@AkaiTsukiShimitsu hi, marxism dosnet work (full stop) but marx's analasis of capitalism is absolutly superb, as an analist of capitalism he is peerless, his analsis and critique of capitalism in das kapital is brilliant, many buisness schools now teach marx theory of capitalist crisis as a very simple quick way to understand the periodic great crashes in the system,
@AkaiTsukiShimitsu 2marx said capitalism leads to crashes(it dose),leads to enviormental degridation(it has &is),to monomoly/duopoly/oligopaly (to a great extent is),'primative accumilation'where a country/company steels land/raw materials from its owner massive multinationals profiting frm iorn,oil,diomands..., either enriching corrupt officials to get contracts, take land (usa in iraq),buy large parts of poor countries for little(china),use/start civel wars to get oil/diomonds(central africa)
@AkaiTsukiShimitsu 3marx 'alianation' the craftsman isn't alianated becuse he gets the pleasure of making somthing, seeing the fruits of his labour, deciding how when & what to do,where as if you work in a factory your alianited as you have no input into decisions about when or how you work, as you only make a small part you have no pleasure in seeing a finnished product, thats why studies today show the more worker participation in decision making the better productivity & happier the workers
This is actually pretty misrepresentative of many monopolies. Many monopolies are actually natural monopolies (like Amtrak and the Postal Service) where there is a high fixed cost and low marginal cost.
Yes, monopolies are generally bad, but what if the choice isn't between monopoly and competition, but monopoly and no provider at all.
@mickstarify NSW is the odd State out. Take a look at every other State and see which school achieves the highest academic ranks in each one. NSW: James Ruse (gov). Victoria: Mac.Robertson Girls' High School (priv). Qld: Brisbane Boys College (priv). ACT, Radford's College (priv). WA: St. Mary's Anglican Girls (priv), SA: Southern Vales Christian College (priv). The list goes on...
@dickmojo Mac Rob is government. But you're making the wrong argument. Specific government schools perform really well because they select the best students from the state and put them in one school. School success isn't just about the school. If you have a school of uber smart kids it won't be surprising that they achieve fantastic results.
@darris321 I Dont want to write an entire argument on here, so a quick google search gave cep-dc.org/cfcontent_file.cfm?Attachment=Kober_Report_WhyWeStillNeedPublicSchools_010107.pdf
@mickstarify this document is mainly about education in general and does not criticize it nearly to the fervor that you had in your comment.
It doesn't address competition, cost, or results; it's just a bunch of ideology. there are very few facts in it.
I was expecting it to show why what this video is saying is wrong or biased. There are also some flaws in thinking. At one point it provides statistics that show more minority kids are in public school. is it suggesting private is racist?
@darris321 Well on this it says at 2:12 that private schools are more competitive thus students have higher college attendee rate. This is not causality rather correlation, the more rational reason is because the family is much more rich they can afford to send their child to college. What im trying to say in this is that private schools don't necessarily do a better job than public. Here in Australia, NSW,, it is not the private schools that perform the best (in HSC) rather it is the public
@dickmojo James ruse, the public government school achieves the highest HSC here in Aus.... perhaps it is you that doesn't know what there is talking about....
@mickstarify It's not right to use "selective" government schools when making education comparisons. Most governments run sleective schools where the very best students in the state can attend a good school for next to nothing.
When you get a bunch of very smart students in one school it is not surprising that they produce great results. But to hold this up as an example of good public education is somewhat disingenuous.
@TheDanielBooth Yeah your right, your absolutely right, but this is not the point, the point is that public schools are vital, and to blatantly remove them is absurd. Of course by comparing non-selective public schools and private schools by means, private schools will come out on top, there is a percentage of people in public schools that have no care for education and would rather their lives not to be academic which is perfectly fine, however these people inadvertently reduce public averages
@mickstarify The siutation is a little different in Australia because private schools actually get government funding for reasons of principle.
I actually agree that a voucher system would produce better outcomes for children. But the problem is moving from where we are now to the new system. If you instituted a voucher system it would take 5-10 years for the education system to addapt. That would mean that half a generation of school children would have their education disrupted.
@darris321 You cannot simply take away public schools, even if you subsidize private schools, because it will bridge the social structure between the haves and the have nots, those that have access to education and those who don't. A strong labour market is vital to a strong economy, and by removing education you only weaken it. Also every video on this channel is one sided and against government and taxes, its pure propaganda
@mickstarify that's true. In their defense, they are a thinktank against government and taxes, so if they were on the other side on any issue, they probably wouldn't make a video about it lol
how do you feel about a system where the schools are private with a single payer government,
or a similar system of vouchers where everyone can take their money anywhere?
and speaking of labor, i'm curious what you think about criticisms of teacher unions that make it impossible to fire terrible teachers?
@darris321 Well if the government payed for entirely for the private school, wouldnt that make it akin to a public? It would remove alot of the exclusivity of the private school and ultimately (i believe) new "private private" schools would sprout up, and have an added cost on them, which would put everyone in the exact same position as before, just inflated. If it were vouchers, what if all the private schools simply increased there prices because of added demand?
@mickstarify I think not. I think that it would improve because of competition. It would probably, largely, be the same, and there would be more expensive private schools for people who want to be exclusive, but the teachers would be hired by the school and not by the state. The school could try new educational methods without all the bureaucracy, and it would lead to better service since the schools would compete for students. It would also limit government propaganda and indoctrination
@darris321 If it were "largely the same", then what about all the people at the bottom who cannot afford the private school fees? that would rather sell their school vouchers for money rather than education? It will widen the gap of rich and poor! It would simply make the rich people at the top more rich? Im not a lawyer (or an economist) but the 1989 the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Convention on the Rights of the Child states that all children have a right to education, ALL
@mickstarify Not all private schools would raise their prices, there would certainly be those that accepted the voucher for 100% of the education, how else would you get that money? If I owned a business and everyone had $10 to give, I would probably have products that cost $10 or lower. I don't think very many families would sell their voucher over sending their kids to school, that's silly. Thomas Jefferson said "I would rather attend the problems of too much liberty than too little"
@mickstarify Not all private schools would raise their prices, there would certainly be those that accepted the voucher for 100% of the education, how else would you get that money? If I owned a business and everyone had $10 to give, I would probably have products that cost $10 or lower. I don't think very many families would sell their voucher over sending their kids to school, that's silly. Thomas Jefferson said "I would rather attend the problems of too much liberty than too little"
@darris321 i do believe some families will sell there child's vouchers. Whether it be for drugs or food it doesn't matter. The child is not able to get his entitled right to education, it is the bottom that will be disadvantaged, and the only group that i see gaining from this is the person selling it. As for your example, if i owned a business that the price was %100 covered by the government, then the business could charge what ever it wanted, the consumer wouldn't care
@mickstarify It would remove competitive pricing, which will inevitaibly cost alot to the tax payer, i believe more than it does currently with the public education system
@mickstarify You misunderstand the voucher system. It's a set amount of money, not a promise to pay 100%.
So the government has given $10, not 100% of what they spend. So if I charge "whatever" i want, they won't buy it. If I charge, say, $20, they would see it as $10 and avoid going to me because a less stupid guy down the street is selling for $10, which they see as free. Also, they wouldn't be able to sell their voucher, like I said. Who would buy a voucher?
@mickstarify Of course they have the right to education, but if their parent doesn't want them to do you really think we'd be able to make it happen? I also think the vouchers wouldn't be physical things, I don't see them having any street value. It's not a check from the government.
The check goes to the school that the child goes to because each voucher is attached to a child.
@darris321 As for unions, nothing is perfect, and in the defence of the government, unions aren't apart of the government. So if dodgy teachers are protected by the union through lawyers, it is the law at fault. They should really allow you to write more in these youtube comment boxes..., anyway all this is hypothetical... and merely a guess at what will happen, nothing more.
@mickstarify Jesus you're an idiot mate. Not a single well reasoned article from you, just a barrel of slander, facetiousness and faulty logic. Do some reading and get a clue dickhead!
Monopoly is America!! You got 250 Million People in America. Quality of Life is Horrific. People are making Chump Change and can barely afford rent. Good People are quitting their job. The Nasty are walking around spitting poisoning entire society.
When I was a kid, the Catholic schools were the ones that were the good schools. That's were you sent your children if you wanted them to have a good education. I don't know if this is still the case. Home schooling is the best way to go if you want your children to be properly socialized (and educated). I know this is the opposite of what many think, but it is true.
Monopolies are bad but government monopolies are far worse than private monopolies. A government monopoly forces its customers into its business while a private monopoly still has to at the bare minimum provide something people want. It's entirely possible to put a private monopoly out of business through a creative market, but near impossible to end a government monopoly.
Det trevliga är att allt är gratis! Det man kan dock köpa till realtid och lite annat extra smaskigt. Men detta är den bästa sidan för småsparare, studenter och andra som inte vill köpa dyra program och gillar bra uppbyggda communities.
Det är alltså en ny community, packad med funktioner man inte vetat att man saknat. Du kan sätta upp din egna portfölj, rekommendera aktier genom ett snabbt tryck,Det är den bästa jag sett än så länge.
