companies gained their
positions because people were fed up with the dominant position of the
car companies.
>> Google, Linux, etc. It's against the interest of MS shareholders to use
>> unfair trade tactics. Had MS learned anything from the past and from the
In what way does Google directly compete with Microsoft ? Linux does
compete, but by your standards it's licencing agreement reads like
communist propaganda.
In what way is dominating the PC market against the interests of
Microsoft shareholders? be specific.
> legal cases against it, it would have split up long ago. Furthermore, the
Their legal cases were dismissed by a sympathetic government.
> position exercized by MS hinges on copyright protection. In other words, MS
> gets the support of courts and back up by the police and military without
> specifically paying for such services.
So you support the abolition of intellectual property rights ? Or can
you explain to me how intellectual property rights will help innovation
and competition ? Maybe in a century or two when the copyrights expire
...
And you now admit that US industry is subsidised by the courts,
military and police protection. You are right, it is so subsidised,
both in the USA and in the third world. It is also subsidised by direct
payments from tax money with a variety of excuses.
Plus, the 16 Trillion dollars (roughly the combined US government and
private foreign debts) represents a huge subsidy enjoyed by US
corporations for decades (which will be paid by future generations).
Your government pays farmer not to farm, under farm subsidies schemes,
while national debt forever mounts.
>> ALL companies desire a monopolistic or near-monopolistic situation, with
>> themselves at the top. To suggest otherwise is to deny human nature and good
>> business sense. To say they fear having a monopoly is ridicuolous.
> Companies seek growth. A monopoly stagnates an entire industry. If a
> companies gains so much market share that it reaches a dominant position in
> that market, it makes economic sense to split up that company into competing
> pieces, which will result in more growth of the industry in total. Overall,
A successful company would rather stagnate a whole industry than lose
market share / profits. It's human nature to wish to dominate. Once a
company is actually in a position to dominate a whole industry, it is
usually at a stagnent stage of cultural development in itself and does
not desire change. Just look at the television industry, which shows
get allowed to be made almost exclusively depends on which shows were
successful in the past.
>> shareholders will support such a split-up, on economic arguments alone. The
>> argument that it's more in line with our rights will lead to public
>> condemnation of a monopoly, which is another argument for such a company to
>> split up.
They couldn't give a damn about out rights or economic effects on us,
they only care about short-to-mid-term returns on their personal
investments. This precludes truly long-term thinking from share-holder
dominated companies, just as the frequency of elections affects the
spending patterns and strategic thinking of politicians.
>> Show me real-world examples of this 'public condemnation'
>> monpoly-seeking companies 'broke' within the capitalist system.
> I just gave you one! People preferred MS because they disliked IBM's
> monopoly. Generally, a monopoly means less growth, making that people sell
> their shares in a company that seeks a monopoly, and people will instead
> invest in companies that promise more growth.
IBM does not specialise in Operating Systems and Applications, while
Microsoft does not specialise in Servers and desktop PCs. Just because
they are both "computer" companies is not enough to show direct
competition.
BZZZZ .... Try again.
IBM brought Microsoft into the game specifically to provide Software
for the IBM PC it's nothing to do with customers hating IBM or loving
Microsoft. Microsoft built their OS monpoly on the alliance with IBM.
Show me an example in which the two companies provide directly
competing services.
> Time and again, I put forward two strong arguments, economics and our rights. In response, you haven't been
> able to put up one single argument that sticks.
> Sam
Haha Sam you have us in stiches. I contest strongly your claim that
:"people sell their shares in a company that seeks a monopoly" it's
based on ideology not facts. Show me specific literature discussing
this phenomena.
Have you had any papers published in mainstream economics journals yet
? I'm sure you could straighten them out on a few issues.
- Jason
Sam Carana
>>> a monopoly, it makes more sense to split up the company into
>>> structurally-separated pieces, resulting in a combined growth of their
>>> wealth
>> I can't believe you suggest this, there are monopolies all over the place
>> which have evolved from competitive situations (usually through mergers or
>> one or the other companies floundering).
