thank god my school is not like this.. however the teachers arent all that great. out of my 6 periods, only 1 teacher sucks. im pretty thankful for this. even though i think negatively about school i always remember that there is worse
Unions are always foolish because they do not destroy their own jobs and then distrobute the profit from that evenly, things need to progress one way or another and the unions continually get cut out and they don't try anything new, however they do have alot of money in financial entities such as pension funds that they should use strategically.
@AlAlekhine I believe I expressed my opinon that faith should not be discussed in the same context as economics. That to me is relevant. It is my business to express my opinion and to push for freedom of speech. I'll never ask you to keep your opinions to yourself even if you are ignorant.
government is a criminal enterprise, why would you let a criminal enterprise dictate what is taught to your kids? if it does teach your kids your kids will be unable to defend them selves from the enterprises crimes and various forms of theft like taxation and infaltion
if the government went to the best restaurant in your city and told the owner they would tax everyones house and give him a certain amount of money every year to be open 9-5. and the amount of money had no relation to the quality of food or amount of people he served... what do you imagine that restaurant would be like in a few years? that is public school. zero metrics, zero feedback, zero accountability, predictable results.
The first purpose of public paid schools is to support the TAX/THEFT SYSTEM which supports it. The FIRST DUTY of citizenship is to eliminate ALL tax and other controls on economy. Taxation is murder. The first duty in supporting tax is media control = TV, Cities' main Newspapers, Schools, Churches. YouTube is great! The Murderers are trying to eliminate YouTube, Net freedom of speech, and all LOGIC. The US Constitution was not "We The People" but 39 thieves, supporting taxation and murder.
@hyylo I agree and the Khan Academy isn't perfect either. I think we'll see what we don't have now and that is competitive education. Seriously if Google is backing Khan than Facebook could have there own program where you can't gain access to Facebook unless you do your homework and study. Just another simple innovation.
Faith has nothing to do with economics. It does however have much to do with control and suppression, so let's keep faith out of a discussion about economics.
How many times are the bureaucrats going to get it wrong and for how long? This is a fairly old film and things are only worse. One of my professors made an observation that the knowledge of the students was getting worse each year and he couldn't understand it. That was 1994, get on the schtick!
Capitalism is the historic evolution of private property relationship in a modality of wages system for commodity production for profit. Capitalism is a competative, hostile,anarchic mode of production, has revolutionised science and technology to a degree that has made the raison d etre of Capitalist relationship of production historically obsolete, We have all the means and resources for a world of plenty in harmony, Capitalism has taken care of scarcity. We need to share the Earth
@arzoyan very good point on sharing. That is something that is good for everyone. But where are you going to find the angels to do that? I haven't seen any. Government certainly won't. And the bigger the government gets the worse it is. One hand washes the other. The heinousness we are seeing is not about capitalism. "we are all susceptible to temptation; we all have lusts within us that we must suppress. And the most pernicious of those lusts is libido dominandi, the lust to dominate."
@floydsgarage The Angels within us are being suppressed daily in a false,competative,corrupting socio-economic reality of Minority imposition of poverty and alienation, cause and effect dyalectics as some may argue. A democratic movement for a World of cooperation for our common needs and welll being is the only logical/ spiritual resolution of the CRISIS OF OUR TIMES.
@arzoyan I'm with you on that. We must have faith. Everyone on the planet would also have to be on the same page and we would need the right people in the right positions. If we take a look at the best and worst places on the planet, the better places are those with little gov intervention and greater freedom. Corporations also exist for the betterment of society, the decline of which is attributable through gov intervention and human nature. As long as there is evil, there will be problems.
Does anyone aside from myself see the self in doing racism performed by the goverment by creating programs that dumb down minorities and make it seem impossible to perform at a white man's level and that the funding programs will help them....absolute disgrace, and i believe without those programs poverty in the minorities world would go away greatly and racism would always be on its way to being abolished...black people in no way are dumber than white people.....in no way at all
It amazes how progressives bitch about how terrible it is that people are affected by competition, but how none of them when they go to the store seek out to purposely purchase all their products based on them being only middle of the road both technology and efficiency wise.
I wonder how many people that truly think competition is bad, is complaining about how those poor individuals had to work/study so hard to develop the software programs for the computer that they are watching this on.