Do you even know what is the free market? free market is based upon voluntary choice & exchange. So consumers choose which buisinesses to support. So conumers compete with other consumers- bidding up prices in fact. While businesses are free to choose whom to serve. Buisinesses while loving to make higher amounts of money, must compete with other buisinesses for consumers thus they inevitably must bid down their price. Both parities are free to both enter and exit the marketplace.
being free to enter & exit the marketplace, in a free economy, if there is a "monopoly" and that monopoly fucks up, then guess what will happen? other competitors will arise and bid away the monopolies' customers! thats what a free market means! However, if there are government priviliges, interventions, subsidies & the like, then we can be sure that monopolies can gain a foothold on top of other businesses.
The people accountable for this is UNIONS Starting at the top Govern-Mental Federal Union to work UNIONs turning us into a Soviet UNION as Americas freedom and Independence is locked up with UNIONS -Unions are accountable and irresponsible and the States prostituted their own natives and are now all on welfare. End the FED and the thief s will have to find something else to steal, Enact the order JFK was Existed over Executive order 11110- Come to and wake up America you under siege
Economics is not about what is 'good' or 'right,' it is about how things are. It is true that government crowding out, creating barriers to entry, or other can result in inefficiency. Strictly from the perspective of Economics, this is not necessarily 'bad' or 'better.' These words belong in a philosophy discussion.
I must also point out that many of the examples provided are not monopolies - they are just government owned and operated.
Not all of the things you claim to be monopolies completely wipe out the private sector. For example, the NHS is big (and popular, in spite of it's flaws) in Britain yet there are still several successful private companies in the UK.
uh- can you name a long lasting monopoly that did not involve government force or intervention? if you could, then you are far smarter than every economist out there including milton friedman -
@flippyflappy1 Actually isnt this video saying that no child left behind would fail simply because it is government run? No child left behind is the opposite of private schools. Private schools would not waste their time teaching to the slowest student.
@kickndave21 They pushed for this a while ago for private schools and vouchers. Like I said, this is a much more complicated issue than this presentation.
The logical arguement presented here is based on faulty premises which is intentionally oversimplified. This tactic is typical for propaganda, and a critical thinker will see right through it. It's crap like this that I start to have less respect of a college degree, its more like a badge now that you pay for.
The problem, among many, is that private entities often swallow up their competitors until few are left and then they stop innovating or delivering value to consumers. they'll jack up prices and give little in return. It's a crock of bull what this dumb broad is saying.
@satoriaxe That isn't true. Many times companies become to big they lose the edge to compete and evolve quickly enough, and a new company comes out and takes market share. Also I dont agree with your "swallow up their competitors". How do they do this? They dont force anyone to sell out.
@kickndave21 Monopolies exist. Do your own homework, if you can be objective enough to even recognize a monopoly. Personally, I don't trust corporate business. They all want to be without competitors themselves and that is why you see so many buy outs. They're total rip offs. Saying that business monopolies are more trustworthy than government is crazy.
@satoriaxe Haha why does that matter? I am old enough to have my bachelors in Economics, as well as old enough to have studied FREE MARKET ECONOMICS in depth. Ayn Rand, Von Mises, those are the people who I believe are correct when they write about Economics. Just because everyone gives into their fear and lets the govt decide what to give us or not give us does not make it the most efficient way to do things.
@satoriaxe Wow way to dismiss me in 1 fell swoop. So I guess I should play right into the stereotype and write you off too as a liberal big government leftist who just wants handouts? Well I wont. I have many different beliefs, and one thing I know for certain is competition makes things better. Such is the way of government school systems. Also I am sorry if it hurts some child's feeling if they cant keep up with the rest of the class, but you know what? If they feel bad, they may work harder.
@kickndave21 Just shut up. I'm so sick of you fucking idiots from the Rand end of the spectrum. Look, Going to spell this out for you. People run governments. People run businesses. End of story. You just want everything in the hands of unregulated business where you can really rip people off. That's it. Plain and simple. You're all crooks. Nothing but greedy, selfish crooks. Fuck off.
@satoriaxe Hahaha did I hit a nerve? Why dont you read a book for once and actually understand the theory of economics. The government STEALS money to give to others. I cant remember the last time I was forced to buy something? Its not about letting businesses take advantage of people, it is about stopping the government from taking advantage of business. I can tell for a fact you have never ran your own company. Your motto is tax the smart to give to the dumb huh? Awesome idea.
Politicians offer everything for free to help you of course, to secure all the customers, gain virtual monopoly, put competition out of business, they dont need you to pay, they pay their political machines through high taxes, premiums and deficits. They set the prices, the budgets. Its a business DREAM. And they overpay themselves, "redtape", no competition, quality sucks, no worries. Since customers don't pay directly, its "free", so shut-up and take it, or call toll free 1 800 EAT-SHIT .
I love it when these anti-government shills rail against government monopolies and advocate private sector solutions. As if there aren't monopolies in the private sector. And she uses low income people as a shield for her argument. What an evil bitch.
@satoriaxe there are no monopolies idiot only in government anti-trust laws prevent monopolies in private sector. No one is saying government should stay completely out of private industry repealing glass stegal act was a huge mistake but right now the government controls far too much and is a big part of the problem.
@RationalWorld I think Private Sectors have a different kind of monopoly.
I.e. when 2 or more businesses work together like gas stations who only differ a few cents from each other as to not deprive 1 or the other of customers, like Mcdonalds and Burgerking do are almost just as bad monopolies. if not worse since its a group as opposed to a single business.
@devin6691 You mean collusion when 2 companies agree to work together to raise prices. In my opinion Mcdonalds and Burger King are not colluding because they both have VERY cheap food. If they were colluding why bother having a dollar menu to compete?
@satoriaxe If there are so many monopolies in the private sector let me know!! I can think of many monopolies all government. Why is this; because government can enforce the monopoly with law. Tell me HOW a private company can have a MONOPOLY? They can not stop new people entering the market unless government increases the cost of entering the market with new fees or rules that make it difficult.
If voucher schools had to pick at random from public school students (couldn't cherry pick), and couldn't toss out the incorrigibles when they go tired of trying to teach them, I'd be all for them. Level playing field and all that.
But good on "Izzy" for blowing the whistle on James O'Keefe before he raped that CNN lady.
@ktheintz So you would be for private schools if they got rid of competition among pupils to be better students and stopped encouraging children to work hard at getting an education... Sounds like public schools.
@gamoonbat Which corporate monopolies are you referring too? IMHO private monopolies do not exist, only public monopolies that are enforced with laws and regulations. I.E. the Post office who makes sure no one out prices them by law.
@kickndave21 - Microsoft. Soon Comcast and ATT will be locking up broadband. Electricity is run by branches of Southern Company throughout the Southeast.
@gamoonbat Hmm Microsoft competes with hmm? Apple, Linux, and ANYONE ELSE WHO WANTS TO ENTER THE MARKET. Just because there isn't another GREAT choice doesn't mean someone cant come out with an idea and do it. Energy is often highly regulated and subsidized by the government, but if someone who is wealthy wanted to build a solar power plant, or a regular power plant, I dont see why they couldnt and start providing power? Also broadband was your worst example. In my area we have numerous options.
@kickndave21 - Microsoft makes terrible software and just dominates due to economy of scale and kickbacks the PC and PC clone equipment manufacturers. Broadband is just now becoming a monopoly. Wait a couple of years for that now that the big telcoms have bought their politicians.
@gamoonbat I hate to labor the point, but it would be like if Microsoft told Redhat that they had to charge at least 125.00 for their product. How much does linux cost? Much less, I have used it, other people could use it. Its just not as easy. Although with the government monopoly on mail they will sue, and shut down any company, and small delivery companies who can do it cheaper. Their excuse is that no one else could do it, well I disagree. It is like saying private schools cant teach as well
@kickndave21 - You asked for examples of corporate monopolies and I gave them. I was not making a comparison between the corporate and state-run utilities.
When comparing Public to private schools, you have to remember the issues of Adverse Selection. Parents sending their kids to private schools is more ressource- full, than the many who can't afford it. Thus their children on average will perform better.
How do you propose the US should deal with those kids who can't afford private schooling? Send them to work in the fields as unskilled workers?
She actually answered your question. Tax credits or school vouchers. Also replacing the public school system with private schools would release large amount of funds for tax reductions, making it even easier.
@JarlQ That would be one option, why do we have to force kids to get an education who do not want one? I would argue that going to school does not make someone successful nor does dropping out make someone a failure.
There are many people who can't afford private schools and this is rarely due to tax burdens. The video doesn't consider natural market failures - very misleading.
if such market failures in education actually exist they would still be such a small problem compared to this huge government failure that it would hardly be worth talking about. Besides school vouchers is an interesting compromise, since its taxpayer money following the child.
@notom Your comment is so vague, vouchers would solve the problem of making it affordable. Doing so would make children more competative in their studies. Also WHAT natural market failures? Perhaps your talking about the housing bubble, oh wait that was caused by the federal reserve, fannie mae and freddie mac and their easy money policies.
In her early examples she lists trains and the postal service as monopolies gone wrong. Both contain large network elements that would simply be uneconomic to reproduce and have open competition for. I do not disagree with all that she says, just that she is coming at it from such a one sided view. I agree that vouchers may be a compromise, but that would not be a free market, a totally free market does not include cross-subsidy.