> Quite often, such mergers are pushed through by management or large
> investors who seek short-term financial gain. Rumors of a merger will push
> up the price of shares, which initially may make it look as if the merger
> itself was a success. But long-term, a number of competing companies will
> result in more growth, compared to an industry monopolized by a single
> company. Informed shareholders are aware of this and will favor a split-up
> of a company, long before it evolved into a monopoly.
Informed shareholders promote the quick mergers for the short-term financial gain. They will at least be in favor of the rumours pushing up share prices, i mean, wouldn't you ? If the share price rises then the merger is a 'success' in regards to the shareholders, regardless of the long-term company prospects. They can then divest themselves of the overpriced stocks and move to the next one. Why should shareholders care about something which does not directly affect them financially such as 'long term growth in the industry' unless they have some sort of emotional vested interest ?
Where are these monopoly - fearing shareholders right now ? The federal reserve is a monopoly, i don't see calls from it's shareholders for a split-up, nor do i hear those calls from Microsoft shareholders, exactly which shareholders of which corporations are advocating split-ups of their own companies ?
>> The two-party system exists in so many nations becuase it is one of the
>> stable configurations. You can see this 'two-party' system in economics as
>> well as government, where two players dominate a large percentage of some
>> market.
> Sure, a duopoly is better than a monopoly, but it's even better to have
> more competition. A duopoly typically hinges on government control. To
> establish even more competition and to bring decision closer to people is in
> line with our rights and supported by economic argument.
If monopoly / duopoly is contrived and hinges on government control and then why do you advocate strong anti-cartel legislation ? Why not ignore them and let competition take it's own route ? If competition is the great regulator you claim ...
>> Now, take Microsoft as the canonical modern example, they are
>> anti-competitive, monopolistic and monolithic, and they laugh at government
>> regulation and public condemnation.
> Microsoft gained its position because people were fed up with the dominant
> position of IBM. Similarly, people are now fed up with MS and they favor
Rubbish Microsoft gained their position due to running software on the very successful IBM machines, then doing deals with the Asian companies producing PC clones. Their rise coincides with the rise of the PC (an area IBM dismissed as irrelevant). People bought MSDOS *because* it was a monopoly (standardized).
What you say above is like saying that the oil companies gained their positions because people were fed up with the dominant position of the car companies.
>> Google, Linux, etc. It's against the interest of MS shareholders to use
>> unfair trade tactics. Had MS learned anything from the past and from the
In what way does Google directly compete with Microsoft ? Linux does compete, but by your standards it's licencing agreement reads like communist propaganda.
In what way is dominating the PC market against the interests of Microsoft shareholders? be specific.
> legal cases against it, it would have split up long ago. Furthermore, the
Their legal cases were dismissed by a sympathetic government.
> position exercized by MS hinges on copyright protection. In other words, MS
> gets the support of courts and back up by the police and military without
> specifically paying for such services.
So you support the abolition of intellectual property rights ? Or can you explain to me how intellectual property rights will help innovation and competition ? Maybe in a century or two when the copyrights expire
And you now admit that US industry is subsidised by the courts, military and police protection. You are right, it is so subsidised, both in the USA and in the third world. It is also subsidised by direct payments from tax money with a variety of excuses.
Plus, the 16 Trillion dollars (roughly the combined US government and private foreign debts) represents a huge subsidy enjoyed by US corporations for decades (which will be paid by future generations). Your government pays farmer not to farm, under farm subsidies schemes, while national debt forever mounts.
>> ALL companies desire a monopolistic or near-monopolistic situation, with
>> themselves at the top. To suggest otherwise is to deny human nature and good
>> business sense. To say they fear having a monopoly is ridicuolous.
> Companies seek growth. A monopoly stagnates an entire industry. If a
> companies gains so much market share that it reaches a dominant position in
> that market, it makes economic sense to split up that company into competing
> pieces, which will result in more growth of the industry in total. Overall,
A successful company would rather stagnate a whole industry than lose market share / profits.
It's human nature to wish to dominate.
