What's The Deal With Education?

[SIZE=11pt]nerd[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt][/SIZE]

.

Ok so this is what you believe – so what is your solution?

 

The problem in many countries (and especially the UK and US) is that many people have fallen for wealth sponsored ‘free market’ propaganda and have bought into those particularly flawed ideas.

The free market ideology dictates that the best model for any system is one based on free market principals and what is better than that is actually have it run as a free market.

Believing this they try to impose free markets into social programmes like education, or healthcare, in which it doesn’t work because it is not a market it is a public service and its priorities and moral justification is different.

I had to laugh out loud this morning – on the radio was a free market supporting politician talking about the problems we are having in the National Health Service brought about by the use of expensive agency nurses – the interviewer pointed out that this was down to the free market policies imposed by free market thinking politicians that it was just a reflection of what the market had produced - to which the politician replied that it was

“a distortion in the market’ [in free market ideologies markets result in true value charging what you can is part of that]

“Charging rates they should not be able to charge” - “100% mark-up” [it’s called supply and demand, and supposedly the basis of free market thinking]

“we want a market that functions properly” [in free market thinking companies charge what they can that is a properly functioning market]

Basically the free market approach had resulted in a worse and more expensive system.

Will this politician change their mind on the ‘free market’ approach – I doubt it.

 

Who should get to decide if there is a bar or pizza place in your neighborhood, and what their prices should be?

 

Goods and services should exist and be valued according to their usage and the function they serve to society. I feel the same way about insitutions and social programs, the only reason anything should ever exist is because it meets a need of, or serves a useful purpose to society.

 

Who gets to make those value judgments?

 

The people of said society, and the government by due process by proxy for the people.

 

Yeah, Capitalism is bottom-up approach.

Other option is top-down approach.

The people do decide with Capitalism, the leaders decide with Communism.

Too bad the average person on planet earth has an IQ of like 86 huh?

 

Public vote on every new business and every price change everywhere? Are you kidding me?

That's worse than the Soviet system. Ask anybody who's been to Moscow what a piece of shit it used to be.

 

socialism, we need more of it.

look at the word socialism and you can see that it is about people before money. look at the word capitalism and you can see that the system of capitalism puts money first, before people, or you can just look around you and see that as well; this is the sad state of things that some people place a higher value on money than anything else, including the livelihood of their fellow human beings.

 

Nerd

Sorry this is no explanation at all – in what way is ‘capitalism’ bottom up in what way do people ‘decide’ with capitalism?

In a monetary based economy wealth will bring power and influence so those with more capital (wealth) within such a society are likely to have more power and influence than those with little or no capital. If anything unregulated capitalism tends toward oligarchy with power being concentrated within a limited number of institutions and families.

So the thesis that ‘the people’ decide in ‘capitalism’ doesn’t seem to stand.

*

This reply once more seemed based in your rather either/or black or white viewpoint of issues you really need to think more broadly and you may then be able to see things more clearly.

 

There are many differing types of ‘socialism’; it comes in many shades from hard line Stalinism to capitalist loving Blairites (just there are many forms of 'capitalism)

And the problem is that when ‘socialism’ is mentioned many jump straight into thinking of dictatorial Soviet style Stalinism, especially in the US where they have in many ways been programmed to think that way.

Many forms of ‘socialism’ are pragmatic with regard to ‘capitalism’ seeing it as a necessary evil or even a useful tool, to be harnessed to the public good. The market is regulated to serve the interests of the majority within a society. The 'free market' philosophy that has become dominant over the last 30 years (especially in the UK and US) argues against this.

In basic terms free market capitalism tends toward the concentration of wealth and resources into fewer hands and socialism is about the distribution of wealth and resources into a greater number of hands.

So it depends if you want your society set up to serve the interests of a few or the many.

Now in a way democracy is meant to even that ‘battle’ out, the majority voting in their own interests in opposition to the few that would like things to go their own way.

The problem is that in many cases a lot of people can be bamboozled into voting against their own economic interests and in favour of the financial interests of a few.

Once that happens it can be difficult to reverse as with each step the power and influence of the few grow exponentially giving them great potential to bamboozle.

And one of the things they do is claim there is no safe alternative to their form of ‘capitalism’ since any form of ‘socialism’ is paramount to dictatorial Soviet style Stalinism.

 

Demand is set by people, price is set by competitors.

Socialism and communism tend to bring a lot of price fixing by the state, and sometimes prohibition of certain goods that are obviously in demand.

 

Nerd

You have a very simplistic view of things don’t you, still very black and white and without much depth.

The demand for something is not the same as deciding on that demand and can involve many other factors beyond the control of ‘people’ and it also might not be in the best interests of ‘the people’.

And there might be little or no competition involved.

As I’ve said it’s not as simplest as you present it.

[SIZE=11pt]This sound more like prudent governance rather than ‘evil socialism’. Crack and child prostitution are ‘goods’ that have a demand are you saying they should be allowed rather than prohibited? [/SIZE]

 

No it's not.

You should really try to find out what Communism is before you bash it and start accusing other people of having low IQs.

 

Maybe both communism and capitalism are a lot more than can be pointed out in one catchy one liner. I have never seen a properly functioning form of communism on a state level. They were all perversions and abused. Just like capitalism is prone to abuse as well. It can be a great system, but as always if it can be abused by people it will be.

 

Since socialism is about public ownership, I would imagine that the neighborhood would decide these things.

 

Obviously. And ideally Same for what kind of advertising they may have on and around their building etc. It would serve us well (in theory) :-D What if the neighbourhood is violently divided on this issue?

We may be straying away from the original topic...

 

Asmo

Straying away i think we are on another continent

 

I'd imagine it would be a democratic decision, so those opposed would be overruled by the majority. If there was a violent division, then I'm sure that some sort of compromise could be worked out between the locals. For example, if you help us with our pizza place we'll help you with your snow removal business. Things like that.

 

I think by the time we got to Blair, Labour had pretty much backed off from their socialist principles - we saw more privatization, we saw PFI introduced for example. Not much socialist about that. Let's not even mention the wars.

But I think the whole history of socialism in the UK is a kind of example of the problems inherent in a democratic form of socialism. We had the post-war Atlee government who were socialists and brought in the welfare state, the NHS and so on. Since 1979, the whole trend has been to undo what they did. Blair simply continued Thatcherism, but with a smiley face rather than a nasty snarl.

Maybe because they were afraid of the 'old boys network', Labour never did away with private education, thus leaving one of the fundamentals of the British class system in place. And today, we can see the results.

However, they did abolish most grammar schools , which (as a grammar school boy) I have always felt was a mistake, despite the fact that I can see the problems in selecting children at age 11.

When my daughter was at school back in the 80's and early 90's, I was shocked at how dumbed down a lot of the teaching was. Clearly, any attempt to educate people up to a level where they can think for themselves and continue to educate themselves had been dropped in favour of stuffing with disconnected facts and trying to satisfy the demands of league tables.