@notom Perhaps thats true, but maybe it is not. There could be private companies willing to do the same. Wasn't it private parties who made and developed the railroads and made fortunes? Also just because the government must set up the infrastructure does not mean they must sit there and manage the delivery of the mail. There are other companies that could do it cheaper and better. The USPS will sue anyone who undercuts their prices.
@kickndave21 Yes, private companies did do a very good job of developing the railroads, but as soon as they were built the companies exploited the importance of the infrastructure. Anti-trust laws started after Rockefeller charged extortionate rates for access to a crucial piece of track. My point isn't so much that you can't have private companies run networks (although they need to be heavily regulated) more that it doesn't make sense to have a free market for them.
@notom Well you are very nice to debate, I appreciate the fair and honest debate from you. I would like to say that I do not believe banks were too big to fail and here is why. Yes the big banks would go under, Chase, BOA, Wells, and the big investment firms, Goldman Sachs, and others. What would have happened is that smaller firms that did not take the risks and make mistakes would buy them out, grow, and higher back the people. The amount of stimulus is rediculous, and only slows the growth.
@kickndave21 Thanks, enjoying talking to you too; it's always refreshing to talk to someone on a comments board and for it not to descend into swearing and stuff.
It's not so much the jobs at the banks that are the concern, it's the jobs from the other industries that rely on the banks for loans. Personally I would like to see the banks go out of business for the risks they took but I fear the effect on the rest of the economy would be too great.
It is a big scam notom. You know the federal reserve is not part of the government. Do you know that we will never pay off the debt that we owe the federal reserve? It is impossible. Not because it is too large, but because they charge interest on the money the create from thin air. That means the currency to pay them back doesn't even exist! There is no way to print it either because that creates more debt! This to big to fail stuff, This private company cant do it moto, is simply a
simply a way to scare people into going to the government for help, and making the people who own the federal reserve richer and richer! I would be all for more government intervention where necessary if it was not so corrupt! They are now coming out with a bill to disallow you to sell, trade or give your home grown food to anyone. They say it is to keep people safe, but what it really does is make the big producers rich! The government stopped having your best interest at heart
Sometime around the early 1900's since then they are primarily a corrupt group of super rich who at the VERY least think their way of doing things is better, and at the VERY worst are getting rich from selling us out. I have so many examples. WHY dont we even audit the fed? The senate CREATED the fed, now they cannot even KNOW what they are doing? The founding fathers warned us time and time again about privatizing the creation of money. Presidents have been killed time and time again
@kickndave21 I'm not actually from your country so I'm afraid I'm going to have to admit to know very little about how the Fed is audited (or not as it sounds). I totally agree that it makes no sense privatising the creation of money. In my country (the UK) the equivalent organisation (the Bank of England) is owned by the government - it still bailed our banks out to the tune of £850bn ($550bn), as you can imagine that made a lot of people very angry...
@notom Oooh Notom, While the bank of england may be "wholly owned by the government" Why would a government create an entity, a bank, to create money for itself and then pay the bank interest on that created money? Seems like a scam.
@kickndave21 Probably going a bit off piste and talking about the subprime housing crisis, but in my opinion it wasn’t government intervention that caused the problem, it was the lack of it. The amount of off-balance sheet financing and speculating on debts known to be toxic should never have been allowed, but in a way, that's a free market left to its own devices...
@notom True, sorry for bringing off topic but I completely disagree. The free market would have never loaned money so cheaply if the Fed had not given it out so freely. Not to mention banks would not have taken the risks so easily if government did not insure them with fannie mae and freddie mac. Lastly when the crap did hit the fan the government bailed them out! Those 3 things are anything but free market! If someone takes a risk and fails they go bankrupt, simple as that.
@kickndave21 I see where you're coming from, but I think the problem is that many banks have got too big to fail. If governments didn't step in to bail them out unemployment would be through the roof right now. While bailing out banks might not give them the best long term signal, it is better than 20% unemployment. I just hope enough regulation is introduced to stop banks getting in this situation again.
SEIU boast 2.2 million members. Their average pay $60K + $5K medical. These people retire at 55 after 30 yrs service. (80%) $50K + $5K medical = $55K per yr for 40 yrs = $2.2 Million lottery ticket retirement. How many normal workers get to retire at 55 yrs with $2.2 Million in benefits? $2.2 million x 2.2 million members = $4.84 Trillion in benefits. Did these Teachers striking perform such a good job to deserve a $4.84 Trillion retirement lottery winning funded by tax payer?
Are government schoold just Government indoctrination centers? Are Teachers Unions the most dangerous orginisations to America? Has Socialism provided the best education for our children? What do you think?
At least a government education makes sure that everyone gets the same access to education. Families cant afford provide schools because the individual schools charge too much money to keep people at the bottom
Lmao, Do you realy belive that? One goverment run schools cost much more,and they are keeping the education down. If you hadmore compation in education the freemarket schools would go down in price.
You might be under the impression that public schools are free or somehow cheaper. Bad assumption. Many people forget that much of public school's apparent cheapness comes from subsidies--so it costs just as much, just not on face value. It actually ends up costing more.
Why don't you have enough money to be able to afford private schools? Oh you say the gov't and IRS takes away 1/3 of your paycheck in taxes, well there you go. Of course an average person cannot afford to send there kid and a neighbor's kid to a public school and expect to have enough money to afford private school.
@Runrome 1. Competition would lower the price of private schools. 2. I dont think it is that great that everyone gets horrible education. Our education in this country is so watered down and many of the kids dont even want to be there.
....So in a nutshell, be careful with the information you are receiving. This video obviously has a political bias toward smaller government and pure capitalism. The problem with this video is that it does not acknowledge instances when monopoly can be a good thing. It is not ideal, but economics is all about properly distributing limited resources in the presence of unlimited wants and desires. Sometime monopoly gets the job done. And yes, I graduated with a degree in Business Economics.
Tell me an example wherein a monopoly can be a good thing.
And the reason why the video appears biased towards free markets is because it purports that as a solution. If you heard two people arguing over the answer to 2+2 and one of them said 4, coming back at that person claiming that the other 'obviously has a clear bias to 4 as the right answer' would not make any sense. You seem to be doing something analogous here.
@drichter87 Monopoly is a good thing? Only for the monopolist. For everyone else it creates dead weight loss and higher prices. I suggest you go back to whatever college you got that degree from and ask for your money back (and if it was a public university, get my money back too).
Although I do believe in the privatization of the school system, the main point of this video is flawed. Yes, Perfect Competition does result in the optimal allocation of resources and maximum efficiency. However, to simply say that that "Monopoly is BAD" would be incorrect. Monopolies can beneficial in cases where initial fixed costs are extremely high and variable costs are relatively low. These include but are not limited to Utility services, Mail service, and Waste Management.
2:00 Association does not imply causality. In my opinion, it's most likely because there are more students(or parents) who don't care about education in public than in private schools. If you didn't care about your or your children's education, why choose private schools?
Hey, Is Holiday Dmitri still your PR person? Because she is a crack whore. Seriously, I'm not kidding. One month, during a dull period in her whoring, she stole my credit card when she was my room mate at Northwestern. Keep it classy CATO.
Please tell me, in what way is the post office, or any other area of government for that matter, "extremely efficient"?
And the USPS does have a monopoly on first class and standard mail delivery. That is not true competition. not to mention the fact that unlike private companies who have to turn a profit, the government can operate out of a deficit (6 Billion last I checked), which means that they are taking more than what we willingly give them to deliver our mail.
When you ship something to UPS or Fed ex they have limited drop off locations and the shipping information is entered electronically.
USPS enables you to use a simple envelope,pen, and stamp and you can mail your letter on your own schedule from many more convenient locations 24/7. Reading handwritten addresses is an enormous and costly problem. Not to mention UPS and Fed Ex leverage the addressing system developed and maintained by USPS.
6 billion dollars (I am assuming the post office needs 6 billion a year to keep going) That is roughly 43 dollars a year per US tax payer (not citizen) and that is pretty reasonable. Of all the gross government spending and you're going to pick a fight with USPS.
This is established to promote freedom of speech and to be somewhat of an organized, modern, civilized society. 911 uses your address to know where to send help.
I agree that in a free-market economy certain businesses must fail in order for other, higher-performing businesses to succeed. However, you then replace the business with the school. Does this then mean that in a free-market based school system, certain schools would fail, no matter what? Does that mean some students will fail, no matter what? Failure (at some level) of a given sector is at the very core of free-market economics. I'm afraid you're painting a far too simple solution.
Currently far more students fail in government schools than in free-market schools, even as discriminated against as they are by the Federal government.
I'm afraid that when you're at rock bottom, the only direction you can go is up. ;)
What do you consider free-market schools? Private schools? Also, I would agree that "far more students fail in government schools than in free-market schools [I assume you mean, private]," simply because the majority of K-12 students in the U.S. attend public schools. Did you mean a greater percentage? Do you have any data, or a study, to back up that claim?
Any non-governmental school is, on average, a higher quality source of education than any government controlled school.
Economic efficiency demands it.
If you ask "do I have any data", I am not sure what you mean. I have not conducted any studies, nor have I taken any surveys. Such studies and surveys have been taken by others, and their results are 1) easily procured and 2) some of them are present in this video.