Once a company is actually in a position to dominate a whole industry, it is usually at a stagnent stage of cultural development in itself and does not desire change. Just look at the television industry, which shows get allowed to be made almost exclusively depends on which shows were successful in the past.
>> shareholders will support such a split-up, on economic arguments alone. The
>> argument that it's more in line with our rights will lead to public
>> condemnation of a monopoly, which is another argument for such a company to
>> split up.
They couldn't give a damn about out rights or economic effects on us, they only care about short-to-mid-term returns on their personal investments. This precludes truly long-term thinking from share-holder dominated companies, just as the frequency of elections affects the spending patterns and strategic thinking of politicians.
>> Show me real-world examples of this 'public condemnation'
>> monpoly-seeking companies 'broke' within the capitalist system.
> I just gave you one! People preferred MS because they disliked IBM's
> monopoly. Generally, a monopoly means less growth, making that people sell
> their shares in a company that seeks a monopoly, and people will instead
> invest in companies that promise more growth.
IBM does not specialise in Operating Systems and Applications, while Microsoft does not specialise in Servers and desktop PCs. Just because they are both "computer" companies is not enough to show direct competition.
BZZZZ .... Try again.
IBM brought Microsoft into the game specifically to provide Software for the IBM PC it's nothing to do with customers hating IBM or loving Microsoft. Microsoft built their OS monpoly on the alliance with IBM. Show me an example in which the two companies provide directly competing services.
> Time and again, I put forward two strong arguments, economics and our rights. In response, you haven't been
> able to put up one single argument that sticks.
> Sam
Haha Sam you have us in stiches. I contest strongly your claim that "people sell their shares in a company that seeks a monopoly" it's based on ideology not facts. Show me specific literature discussing this phenomena.
Souvik
> As I said, monopolies are typically creations of government. From the
> perspective of private enterprise, monopolies do not make sense.
SAM, YOU ARE NOT A REVOLUTIONARY GENIUS.
YOU ARE STUPID, IGNORANT OR PROBABLY INSANE.
SURE, I COULD BE A GOVT AGENT TRYING TO STAMP OUT YOUR OPINIONS. BUT I
AM NOT. I'M JUST TIRED OF YOUR GARBAGE, LIKE MOST PEOPLE HERE.
SURE, ALL REVOLUTIONARY GENIUSES SEEMED STUPID, IGNORANT OR INSANE AT
THEIR TIME. BUT THE CONVERSE IS NOT TRUE.
THE SOONER YOU GET THAT THROUGH YOUR HEAD, THE BETTER.
goozlefotz
How about stupid, ignorant AND insane?
Sam Carana
goozlefotz
A guy I know used to trade in egg futures. Then one day a truck backed
up to his house and delivered the contract he did not sell!
zinnic
Sam Carana wrote:
> On 10/19/05, zinnic <zeen...@gate.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I hope this system works out. Just one question. You state that students
> > have the opportunity to choose schools. How does this work? My experience is
> > that 'better' schools are preferred by parents but logistics 'trumps'their
> > preference. Consequently, 'better' schools were selective and so cemented
> > their status.
> >
> > ....Zinnic
> >
> > The system needs to be shaken up more fundamentally and the financial
> aspects should be looked at in great detail (considering vouchers, tax
> deducations, etc). Furthermore, alternatives to classroom learning should be
> considered more seriously, e.g. homeschooling, self-learning, online
> learning, tutoring, etc. Finally, there should be more integration of
> education with real life, specifically work environments as students get
> older, offering more trainees and apprenticeships, on-the-job learning,
> participation in research, etc.
> How much has our education system improved over the years? Has anyone who
> completed high school today, learned more than students did 110 years ago?
> Is there any evidence that the large public schools of today were more
> effective than smaller schools that were more common in the past?
>
> Below is the eighth-grade final exam from 1895 in Salina , Kansas , USA . It
> was taken from the original document on file at the Smokey Valley
> Genealogical Society and Library in Salina
> <http://skyways.lib.ks.us/genweb/saline/>, KS , and reprinted by the Salina
> Journal. The exam took five hours to complete.