A world of cooperation for our common needs and well being is possibility moneyless,classless,stateless communities of humanity, where human creative genius is not limited to minority private gain. We can achieve together a social reality of harmony within and without and evolve a true civilisation We can transcend the ruling class ideological hold and emotional manipulation, The rulers have colonised our mind for commercial use in a Market system of alienation dominated by state/corporations
@rrrjjjmmm100 Your type of thinking sir is exactly what feeds what is wrong with are country. It has nothing to do with race!!! It has everything to do with who and what they are being educated, which is that they will never make anything of themselves, that the "white man" and capitalism is evil and that they will only survive on government handouts, that my good sir is the problem.
Currently, global businesses & government are turning into one entity. Save the children from the cut throat competitiveness of business! Its all about $ rather than education&moral values. Students are committing suicide over competition.Our Earth is falling apart!Large corporations labeled as a charter school is taking over, worst is yet to come!Parents keep your children close.
@artdrawsyou Why is competition bad? Its what drives our economy. Also, the fact that people want money is a good thing. For example, lets say I sell apples at 50 cents a piece. You also sell apples, and want to make more money. So you sell your apples at 40 cents a piece. In doing this, you make more money, and the consumer benefits because he gets cheaper apple. Also, if a corporation gives better education than a public school, how is that a bad thing?
Propaganda. Where is the comparison of surving on minimum wage in a poor neighborhood and Weston, one of the highest income towns, not only in Massachussetts, but in all of the USA.
Think of the underlying law of nature. The way of all things.
Consider its astounding inferences and implications.
The single, underlying law ... of nature! Not merely of physics, chemistry, psychology, biology, etc., but of all known fields of inquiry. The law we can all relate to, identify, understand and apply.
Ask yourself. What is the underlying law of nature?
Delight in the question. Have fun in the process of finding the answer firsthand for yourself.
an idiot with a nobel prize, go figure. those metals detectors, police presence, guards and hidden wepons are not a product of the school system, public or private. it is a product of the society they live in. moreover, no wealthy parent would be "trapped" into sending their children to this school, is he joking?
those disadvantaged people like to complain and complain. They want to wait for the government to save them. Yes you're disadvantaged, that's why you have to work 10 times harder than the richer kid.
Good learning are self learning, if you really want to learn, you can go to local library which is free. If you're intelligent, no matter how poor you are, people will notice you're smart. If you're capable and work hard, you'll succeed. Stop asking what the gov't can do for u.
@majinspy Friedman would consider Libraries products of the communities rather than the government. Without the government, libraries would be provided too. For instance, anyone can go to a university library, etc. Government offered libraries (such as public libraries) are usually useless for serious research anyways,
Libraries are rarely the product of a community, unless by community you mean government. If you mean that then liberals (me) have already won. You say w/o government there would be libraries. Maybe, but not nearly as many and if you dispute that you must show some evidence.
In regards to libraries being for serious research, well that goes to his overall point: Taxing the poor to provide a service disproportionately used by elites.
I like Friedman because he wasn't an ideologue or hardliner.
@majinspy I like Friedman too... I think we're arguing the same point rofl... And when I say that libraries are used for serious research, I mean for something beyond reading comics and Dahl books.
I've spent a lot of time listening to hardliners like objectivists and now Friedman. Friedman spends most of his time as a pragmatic capitalist economist. I agree mostly with him and think that capitalism should be left for the most part free. He occasionally references moral arguments for free markets that are more in line w/ objectivists but I think he's just more realistic / pragmatic than they are.
Overall, I'm still a (moderate) liberal. I think the government can help people.
Im surprised you dont understand MF's point. You may have all the best intentions in the world with any program but ultimately you must look at the results. Historically Big govt intervention may have had a immediate positive result, but the long term successes are phantom and over time failed its purpose. You must look at the economic out comes of the intended program not just intention. Good will and well meaning intentions are fine but the facts of economics show the truth and success
I'm aware of that. I would argue that school integration has done a huge amount to lessen the racism that was in this country and its citizens' hearts. I think SS has helped a lot of people who would have otherwise made bad decisions.
Theoretically, people don't make decisions that are just BAD (i.e. very costly to themselves) but..they do.
I also think government has helped things a great deal. The GI bill for instance. Relief during the Depression. Government can help mitigate pain.