First, if you propose that studies are skewed (which I would agree, some are), how can you estimate that "on average" non-government funded schools outperform government-funded schools? Is it purely based on economic theory?
Second, I am not sure you are looking at this debate in a nuanced way. For example, I teach at a public (government-funded) middle school in the South Bronx (NYC) that outperformed several NYC charter (privately-funded) middle schools on the ELA state exam.
Yet, as I'm sure you realize, this does not necessarily mean that my school provided our students with a higher quality education. Quantifying the phrase, "a higher quality education," is complex (i.e. cannot be generalized).
So, before you assume that such a broad sweeping argument is valid (such as, non-government funded schools, on average, outperform government-run schools), I would look at the issue in a nuanced manner.
We can be very "nuanced" in our economic analysis, if I'm understanding your use of the term correctly.
In that vein, I have two questions:
How do home schooled students place compared to yours on similar exams? (Your state requires, as I understand, that home school students take placement exams to ensure they meet whatever standards the whims of the state deem appropriate.)
Is it true that your school district spends over $14,000 per student, per year to achieve the success you report?
1) I'm not sure about the results regarding home schooled students. However, I would hope that the majority of them (being that they are privileged enough to have daily, one-on-one instruction from a loving, English-speaking, parent/guardian) meet NY State ELA standards. I am simply proud of my students who, without the same privileges, also meet or exceed state standards. Which situation, using your economic analysis, is more challenging?
2) I would agree that $14,000 per student is unnecessary. The average among the rest of the states is under $9,000 per student. I would also argue that this area is where economics becomes a valuable starting point for the discussion regarding why the costs are so high. Yet, I can only speak about my school, which allocates a significant portion of its budget to after-school programs that allow students to learn until 5:30. While I think you're correct to point this out, you should know
that my school, and most other schools in the area, have numerous support services, including (but not limited to) special education services, counseling services, and academic intervention services.
Lastly, an honest question. Have you taught full-time in an urban public school?
Maybe $9,000-$14,000 is necessary for an excellent education in a government school. If that is the level of efficiency at which they operate, then that sum is necessary.
How much does the average home schooling family spend per student per year? How many hours a day of that one-on-one education is necessary to achieve what you describe as and "ELA standard" meeting education?
I understand why you ask these questions, yet overall, you are missing the underlying reality. Not all American children are privileged enough to stay at-home for schooling. Some students, in fact, do not have the privilege of living in one home for more than two months at a time.
Do you have experience teaching or mentoring children living in poor, urban areas? Based on the questions you are proposing, it seems you are unaware of your subconscious biases.
The FM is the best solution to helping the poor and the environment. Every socialist country has more poor and a worse environment. Wal-Mart is bad for poor people? Jobs are bad for poor people? Competition prevents cures, etc? Really? The US drug industry is the best in the world and is the only competitive market. The rest of the world combined does a fraction of the US research.
MrColton421, you seem to enjoy this topic. A little more study might help you understand that monopoly power can be gathered will well less that 100% of a market, sometimes as low as 30%. It depends on the market and the competitors. Also, anti-trust laws have been used to break up unions as often as big companies, and both tend to lobby and abuse our system. Often the government is cozy with monopolies, like in the video. I hope you enjoyed this little history lesson.
Great content -- but you may want to put the links that appear at the end of this video in the sidebar. No one on planet earth is actually going to type them in.
. You have to control the entire industry for it to be a monopoly. that is like saying Verizon has a monopoly on phone service because it has the largest 3g map. let me guess next your going to say the govt. has a monopoly on the military also?
The federal government has made it illegal for any private company to deliver first or third class mail. So yeah, the USPS controls those industries.
As for the military, I'd say Blackwater shows that the federal government is allowing some competition to the military in regards to defending American interests.
When i said industry i meant the shipping industry. and since all my packages come UPS i do not think the postal service has a monopoly on the shipping industry. ill give you that they have the "monopoly" on the mail. I think it is a good idea and smart to have that, otherwise you have bills and important federal documents being shipped from different providers could lead to complications that are avoidable.
post office is in the Constitution so i have absolutely no problem with it.
Just because something's in the Constitution, doesn't mean you should have no problem with it. Remember, the original Constitution's Article 1, Section 2 included the 3/5 compromise.
What "avoidable" complications could arise from using private companies that we aren't dealing with already? If I trust FedEx more than the USPS, why shouldn't I be allowed to use their services to send any mail I want?
The USPS does indeed have a government-protected monopoly. Furthermore, even their competitive services are protected by the legislation surrounding the department.
Insofar as the military, the Civilian Militia are far more numerous than the government's standing forces (we number 80 million, they haven't even 300,00 standing troops). We are clearly "monopolizing" that field. :-)
monopolies are bad ancd capitalism tends toward teh monopolistic as marx saw
rictorn 2 weeks ago
@rictorn But it was Marx, do you really believe what he said? ._.
AkaiTsukiShimitsu 5 days ago
Comment removed
rictorn 4 days ago
@AkaiTsukiShimitsu hi, marxism dosnet work (full stop) but marx's analasis of capitalism is absolutly superb, as an analist of capitalism he is peerless, his analsis and critique of capitalism in das kapital is brilliant, many buisness schools now teach marx theory of capitalist crisis as a very simple quick way to understand the periodic great crashes in the system,
rictorn 4 days ago
@AkaiTsukiShimitsu 2marx said capitalism leads to crashes(it dose),leads to enviormental degridation(it has &is),to monomoly/duopoly/oligopaly (to a great extent is),'primative accumilation'where a country/company steels land/raw materials from its owner massive multinationals profiting frm iorn,oil,diomands..., either enriching corrupt officials to get contracts, take land (usa in iraq),buy large parts of poor countries for little(china),use/start civel wars to get oil/diomonds(central africa)
rictorn 4 days ago
@AkaiTsukiShimitsu 3marx 'alianation' the craftsman isn't alianated becuse he gets the pleasure of making somthing, seeing the fruits of his labour, deciding how when & what to do,where as if you work in a factory your alianited as you have no input into decisions about when or how you work, as you only make a small part you have no pleasure in seeing a finnished product, thats why studies today show the more worker participation in decision making the better productivity & happier the workers
rictorn 4 days ago
I love this girl.
Spjungen 1 month ago
where are your sources, send me the link pls
bkironde 1 month ago
This is actually pretty misrepresentative of many monopolies. Many monopolies are actually natural monopolies (like Amtrak and the Postal Service) where there is a high fixed cost and low marginal cost.
Yes, monopolies are generally bad, but what if the choice isn't between monopoly and competition, but monopoly and no provider at all.
TheDanielBooth 2 months ago
@mickstarify NSW is the odd State out. Take a look at every other State and see which school achieves the highest academic ranks in each one. NSW: James Ruse (gov). Victoria: Mac.Robertson Girls' High School (priv). Qld: Brisbane Boys College (priv). ACT, Radford's College (priv). WA: St. Mary's Anglican Girls (priv), SA: Southern Vales Christian College (priv). The list goes on...
dickmojo 3 months ago
@dickmojo Mac Rob is government. But you're making the wrong argument. Specific government schools perform really well because they select the best students from the state and put them in one school. School success isn't just about the school. If you have a school of uber smart kids it won't be surprising that they achieve fantastic results.
TheDanielBooth 2 months ago
how do you feel about a voucher system?
A government paid-for private school system.
darris321 3 months ago in playlist More videos from CFPEcon101
Really nice explanation. I tried a similar one in a more visual way. Watch it if you want. Thumbs up.
GenryHale 4 months ago
This is terrible, it is completely biased capitalistic crap! Do not take it as fact
mickstarify 4 months ago
@mickstarify please elaborate.
darris321 3 months ago in playlist More videos from CFPEcon101
@darris321 I Dont want to write an entire argument on here, so a quick google search gave cep-dc.org/cfcontent_file.cfm?Attachment=Kober_Report_WhyWeStillNeedPublicSchools_010107.pdf
mickstarify 3 months ago
@mickstarify this document is mainly about education in general and does not criticize it nearly to the fervor that you had in your comment.
It doesn't address competition, cost, or results; it's just a bunch of ideology. there are very few facts in it.
I was expecting it to show why what this video is saying is wrong or biased. There are also some flaws in thinking. At one point it provides statistics that show more minority kids are in public school. is it suggesting private is racist?
darris321 3 months ago
@mickstarify I feel that this document is a bad example, so if you don't mind doing some more google fu, please provide me another one.
darris321 3 months ago
@darris321 Well on this it says at 2:12 that private schools are more competitive thus students have higher college attendee rate. This is not causality rather correlation, the more rational reason is because the family is much more rich they can afford to send their child to college. What im trying to say in this is that private schools don't necessarily do a better job than public. Here in Australia, NSW,, it is not the private schools that perform the best (in HSC) rather it is the public
mickstarify 3 months ago
@mickstarify btw, here in Australia, it is ABSOLUTELY the private schools that perform the best. You don't know wtf you're talking about.
dickmojo 3 months ago
@dickmojo James ruse, the public government school achieves the highest HSC here in Aus.... perhaps it is you that doesn't know what there is talking about....
mickstarify 3 months ago
@mickstarify It's not right to use "selective" government schools when making education comparisons. Most governments run sleective schools where the very best students in the state can attend a good school for next to nothing.