>
> 8th Grade Final Exam: Salina , KS -1895
> <http://skyways.lib.ks.us/genweb/saline/society/exam.html>
>
> Grammar (Time, one hour)
>
> 1. Give nine rules for the use of capital letters.
> 2. Name the parts of speech and define those that have no modifications.
> 3. Define verse, stanza and paragraph
> 4. What are the principal parts of a verb? Give principal parts
> of"lie,""play," and "run."
> 5. Define case; Illustrate each case.
> 6 What is punctuation? Give rules for principal marks of punctuation.
> 7 - 10. Write a composition of about 150 words and show therein that you
> understand the practical use of the rules of grammar.
>
> Arithmetic (Time, 1.25 hours)
>
> 1. Name and define the Fundamental Rules of Arithmetic.
> 2. A wagon box is 2 ft. deep, 10 feet long, and 3 ft. wide. How many bushels
> of wheat will it hold?3. If a load of wheat weighs 3942 lbs., what is it
> worth at 50cts/bushel, deducting 1050 lbs. for tare?
> 4. District No 33 has a valuation of $35,000. What is the necessary levy to
> carry on a school seven months at $50 per month, and have $104 for
> incidentals?
> 5. Find the cost of 6720 lbs. coal at $6.00 per ton.
> 6. Find the interest of $512.60 for 8 months and 18 days at 7 percent.
> 7. What is the cost of 40 boards 12 inches wide and 16 ft. long at $20 per
> metre?
> 8. Find bank discount on $300 for 90 days (no grace) at 10 percent.
> 9. What is the cost of a square farm at $15 per acre, the distance of which
> is 640 rods?
> 10. Write a Bank Check, a Promissory Note, and a Receipt.
>
> U.S. History (Time, 45 minutes)
>
> 1. Give the epochs into which U.S. History is divided.
> 2. Give an account of the discovery of America by Columbus.
> 3. Relate the causes and results of the Revolutionary War.
> 4. Show the territorial growth of the United States.
> 5. Tell what you can of the history of Kansas.
> 6. Describe three of the most prom inent battles of the Rebellion.
> 7. Who were the following: Morse, Whitney, Fulton, Bell, Lincoln, Penn, and
> Howe?
> 8. Name events connected with the following dates: 1607, 1620, 1800, 1849,
> 1865.
>
> Orthography (Time, one hour)
>
> 1. What is meant by the following: Alphabet, phonetic, orthography,
> etymology, syllabication
> 2. What are elementary sounds? How classified?
> 3. What are the following, and give examples of each: Trigraph, subvocals,
> diphthong, cognate letters, linguals
> 4. Give four substitutes for caret 'u.'
> 5. Give two rules for spelling words with final 'e.' Name two exceptions
> under each rule.
> 6. Give two uses of silent letters in spelling. Illustrate each.
> 7. Define the following prefixes and use in connection with a word: bi, dis,
> mis, pre, semi, post, non, inter, mono, sup.
> 8. Mark diacritically and divide into syllables the following, and name the
> sign that indicates the sound: card, ball, mercy, sir, odd, cell, rise,
> blood, fare, last.
> 9. Use the following correctly in sentences: cite, site, sight, fane, fain,
> feign, vane, vain, vei n, raze, raise, rays.
> 10. Write 10 words frequently mispronounced and indicate pronunciation by
> use of diacritical marks and by syllabication.
>
> Geography (Time, one hour)
>
> 1 What is climate? Upon what does climate depend?
> 2. How do you account for the extremes of climate in Kansas?
> 3. Of what use are rivers? Of what use is the ocean?
> 4. Describe the mountains of North America.
> 5. Name and describe the following: Monrovia, Odessa, Denver, Manitoba,
> Hecla, Yukon, St. Helena, Juan Fernandez, Aspinwall and Orinoco.
> 6. Name and locate the principal trade centers of the U.S.
> 7. Name all the republics of Europe and give the capital of each.