When you get a bunch of very smart students in one school it is not surprising that they produce great results. But to hold this up as an example of good public education is somewhat disingenuous.
TheDanielBooth 2 months ago
@TheDanielBooth Yeah your right, your absolutely right, but this is not the point, the point is that public schools are vital, and to blatantly remove them is absurd. Of course by comparing non-selective public schools and private schools by means, private schools will come out on top, there is a percentage of people in public schools that have no care for education and would rather their lives not to be academic which is perfectly fine, however these people inadvertently reduce public averages
mickstarify 2 months ago
@mickstarify The siutation is a little different in Australia because private schools actually get government funding for reasons of principle.
I actually agree that a voucher system would produce better outcomes for children. But the problem is moving from where we are now to the new system. If you instituted a voucher system it would take 5-10 years for the education system to addapt. That would mean that half a generation of school children would have their education disrupted.
TheDanielBooth 2 months ago
@darris321 You cannot simply take away public schools, even if you subsidize private schools, because it will bridge the social structure between the haves and the have nots, those that have access to education and those who don't. A strong labour market is vital to a strong economy, and by removing education you only weaken it. Also every video on this channel is one sided and against government and taxes, its pure propaganda
mickstarify 3 months ago
@mickstarify that's true. In their defense, they are a thinktank against government and taxes, so if they were on the other side on any issue, they probably wouldn't make a video about it lol
how do you feel about a system where the schools are private with a single payer government,
or a similar system of vouchers where everyone can take their money anywhere?
and speaking of labor, i'm curious what you think about criticisms of teacher unions that make it impossible to fire terrible teachers?
darris321 3 months ago
@darris321 Well if the government payed for entirely for the private school, wouldnt that make it akin to a public? It would remove alot of the exclusivity of the private school and ultimately (i believe) new "private private" schools would sprout up, and have an added cost on them, which would put everyone in the exact same position as before, just inflated. If it were vouchers, what if all the private schools simply increased there prices because of added demand?
mickstarify 3 months ago
@mickstarify I think not. I think that it would improve because of competition. It would probably, largely, be the same, and there would be more expensive private schools for people who want to be exclusive, but the teachers would be hired by the school and not by the state. The school could try new educational methods without all the bureaucracy, and it would lead to better service since the schools would compete for students. It would also limit government propaganda and indoctrination
darris321 3 months ago
@darris321 If it were "largely the same", then what about all the people at the bottom who cannot afford the private school fees? that would rather sell their school vouchers for money rather than education? It will widen the gap of rich and poor! It would simply make the rich people at the top more rich? Im not a lawyer (or an economist) but the 1989 the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Convention on the Rights of the Child states that all children have a right to education, ALL
mickstarify 3 months ago
@mickstarify Not all private schools would raise their prices, there would certainly be those that accepted the voucher for 100% of the education, how else would you get that money? If I owned a business and everyone had $10 to give, I would probably have products that cost $10 or lower. I don't think very many families would sell their voucher over sending their kids to school, that's silly. Thomas Jefferson said "I would rather attend the problems of too much liberty than too little"
darris321 3 months ago
@mickstarify Not all private schools would raise their prices, there would certainly be those that accepted the voucher for 100% of the education, how else would you get that money? If I owned a business and everyone had $10 to give, I would probably have products that cost $10 or lower. I don't think very many families would sell their voucher over sending their kids to school, that's silly. Thomas Jefferson said "I would rather attend the problems of too much liberty than too little"
darris321 3 months ago
@darris321 i do believe some families will sell there child's vouchers. Whether it be for drugs or food it doesn't matter. The child is not able to get his entitled right to education, it is the bottom that will be disadvantaged, and the only group that i see gaining from this is the person selling it. As for your example, if i owned a business that the price was %100 covered by the government, then the business could charge what ever it wanted, the consumer wouldn't care
mickstarify 3 months ago
@mickstarify It would remove competitive pricing, which will inevitaibly cost alot to the tax payer, i believe more than it does currently with the public education system
mickstarify 3 months ago
@mickstarify You misunderstand the voucher system. It's a set amount of money, not a promise to pay 100%.
So the government has given $10, not 100% of what they spend. So if I charge "whatever" i want, they won't buy it. If I charge, say, $20, they would see it as $10 and avoid going to me because a less stupid guy down the street is selling for $10, which they see as free. Also, they wouldn't be able to sell their voucher, like I said. Who would buy a voucher?
darris321 3 months ago
@mickstarify Of course they have the right to education, but if their parent doesn't want them to do you really think we'd be able to make it happen? I also think the vouchers wouldn't be physical things, I don't see them having any street value. It's not a check from the government.
The check goes to the school that the child goes to because each voucher is attached to a child.
darris321 3 months ago
@darris321 As for unions, nothing is perfect, and in the defence of the government, unions aren't apart of the government. So if dodgy teachers are protected by the union through lawyers, it is the law at fault. They should really allow you to write more in these youtube comment boxes..., anyway all this is hypothetical... and merely a guess at what will happen, nothing more.
mickstarify 3 months ago
@mickstarify Jesus you're an idiot mate. Not a single well reasoned article from you, just a barrel of slander, facetiousness and faulty logic. Do some reading and get a clue dickhead!
dickmojo 3 months ago
Monopoly is America!! You got 250 Million People in America. Quality of Life is Horrific. People are making Chump Change and can barely afford rent. Good People are quitting their job. The Nasty are walking around spitting poisoning entire society.
heartlessvietboy 7 months ago
Private Schools have an option that Public Schools do not. They may remove poor performing students from their rosters.
langwiz7 8 months ago
When I was a kid, the Catholic schools were the ones that were the good schools. That's were you sent your children if you wanted them to have a good education. I don't know if this is still the case. Home schooling is the best way to go if you want your children to be properly socialized (and educated). I know this is the opposite of what many think, but it is true.
oilhammer04 9 months ago
Monopolies are bad but government monopolies are far worse than private monopolies. A government monopoly forces its customers into its business while a private monopoly still has to at the bare minimum provide something people want. It's entirely possible to put a private monopoly out of business through a creative market, but near impossible to end a government monopoly.
thebestsumoeva 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Det trevliga är att allt är gratis! Det man kan dock köpa till realtid och lite annat extra smaskigt. Men detta är den bästa sidan för småsparare, studenter och andra som inte vill köpa dyra program och gillar bra uppbyggda communities.
Det är alltså en ny community, packad med funktioner man inte vetat att man saknat. Du kan sätta upp din egna portfölj, rekommendera aktier genom ett snabbt tryck,Det är den bästa jag sett än så länge.
w.w.w.proinvestor.se
Maxprofit39 10 months ago
Without such foolish regulations, interventions & subsidies, competition could freely occur
swu880 10 months ago
Do you even know what is the free market? free market is based upon voluntary choice & exchange. So consumers choose which buisinesses to support. So conumers compete with other consumers- bidding up prices in fact. While businesses are free to choose whom to serve. Buisinesses while loving to make higher amounts of money, must compete with other buisinesses for consumers thus they inevitably must bid down their price. Both parities are free to both enter and exit the marketplace.
swu880 10 months ago
@swu880
being free to enter & exit the marketplace, in a free economy, if there is a "monopoly" and that monopoly fucks up, then guess what will happen? other competitors will arise and bid away the monopolies' customers! thats what a free market means! However, if there are government priviliges, interventions, subsidies & the like, then we can be sure that monopolies can gain a foothold on top of other businesses.
swu880 10 months ago
The people accountable for this is UNIONS Starting at the top Govern-Mental Federal Union to work UNIONs turning us into a Soviet UNION as Americas freedom and Independence is locked up with UNIONS -Unions are accountable and irresponsible and the States prostituted their own natives and are now all on welfare. End the FED and the thief s will have to find something else to steal, Enact the order JFK was Existed over Executive order 11110- Come to and wake up America you under siege
411American 11 months ago
'Better' and 'bad' are for normative statements.
Economics is not about what is 'good' or 'right,' it is about how things are. It is true that government crowding out, creating barriers to entry, or other can result in inefficiency. Strictly from the perspective of Economics, this is not necessarily 'bad' or 'better.' These words belong in a philosophy discussion.
I must also point out that many of the examples provided are not monopolies - they are just government owned and operated.
Antepenult 1 year ago
Not all of the things you claim to be monopolies completely wipe out the private sector. For example, the NHS is big (and popular, in spite of it's flaws) in Britain yet there are still several successful private companies in the UK.
swordhunter12 1 year ago
WOW she couldn't be more biased if she tried...
MrGibbonz123 1 year ago
@MrGibbonz123
uh- can you name a long lasting monopoly that did not involve government force or intervention? if you could, then you are far smarter than every economist out there including milton friedman -
swu880 10 months ago
she is kinda cute but this was so biased its unbelieveable
sirefernando 1 year ago
This demonstration is overly simplistic and at a 6 grade level. Therefore it is very disingenuous.
Obvious propaganda for charter schools and no child left behind, or did we forget what happened there.
flippyflappy1 1 year ago
@flippyflappy1 I agree.
satoriaxe 1 year ago
@flippyflappy1 Actually isnt this video saying that no child left behind would fail simply because it is government run? No child left behind is the opposite of private schools. Private schools would not waste their time teaching to the slowest student.
kickndave21 1 year ago
@kickndave21 They pushed for this a while ago for private schools and vouchers. Like I said, this is a much more complicated issue than this presentation.
The logical arguement presented here is based on faulty premises which is intentionally oversimplified. This tactic is typical for propaganda, and a critical thinker will see right through it. It's crap like this that I start to have less respect of a college degree, its more like a badge now that you pay for.
flippyflappy1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
We will Re-Write Economics.
1. Understand the Currency.
2. Regulate and Tax Industries making too much.
3. Corporations help build a government system.
4. Educate students so that we wont rely on corps.
heartlessvietboy 1 year ago
Stuff like this should be common knowledge, and yet I see too many people say it's the other way around.
ShadowofaRoar 1 year ago
The problem, among many, is that private entities often swallow up their competitors until few are left and then they stop innovating or delivering value to consumers. they'll jack up prices and give little in return. It's a crock of bull what this dumb broad is saying.
satoriaxe 1 year ago
@satoriaxe That isn't true. Many times companies become to big they lose the edge to compete and evolve quickly enough, and a new company comes out and takes market share. Also I dont agree with your "swallow up their competitors". How do they do this? They dont force anyone to sell out.
kickndave21 1 year ago
@kickndave21 Monopolies exist. Do your own homework, if you can be objective enough to even recognize a monopoly. Personally, I don't trust corporate business. They all want to be without competitors themselves and that is why you see so many buy outs. They're total rip offs. Saying that business monopolies are more trustworthy than government is crazy.
satoriaxe 1 year ago
@kickndave21 How old are you?
satoriaxe 1 year ago
@satoriaxe Haha why does that matter? I am old enough to have my bachelors in Economics, as well as old enough to have studied FREE MARKET ECONOMICS in depth. Ayn Rand, Von Mises, those are the people who I believe are correct when they write about Economics. Just because everyone gives into their fear and lets the govt decide what to give us or not give us does not make it the most efficient way to do things.
kickndave21 1 year ago 2
@kickndave21 Ah. A loony Ayn Rander. That explains a lot. A right-wing pro-corporate boot-licker. I'm done with you.
satoriaxe 1 year ago
@satoriaxe Wow way to dismiss me in 1 fell swoop. So I guess I should play right into the stereotype and write you off too as a liberal big government leftist who just wants handouts? Well I wont. I have many different beliefs, and one thing I know for certain is competition makes things better. Such is the way of government school systems. Also I am sorry if it hurts some child's feeling if they cant keep up with the rest of the class, but you know what? If they feel bad, they may work harder.
kickndave21 1 year ago
@kickndave21 Just shut up. I'm so sick of you fucking idiots from the Rand end of the spectrum. Look, Going to spell this out for you. People run governments. People run businesses. End of story. You just want everything in the hands of unregulated business where you can really rip people off. That's it. Plain and simple. You're all crooks. Nothing but greedy, selfish crooks. Fuck off.
satoriaxe 1 year ago
@satoriaxe Hahaha did I hit a nerve? Why dont you read a book for once and actually understand the theory of economics. The government STEALS money to give to others. I cant remember the last time I was forced to buy something? Its not about letting businesses take advantage of people, it is about stopping the government from taking advantage of business. I can tell for a fact you have never ran your own company. Your motto is tax the smart to give to the dumb huh? Awesome idea.
kickndave21 1 year ago
@kickndave21 May not have been forced to buy something, but you would have definitely been forced to go without something at least once in your life
monarofreak 11 months ago
Politicians offer everything for free to help you of course, to secure all the customers, gain virtual monopoly, put competition out of business, they dont need you to pay, they pay their political machines through high taxes, premiums and deficits. They set the prices, the budgets. Its a business DREAM. And they overpay themselves, "redtape", no competition, quality sucks, no worries. Since customers don't pay directly, its "free", so shut-up and take it, or call toll free 1 800 EAT-SHIT .
chcc1111 1 year ago
Hmmm ... are the 'moon bats' out in force or what ?
.
uploadJ 1 year ago
@uploadJ - May the force always be with you!
gamoonbat 1 year ago
I love it when these anti-government shills rail against government monopolies and advocate private sector solutions. As if there aren't monopolies in the private sector. And she uses low income people as a shield for her argument. What an evil bitch.
satoriaxe 1 year ago
@satoriaxe there are no monopolies idiot only in government anti-trust laws prevent monopolies in private sector. No one is saying government should stay completely out of private industry repealing glass stegal act was a huge mistake but right now the government controls far too much and is a big part of the problem.
RationalWorld 1 year ago
@RationalWorld STFU. You don't have a clue.
satoriaxe 1 year ago
@RationalWorld I think Private Sectors have a different kind of monopoly.
I.e. when 2 or more businesses work together like gas stations who only differ a few cents from each other as to not deprive 1 or the other of customers, like Mcdonalds and Burgerking do are almost just as bad monopolies. if not worse since its a group as opposed to a single business.
devin6691 1 year ago
@devin6691 You mean collusion when 2 companies agree to work together to raise prices. In my opinion Mcdonalds and Burger King are not colluding because they both have VERY cheap food. If they were colluding why bother having a dollar menu to compete?
kickndave21 1 year ago
@satoriaxe If there are so many monopolies in the private sector let me know!! I can think of many monopolies all government. Why is this; because government can enforce the monopoly with law. Tell me HOW a private company can have a MONOPOLY? They can not stop new people entering the market unless government increases the cost of entering the market with new fees or rules that make it difficult.
kickndave21 1 year ago
If voucher schools had to pick at random from public school students (couldn't cherry pick), and couldn't toss out the incorrigibles when they go tired of trying to teach them, I'd be all for them. Level playing field and all that.
But good on "Izzy" for blowing the whistle on James O'Keefe before he raped that CNN lady.
ktheintz 1 year ago
@ktheintz So you would be for private schools if they got rid of competition among pupils to be better students and stopped encouraging children to work hard at getting an education... Sounds like public schools.
kickndave21 1 year ago
IZZY SANTA ROCKS! ! ! Government institutions are not the same thing as corporate monopolies, but she does have enthusiasm for the subject.
gamoonbat 1 year ago
@gamoonbat Which corporate monopolies are you referring too? IMHO private monopolies do not exist, only public monopolies that are enforced with laws and regulations. I.E. the Post office who makes sure no one out prices them by law.
kickndave21 1 year ago
@kickndave21 - Microsoft. Soon Comcast and ATT will be locking up broadband. Electricity is run by branches of Southern Company throughout the Southeast.
gamoonbat 1 year ago
@gamoonbat Hmm Microsoft competes with hmm? Apple, Linux, and ANYONE ELSE WHO WANTS TO ENTER THE MARKET. Just because there isn't another GREAT choice doesn't mean someone cant come out with an idea and do it. Energy is often highly regulated and subsidized by the government, but if someone who is wealthy wanted to build a solar power plant, or a regular power plant, I dont see why they couldnt and start providing power? Also broadband was your worst example. In my area we have numerous options.
kickndave21 1 year ago
@kickndave21 - Microsoft makes terrible software and just dominates due to economy of scale and kickbacks the PC and PC clone equipment manufacturers. Broadband is just now becoming a monopoly. Wait a couple of years for that now that the big telcoms have bought their politicians.
gamoonbat 1 year ago
@gamoonbat I hate to labor the point, but it would be like if Microsoft told Redhat that they had to charge at least 125.00 for their product. How much does linux cost? Much less, I have used it, other people could use it. Its just not as easy. Although with the government monopoly on mail they will sue, and shut down any company, and small delivery companies who can do it cheaper. Their excuse is that no one else could do it, well I disagree. It is like saying private schools cant teach as well
kickndave21 1 year ago
@kickndave21 - You asked for examples of corporate monopolies and I gave them. I was not making a comparison between the corporate and state-run utilities.
gamoonbat 1 year ago
Where do you guys find all these cute ladies to appear in your videos?
txgp17 1 year ago
When comparing Public to private schools, you have to remember the issues of Adverse Selection. Parents sending their kids to private schools is more ressource- full, than the many who can't afford it. Thus their children on average will perform better.
How do you propose the US should deal with those kids who can't afford private schooling? Send them to work in the fields as unskilled workers?
JarlQ 1 year ago
@JarlQ
She actually answered your question. Tax credits or school vouchers. Also replacing the public school system with private schools would release large amount of funds for tax reductions, making it even easier.
Illyrien 1 year ago
@JarlQ That would be one option, why do we have to force kids to get an education who do not want one? I would argue that going to school does not make someone successful nor does dropping out make someone a failure.
kickndave21 1 year ago
There are many people who can't afford private schools and this is rarely due to tax burdens. The video doesn't consider natural market failures - very misleading.
notom 1 year ago
@notom
if such market failures in education actually exist they would still be such a small problem compared to this huge government failure that it would hardly be worth talking about. Besides school vouchers is an interesting compromise, since its taxpayer money following the child.