> 8. Why is the Atlantic Coast colder than the Pacific in the same latitude?
> 9. Describe the process by which the water of the ocean returns to the
> sources of rivers.
> 10. Describe the movements of the earth. Give the inclination of the earth.
>
> Gives the Flat Earth a whole new meaning, doesn't it?
>
I will bet $10 dollars to the charity of your choice tht the passing
grade was in the region of 50%. I doubt that I could score more than
60%. For example I cannot give nine rules for the use of capital
letters.
Could you pass this test if the passing mark was 70% as is usual for
the multiple choice tests that pervade education.
Multiple choice has replaced essay tests because memorization is
easier to evaluate by teachers, unqualifed in the subject matter, who
who use computer to grade students in large classes. In my day, if you
memorised only 50% of the material but understood its significance, you
could outscore students who memorized 100% of the material but
understood none.
Sam Carana
What is understanding? What is there to understand? Is there any higher quality in rote learning of presumed rules than in memorizing content? Go to any university and you'll find people who've spent most of their lives trying to find and understand the rules that governed foreign languages, yet any kid in the country where the respective language is spoken will speak the language better and understand it better. That's a fact and you can test it as many times as you want! What part of this fact do you not understand, zinnic?
Jason Lang
Epistemolgy Group, i suggest we start a thread in the Capitalism Group
from here on in)
> Investors will do so more and more. Competition policy will decrease
> profit margins, making companies focus more on appreciation. I still haven't
> seen you bringing up any argument that sticks, Jason. Why don't you - for
> once - spend all this energy in a more productive was and try to articulate
> a single argument that makes some sense.
Well you keep saying that competition policy *will* do this or *will*
do that ? At what point intime exactly ? And what is this hypothetical
competition policy which will fix everything that could possibly go
wrong ? And if it's so much in their own interests you don't explain
why any company opposes this policy now ?
Whenever i hear about a merger share prices go usually up, and and when
i hear about split-ups share prices usually drop. Also, if it's so much
in their own interests why did Microsoft resist so strongly the idea
that it should be split up ?
I see no inclination of current business empires to dissolve or split
up. a company like GM has a higher turnover than most countries. What
about Coca-Cola ? It's busy buying up all sorts of soft drink companies
world wide and shutting most of them down (never to make those drinks
again :( ).
Coca-cola is maybe similar to Microsoft, it has a large number of
partnerships with business at both local and international levels, it's
products are onsold with a variety of other products and adds it's high
level of product recognition to those products. They are both examples
of a virtual monopoly growing out of competition in a related
marketplace. Once they saturate their niche market they will seek to
expand into the marketplaces of their suppliers and customers (i would
say microsoft is further along this path than Coca-Cola but that it
will be a major factor with Coca-Cola when they hit a barrier to
growth).
> Investors will do so more and more. Competition policy will decrease
> profit margins, making companies focus more on appreciation. I still haven't
> seen you bringing up any argument that sticks, Jason. Why don't you - for
> once - spend all this energy in a more productive was and try to articulate
> a single argument that makes some sense.
Which investors and when will they do this ? And you haven't
articulated how this magical competition policy that solves all
problems will work. Why do we need a special competition policy if
competition in itself is the great regulator you seem to think ?
You haven't explained the need for special anti-trust / anti-cartel /
competition policy. Are you admitting that pure capitalism has flaws or
not ?
- Jason
Sam Carana
(Sam - this is getting off-topic and highly innapropriate for the
Epistemolgy Group, i suggest we start a thread in the Capitalism Group from here on in)
> Investors will do so more and more. Competition policy will decrease
> profit margins, making companies focus more on appreciation. I still haven't
> seen you bringing up any argument that sticks, Jason. Why don't you - for
> once - spend all this energy in a more productive was and try to articulate
> a single argument that makes some sense.
Well you keep saying that competition policy *will* do this or *will* do that ? At what point intime exactly ? And what is this hypothetical competition policy which will fix everything that could possibly go wrong ?