Illyrien 1 year ago
@notom Your comment is so vague, vouchers would solve the problem of making it affordable. Doing so would make children more competative in their studies. Also WHAT natural market failures? Perhaps your talking about the housing bubble, oh wait that was caused by the federal reserve, fannie mae and freddie mac and their easy money policies.
kickndave21 1 year ago
In her early examples she lists trains and the postal service as monopolies gone wrong. Both contain large network elements that would simply be uneconomic to reproduce and have open competition for. I do not disagree with all that she says, just that she is coming at it from such a one sided view. I agree that vouchers may be a compromise, but that would not be a free market, a totally free market does not include cross-subsidy.
notom 1 year ago
@notom Perhaps thats true, but maybe it is not. There could be private companies willing to do the same. Wasn't it private parties who made and developed the railroads and made fortunes? Also just because the government must set up the infrastructure does not mean they must sit there and manage the delivery of the mail. There are other companies that could do it cheaper and better. The USPS will sue anyone who undercuts their prices.
kickndave21 1 year ago
@kickndave21 Yes, private companies did do a very good job of developing the railroads, but as soon as they were built the companies exploited the importance of the infrastructure. Anti-trust laws started after Rockefeller charged extortionate rates for access to a crucial piece of track. My point isn't so much that you can't have private companies run networks (although they need to be heavily regulated) more that it doesn't make sense to have a free market for them.
notom 1 year ago
@notom Well you are very nice to debate, I appreciate the fair and honest debate from you. I would like to say that I do not believe banks were too big to fail and here is why. Yes the big banks would go under, Chase, BOA, Wells, and the big investment firms, Goldman Sachs, and others. What would have happened is that smaller firms that did not take the risks and make mistakes would buy them out, grow, and higher back the people. The amount of stimulus is rediculous, and only slows the growth.
kickndave21 1 year ago
@kickndave21 Thanks, enjoying talking to you too; it's always refreshing to talk to someone on a comments board and for it not to descend into swearing and stuff.
It's not so much the jobs at the banks that are the concern, it's the jobs from the other industries that rely on the banks for loans. Personally I would like to see the banks go out of business for the risks they took but I fear the effect on the rest of the economy would be too great.
notom 1 year ago
It is a big scam notom. You know the federal reserve is not part of the government. Do you know that we will never pay off the debt that we owe the federal reserve? It is impossible. Not because it is too large, but because they charge interest on the money the create from thin air. That means the currency to pay them back doesn't even exist! There is no way to print it either because that creates more debt! This to big to fail stuff, This private company cant do it moto, is simply a
kickndave21 1 year ago
simply a way to scare people into going to the government for help, and making the people who own the federal reserve richer and richer! I would be all for more government intervention where necessary if it was not so corrupt! They are now coming out with a bill to disallow you to sell, trade or give your home grown food to anyone. They say it is to keep people safe, but what it really does is make the big producers rich! The government stopped having your best interest at heart
kickndave21 1 year ago
Sometime around the early 1900's since then they are primarily a corrupt group of super rich who at the VERY least think their way of doing things is better, and at the VERY worst are getting rich from selling us out. I have so many examples. WHY dont we even audit the fed? The senate CREATED the fed, now they cannot even KNOW what they are doing? The founding fathers warned us time and time again about privatizing the creation of money. Presidents have been killed time and time again
kickndave21 1 year ago
@kickndave21 I'm not actually from your country so I'm afraid I'm going to have to admit to know very little about how the Fed is audited (or not as it sounds). I totally agree that it makes no sense privatising the creation of money. In my country (the UK) the equivalent organisation (the Bank of England) is owned by the government - it still bailed our banks out to the tune of £850bn ($550bn), as you can imagine that made a lot of people very angry...
notom 1 year ago
@notom Oooh Notom, While the bank of england may be "wholly owned by the government" Why would a government create an entity, a bank, to create money for itself and then pay the bank interest on that created money? Seems like a scam.
kickndave21 1 year ago
@notom $1,400bn oops!
notom 1 year ago
@kickndave21 Probably going a bit off piste and talking about the subprime housing crisis, but in my opinion it wasn’t government intervention that caused the problem, it was the lack of it. The amount of off-balance sheet financing and speculating on debts known to be toxic should never have been allowed, but in a way, that's a free market left to its own devices...
notom 1 year ago
@notom True, sorry for bringing off topic but I completely disagree. The free market would have never loaned money so cheaply if the Fed had not given it out so freely. Not to mention banks would not have taken the risks so easily if government did not insure them with fannie mae and freddie mac. Lastly when the crap did hit the fan the government bailed them out! Those 3 things are anything but free market! If someone takes a risk and fails they go bankrupt, simple as that.
kickndave21 1 year ago
@kickndave21 I see where you're coming from, but I think the problem is that many banks have got too big to fail. If governments didn't step in to bail them out unemployment would be through the roof right now. While bailing out banks might not give them the best long term signal, it is better than 20% unemployment. I just hope enough regulation is introduced to stop banks getting in this situation again.
notom 1 year ago
excellently stated
icecreamladydream 1 year ago
SEIU boast 2.2 million members. Their average pay $60K + $5K medical. These people retire at 55 after 30 yrs service. (80%) $50K + $5K medical = $55K per yr for 40 yrs = $2.2 Million lottery ticket retirement. How many normal workers get to retire at 55 yrs with $2.2 Million in benefits? $2.2 million x 2.2 million members = $4.84 Trillion in benefits. Did these Teachers striking perform such a good job to deserve a $4.84 Trillion retirement lottery winning funded by tax payer?
myHome109 1 year ago 2
Are government schoold just Government indoctrination centers? Are Teachers Unions the most dangerous orginisations to America? Has Socialism provided the best education for our children? What do you think?
flmcon 1 year ago
Comment removed
jcola8005 1 year ago
Excellent video series.
aretlev 1 year ago
EXCELLENT WORK
And thank you for the sources.
LtSurge659 1 year ago
Government education is how our government keeps us from abolishing government-making us dependent
RunLiberty 1 year ago
Who's daughter at CATO is this kid? She did a good job.
Truthpolice9698 1 year ago 2
She's smart. I would tap that.
RuddODragonFear 1 year ago
At least a government education makes sure that everyone gets the same access to education. Families cant afford provide schools because the individual schools charge too much money to keep people at the bottom
Runrome 1 year ago
Lmao, Do you realy belive that? One goverment run schools cost much more,and they are keeping the education down. If you hadmore compation in education the freemarket schools would go down in price.
nero8289 1 year ago
@Runrome:
You might be under the impression that public schools are free or somehow cheaper. Bad assumption. Many people forget that much of public school's apparent cheapness comes from subsidies--so it costs just as much, just not on face value. It actually ends up costing more.
11111011 1 year ago
Why don't you have enough money to be able to afford private schools? Oh you say the gov't and IRS takes away 1/3 of your paycheck in taxes, well there you go. Of course an average person cannot afford to send there kid and a neighbor's kid to a public school and expect to have enough money to afford private school.
residentzombie 1 year ago
@Runrome Dude, did you attend a government school? If you did like I did you would know that it cost way too much per hour to attend!
RunLiberty 1 year ago
@Runrome 1. Competition would lower the price of private schools. 2. I dont think it is that great that everyone gets horrible education. Our education in this country is so watered down and many of the kids dont even want to be there.
kickndave21 1 year ago
....So in a nutshell, be careful with the information you are receiving. This video obviously has a political bias toward smaller government and pure capitalism. The problem with this video is that it does not acknowledge instances when monopoly can be a good thing. It is not ideal, but economics is all about properly distributing limited resources in the presence of unlimited wants and desires. Sometime monopoly gets the job done. And yes, I graduated with a degree in Business Economics.
drichter87 1 year ago
DR: Have any FEDERAL gov't monopolies been efficient? The USPS, Fannie/Freddie, The depts. of Energy, Education are all failures.
You statement "economics is all about properly distributed limited resources" sounds eerily similar to some kind of collectivist philosophy.
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
@Utubekookdetector:
Awesome name! :)
11111011 1 year ago
@drichter87,
Tell me an example wherein a monopoly can be a good thing.
And the reason why the video appears biased towards free markets is because it purports that as a solution. If you heard two people arguing over the answer to 2+2 and one of them said 4, coming back at that person claiming that the other 'obviously has a clear bias to 4 as the right answer' would not make any sense. You seem to be doing something analogous here.
11111011 1 year ago
1111: Your 2+2 analogy is spot on my friend.
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
@drichter87 Monopoly is a good thing? Only for the monopolist. For everyone else it creates dead weight loss and higher prices. I suggest you go back to whatever college you got that degree from and ask for your money back (and if it was a public university, get my money back too).
VeryGreatMan 1 year ago
@drichter87 define "good thing" and tell me of one monopoly that met this criteria...
egokick 1 year ago
Although I do believe in the privatization of the school system, the main point of this video is flawed. Yes, Perfect Competition does result in the optimal allocation of resources and maximum efficiency. However, to simply say that that "Monopoly is BAD" would be incorrect. Monopolies can beneficial in cases where initial fixed costs are extremely high and variable costs are relatively low. These include but are not limited to Utility services, Mail service, and Waste Management.
drichter87 1 year ago
@drichter87 In what way are the monopolies you speak of beneficial?
egokick 1 year ago
2:00 Association does not imply causality. In my opinion, it's most likely because there are more students(or parents) who don't care about education in public than in private schools. If you didn't care about your or your children's education, why choose private schools?
kevc015 1 year ago
Hey, Is Holiday Dmitri still your PR person? Because she is a crack whore. Seriously, I'm not kidding. One month, during a dull period in her whoring, she stole my credit card when she was my room mate at Northwestern. Keep it classy CATO.
Ribavirin9 1 year ago
Actually some of the things the post office has to do is extremely efficient/impressive.
Its also not a monopoly as it does have to compete with UPS and Fed-ex.
lizard450 1 year ago
Please tell me, in what way is the post office, or any other area of government for that matter, "extremely efficient"?
And the USPS does have a monopoly on first class and standard mail delivery. That is not true competition. not to mention the fact that unlike private companies who have to turn a profit, the government can operate out of a deficit (6 Billion last I checked), which means that they are taking more than what we willingly give them to deliver our mail.
MrJrod87 1 year ago
When you ship something to UPS or Fed ex they have limited drop off locations and the shipping information is entered electronically.
USPS enables you to use a simple envelope,pen, and stamp and you can mail your letter on your own schedule from many more convenient locations 24/7. Reading handwritten addresses is an enormous and costly problem. Not to mention UPS and Fed Ex leverage the addressing system developed and maintained by USPS.
lizard450 1 year ago
Well I have used all 3,and i can say for a fact the usps sucks they are terrible. Imuch wrather use Fedex,or Ups.
nero8289 1 year ago
6 billion dollars (I am assuming the post office needs 6 billion a year to keep going) That is roughly 43 dollars a year per US tax payer (not citizen) and that is pretty reasonable. Of all the gross government spending and you're going to pick a fight with USPS.
This is established to promote freedom of speech and to be somewhat of an organized, modern, civilized society. 911 uses your address to know where to send help.
lizard450 1 year ago
The USPS doesn't get taxpayer subsidies anymore, but they do have a gov't mandated monopoly on first class mail.
The USPS recently said they'll have to cut Saturday delivery because they're going to run over $20 billion in the red each year for the next decade.
You're right LIZARD, there are other examples of gov't failure, other than the USPS.
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
I'm sorry, this is totally irrelevant, you need better keying software...
odysseybmx88 1 year ago
i totally agree with her... anw i am an anarchist.. gvmt is never a solution
aaabbbccc6511 1 year ago
I agree that in a free-market economy certain businesses must fail in order for other, higher-performing businesses to succeed. However, you then replace the business with the school. Does this then mean that in a free-market based school system, certain schools would fail, no matter what? Does that mean some students will fail, no matter what? Failure (at some level) of a given sector is at the very core of free-market economics. I'm afraid you're painting a far too simple solution.
gstegner1 1 year ago
@gstegner1
Currently far more students fail in government schools than in free-market schools, even as discriminated against as they are by the Federal government.
I'm afraid that when you're at rock bottom, the only direction you can go is up. ;)
JaisHenan 1 year ago
Comment removed
gstegner1 1 year ago
Comment removed
gstegner1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ JaisHenan
What do you consider free-market schools? Private schools? Also, I would agree that "far more students fail in government schools than in free-market schools [I assume you mean, private]," simply because the majority of K-12 students in the U.S. attend public schools. Did you mean a greater percentage? Do you have any data, or a study, to back up that claim?
gstegner1 1 year ago
Any non-governmental school is, on average, a higher quality source of education than any government controlled school.
Economic efficiency demands it.
If you ask "do I have any data", I am not sure what you mean. I have not conducted any studies, nor have I taken any surveys. Such studies and surveys have been taken by others, and their results are 1) easily procured and 2) some of them are present in this video.
Did you watch it?
JaisHenan 1 year ago
First, if you propose that studies are skewed (which I would agree, some are), how can you estimate that "on average" non-government funded schools outperform government-funded schools? Is it purely based on economic theory?
Second, I am not sure you are looking at this debate in a nuanced way. For example, I teach at a public (government-funded) middle school in the South Bronx (NYC) that outperformed several NYC charter (privately-funded) middle schools on the ELA state exam.
gstegner1 1 year ago
Yet, as I'm sure you realize, this does not necessarily mean that my school provided our students with a higher quality education. Quantifying the phrase, "a higher quality education," is complex (i.e. cannot be generalized).
So, before you assume that such a broad sweeping argument is valid (such as, non-government funded schools, on average, outperform government-run schools), I would look at the issue in a nuanced manner.
gstegner1 1 year ago
We can be very "nuanced" in our economic analysis, if I'm understanding your use of the term correctly.
In that vein, I have two questions:
How do home schooled students place compared to yours on similar exams? (Your state requires, as I understand, that home school students take placement exams to ensure they meet whatever standards the whims of the state deem appropriate.)
Is it true that your school district spends over $14,000 per student, per year to achieve the success you report?
JaisHenan 1 year ago
Responses to your questions:
1) I'm not sure about the results regarding home schooled students. However, I would hope that the majority of them (being that they are privileged enough to have daily, one-on-one instruction from a loving, English-speaking, parent/guardian) meet NY State ELA standards. I am simply proud of my students who, without the same privileges, also meet or exceed state standards. Which situation, using your economic analysis, is more challenging?
gstegner1 1 year ago
2) I would agree that $14,000 per student is unnecessary. The average among the rest of the states is under $9,000 per student. I would also argue that this area is where economics becomes a valuable starting point for the discussion regarding why the costs are so high. Yet, I can only speak about my school, which allocates a significant portion of its budget to after-school programs that allow students to learn until 5:30. While I think you're correct to point this out, you should know
gstegner1 1 year ago
that my school, and most other schools in the area, have numerous support services, including (but not limited to) special education services, counseling services, and academic intervention services.
Lastly, an honest question. Have you taught full-time in an urban public school?
gstegner1 1 year ago
Maybe $9,000-$14,000 is necessary for an excellent education in a government school. If that is the level of efficiency at which they operate, then that sum is necessary.
How much does the average home schooling family spend per student per year? How many hours a day of that one-on-one education is necessary to achieve what you describe as and "ELA standard" meeting education?
JaisHenan 1 year ago
Forgive my poor typing, I meant "as an", not "as and".
JaisHenan 1 year ago
I understand why you ask these questions, yet overall, you are missing the underlying reality. Not all American children are privileged enough to stay at-home for schooling. Some students, in fact, do not have the privilege of living in one home for more than two months at a time.
Do you have experience teaching or mentoring children living in poor, urban areas? Based on the questions you are proposing, it seems you are unaware of your subconscious biases.
gstegner1 1 year ago
Goveernment school system is the most dangerous institution for our freedom.
levonet33 1 year ago
The FM is the best solution to helping the poor and the environment. Every socialist country has more poor and a worse environment. Wal-Mart is bad for poor people? Jobs are bad for poor people? Competition prevents cures, etc? Really? The US drug industry is the best in the world and is the only competitive market. The rest of the world combined does a fraction of the US research.
cargosquid 1 year ago
Good points, but I think the use of generic moralizing ("bad", "less fortunate") diminishes the factual impact of it.
hughtub 1 year ago
tell that to General steel. learn your history my friend the government breaks up monopolies.
MrColton421 1 year ago
MrColton421, you seem to enjoy this topic. A little more study might help you understand that monopoly power can be gathered will well less that 100% of a market, sometimes as low as 30%. It depends on the market and the competitors. Also, anti-trust laws have been used to break up unions as often as big companies, and both tend to lobby and abuse our system. Often the government is cozy with monopolies, like in the video. I hope you enjoyed this little history lesson.
kurofuneparry 1 year ago
Great content -- but you may want to put the links that appear at the end of this video in the sidebar. No one on planet earth is actually going to type them in.
fairyplant77 1 year ago
ummm i did not know UPS and FEDEX were shutdown because of the monopoly the postal service has set up! GET REAL PLEASE
MrColton421 1 year ago
The postal service has a monopoly on First & Third Class mail.
Druk0ziz 1 year ago
. You have to control the entire industry for it to be a monopoly. that is like saying Verizon has a monopoly on phone service because it has the largest 3g map. let me guess next your going to say the govt. has a monopoly on the military also?
MrColton421 1 year ago
The federal government has made it illegal for any private company to deliver first or third class mail. So yeah, the USPS controls those industries.
As for the military, I'd say Blackwater shows that the federal government is allowing some competition to the military in regards to defending American interests.
Druk0ziz 1 year ago
When i said industry i meant the shipping industry. and since all my packages come UPS i do not think the postal service has a monopoly on the shipping industry. ill give you that they have the "monopoly" on the mail. I think it is a good idea and smart to have that, otherwise you have bills and important federal documents being shipped from different providers could lead to complications that are avoidable.
post office is in the Constitution so i have absolutely no problem with it.
MrColton421 1 year ago
Just because something's in the Constitution, doesn't mean you should have no problem with it. Remember, the original Constitution's Article 1, Section 2 included the 3/5 compromise.
What "avoidable" complications could arise from using private companies that we aren't dealing with already? If I trust FedEx more than the USPS, why shouldn't I be allowed to use their services to send any mail I want?
Druk0ziz 1 year ago
The USPS does indeed have a government-protected monopoly. Furthermore, even their competitive services are protected by the legislation surrounding the department.
Insofar as the military, the Civilian Militia are far more numerous than the government's standing forces (we number 80 million, they haven't even 300,00 standing troops). We are clearly "monopolizing" that field. :-)
JaisHenan 1 year ago
Where's Dan Mitchell?
etjester 1 year ago
Thanx Santa!
brodie2288 1 year ago