And if it's so much in their own interests you don't explain why any company opposes this policy now ?
Whenever i hear about a merger share prices go usually up, and and when i hear about split-ups share prices usually drop. Also, if it's so much in their own interests why did Microsoft resist so strongly the idea that it should be split up ?
I see no inclination of current business empires to dissolve or split up. a company like GM has a higher turnover than most countries.
What about Coca-Cola ? It's busy buying up all sorts of soft drink companies world wide and shutting most of them down (never to make those drinks again :( ). Coca-cola is maybe similar to Microsoft, it has a large number of partnerships with business at both local and international levels, it's products are onsold with a variety of other products and adds it's high
level of product recognition to those products. They are both examples of a virtual monopoly growing out of competition in a related marketplace. Once they saturate their niche market they will seek to expand into the marketplaces of their suppliers and customers (i would say microsoft is further along this path than Coca-Cola but that it will be a major factor with Coca-Cola when they hit a barrier to growth).
> Investors will do so more and more. Competition policy will decrease
> profit margins, making companies focus more on appreciation. I still haven't
> seen you bringing up any argument that sticks, Jason. Why don't you - for
> once - spend all this energy in a more productive was and try to articulate
> a single argument that makes some sense.
Which investors and when will they do this ? And you haven't
articulated how this magical competition policy that solves all
problems will work. Why do we need a special competition policy if competition in itself is the great regulator you seem to think? You haven't explained the need for special anti-trust / anti-cartel / competition policy.
Are you admitting that pure capitalism has flaws or not ?
Jason Lang
> financial aspects, after all, he can afford not to bother about it. Another
Yeah, he got where he is as the richest man in the world by not caring
much about the
financial aspects of his company. Great logic there, Sam.
> point is of course (as I said before) that the MS monopoly hinges on
> protection of copyright. Taxpayers fund court cases in which people are
> incriminated for making a copy. For some songs, I have now paid threefold,
> since they appear identically on three different CDs. Yet, I'm not allowed
> to rip it, I have to pay again and download it to my MP3-player. If the hard
> drive in the MP3-player breaks down, I have to pay to download it again! Is
> that fair? What is fair use? The logic used in copyright disputes can be
> mind-boggling. Yet, taxpayers fund the court threat that allows MS to
> exploit its monopoly and its backed up by police and military forces. So,
> perhaps that's the reason MS hasn't yet split up. They may acknowledge
> financial gains of a split up, but they must believe they can conveniently
> benefit more from continued taxpayer-funded protection of their monopoly
> position. But let's not take one single company to prove a more general
> point.
Well, that rules out your "Trabant Model" then, doesn't it ?
Where we differ is that you seem to think government backinp up a near
monopoly is an abberation, while I would suggest that it is normal for
government to create conditions good for business. This involves
heavily subsidising private enterprise. The current US subsidy is about
16 trillion dollars total, with 8 trillion from goverment debt. This is
16 trillion which has been spent but not earnt, it represents a subsidy
to business now, payable by future generations.
> We've had competition policy for a long time, it's just not extended
> sufficiently into the educational-military-industrial complex.
Well it's obviously not working very well because there are plenty of
examples of monopolies forming in the real world out of "competitive"
markets, eg Wal-Mart taking over country towns, outside of the MIL-IND
complex.
Gee, i was hoping your "competition policy" was something concrete you
could articulate, not another "free market fixes all" pronoucement, at
odds with what's actually happening out there.
Coca-Cola but that it will be a major factor
> with Coca-Cola when they hit a barrier to growth).
> Again, let's not take one single company to prove a more general point. If
> companies gain marketshare because they offer good services, then they
> deserve that and a split up will encourage that. If it turns out that
> taxpayers are funding some kind of unfair monopoly or if taxpayers fund the
> (military) backup for companies to engage in predatory or otherwise unfair
> trade pratices, then that's equally a reason for the military to split up.
Wanna buy some heroin ? It *must* be good for you because my customers
keep coming back for more. Isn't the customer always right ? so you
support legal heroin sales ? It's more in line with economics (we can
tax it then) and our rights (the government shouldn't tell us how to
spend our money).
- Jason
Souvik
> That was not an very intelligent response, souvik, I expected more from you.
There need not be an intelligent response for you because you are not
intelligent enough to understand such response, as it has become clear
to most people in the group. The only person here you've convinced with
your arguments is you. That is about how intelligent you are.
Sam Carana
Sam Carana
Jason Lang
>> private foreign debts) represents a huge subsidy enjoyed by US corporations
>> for decades (which will be paid by future generations). Your government pays
>> farmer not to farm, under farm subsidies schemes, while national debt
>> forever mounts.
> The US has offered to drop all tariffs and subsidies, if the
> same happens
>in Europe. If you want to point your finger anywhere, start with Europe.
Do you have to understand everything from the 'orthordox' US policy
point of view ?
I don't know how pointing the finger at Europe is relevant to my point
that the US has subsidised itself with massive debt.
Free trade issues are another matter, and how on Earth does European
trade restrictions justify you over spending 16 trillion (unless you
are angry at them for lending you that money).
Typical American buck-passing.
- Jason
Jason Lang
> A guy I know used to trade in egg futures. Then one day a truck backed
> up to his house and delivered the contract he did not sell!
Blergh - perishable commodities.
Now, this *really* says something about the underlying resource
efficiency of the market system.
I mean, a truckload of eggs to someones door, who doesn't even want to
any eggs.
You might say, it was his decision, but should we allow destructive
economic activity ? Free markets may be lucrative but they are very
resource hungry and wasteful as well.
- Jason
Sam Carana
Jason Lang
> farmers constituted 18% of farm income in the US in 2004, in line with the
> situation in neighboring Mexico and Canada. By contrast, Japan (56%) and
> South-Korea (63%) gave farmers much more subsidies, while the EU stood at
> 33%, which doesn't include the countries in Europe with even higher
> subsidies, such as Switzerland (68%), Norway (68%) and Iceland (69%).
> So, what are you suggesting? That all such subsidies should be abolished?
> If so, then you shouldn't point the finger at the US, because it's far less
Aren't all those other countries you list credtiors, not debtors ?
i'm not "pointing the finger" at the US. You are the one avoiding the
question of huge national debt by trying to compare apple and oranges.
I'm saying that natoinal debt is a *form* of subsidy for US industry -
a *hidden* subsidy (farm subsidies and the like are only the direct,
visible subsidies) which pays for things like keeping taxes low,
security, lobbying etc.
The "level playing field" is therefore a myth. Yeah, business profits
from the US going into debt, but the total costs to the country /
community in the long term will outweigh individual gains.
How much (little) of this profit stays in he country ?
- Jason
Sam Carana
Jason Lang
> more than doubled from the $100,000 back in 1990. Some estimates put the
Oh i must admit defeat to your superior intellect. Obviously the USA is
actually a creditor nation but no-one has noticed apparently. It's your
job to correct this misapprehension in the media, get to work.
> relevance of all this to educational reform? That Australia has an archaic
> education system that relies financially on students from Asia?
Oh how funny ! I had the entire office here ROTFL over this comment !
You Yanks and your crummy 'education' system.
Here, we are admitted to university on the basis of academic merit
alone, not wealth / Daddy's powerful friends . Uni students pay about
20% of the real cost of uni education here, as a deffered loan. If
Australian education was as desperate as you think for financial
support we could make the local uni students pay back more, maybe 25%
rather than 20% of the costs.
We do have foreign full fee paying students, but only at the Uniersity
level, and with strictly limited numbers of places. These are directly
enrolled by the university so no money goes to other sectors, eg
schools. The percentage of foreign students is low btw, certainly no
more than usa or britain, probably less, because it's strictly
regulated to ensure locals don't miss out, unlike USA. If we were
financially reliant on Asian students we would remove these
restrictions.
btw our federal and state governments are virtually debt free and we
have been running surplus budgets at the federal level for 10 years so
there's no shortage of funds :)
- Jason