You're missing the original point being made. The original point made by a poster was that the poor should "use libraries" instead of having government money spent on them. I countered by arguing "where do you think libraries come from?". The counter to this was "they are used for serious research as well" and I countered by saying that wasn't enough to justify it from a CONSERVATIVE point of view as opposed to my liberal one. I can justify schools AND libraries. The conservative can't do either
you can see the privatization of education in china now. Schools are run as businesses. Farmers' children often can't afford school. Poor students from well off families can pay more tuition to stay in school.
Get the government out of education. Let local and state government have public schools yet let a voucher system make it so there is fair competition.
Is his point that the extreme disparity between the rich and poor in the USA due to misguided welfare policy? If it is, he argues it well, but perhaps even Friedman fans like myself should recognise that short term profit motive could lead to deliberate subjugation of the poor by the rich, mercantilism, anti-compeititon, everything agaisnt free and fair competition and efficiency that renders everyone wealthier: ie the government needs to intervene to prevent that and they have NOT.
short term profit motive... in education? the government should not intervene because if someone can profit by providing more/better education, than there is a demand for it. The short-term rise in price that would stem from privatizing schools would lead to an influx of suppliers -thus reducing cost down to below the cost taxpayers pay through school.
The point is that the market isn't perfect and can't be under any sort of economic conditions recognisable to us. If privatised then so many kids wouldn't go because the cost would be greater in the better schools. The whole reason that we don't allow all universities and schools to be absolutely private is that poor kids would never, ever be able to go to good ones. If HArvard could increase fees based on demand how many poor kids do you think could go?
It is very easy to get a student loan, so almost any poor kid can get in. As long as they do the work and pass their tests, they'll go on and have the education to receive much higher wages than their parents did. You are forgetting that we already pay for public schools, just indirectly and inefficiently. A voucher system would simply create competition between them.
I can assure you that I have not forgotten that we pay for public schools and that due to bureaucracy and lack of freedom of choice, costs are greater than they would be for the LOWER end of a market system. But do you not understand that unis like Oxford and Yale could and therefore would charge a sum far, far too high for the minority of their applicants who are poor but appropriately successful. They are the ferrari of unis and the costs would go too high forwhatis a tool of social mobility.
Yale is a private institution and therefore have to compete against other similar private institutions such as Harvard and Yale as far as value for higher education is concerned. If they charged more than was demanded, then there would be a surplus of education and a lack of students in seats.
Nothing you say is incorrect. Nor does anything you have said defeat my argument: that if universities could charge as much as they liked, the very good ones would be profitable at a price which some people could ismply never afford. In such a system they would only have relatively rich people going to the best unis, just as only relatively rich people can afford the best things in any market. That is why to completely marketise education would lead to some people never having the chance to
That is simply not true! Yale can charge as much as it likes, no government organization sets a price. Yale provides it's own financial aid, also, and makes a point to admit any student no matter their inability to pay. They are able to do this because they receive money in the form of donations/endowments and invest that money wisely to create more.
If they charged too much, students would simply go to another school such as Harvard or Stanford or Cornell. They keep their prices low to remain competitive. Perhaps you don't understand how private schools work in this country because you do not live here.
(continued) reach the top. Oxford would charge possibly as much as Eton or more. And peopel would still pay. They would take loans, they would have richer families than the average university student. But how could any Joe Bloggs go to Oxford, no matter how bright, if it would cost him more than one hundred thousand pounds? Do you think I'm overestimating the cost that Oxford would have in a private system? Think of how it's mostly middle/upper class anyway and how much demand there is togothere
Well If Joe Bloggs was bright enough to go to Oxford and poor at the same time, chances are (in America) he would receive a substantial amount financial aid both from private academic scholarships and the government.
Financial aid? Doesn't that stop it being a marketised system? I suppose competition is still open, but I wonder how deep pockets are over there to allow universities to have high costs, so they can be free to develop as they like, while always paying for students whose family earns under 60K. It soudns like you allow a market but pay to reduce inequalities of opportunity it might produce. Surely that costs athe public a helluva lot which sort of beats the point of allowing a private uni system.
see this and take their money to better schools. Our k-12 lacks this competition. That in addition to it being next to impossible to fire bad teachers here and you have a huge problem.
Through the state defining basic rates of tuition fees, such a situation is prevented. Believe me, I would love to break up most state monopolies and smash the bureaucracy. In the UK health care is now compromised as bureaucratic targets of financial prudence are the main goal for hospitals. Policemen make arrests for statistics. We are forced to pay taxes for institutions of great profit to their organisers, eg the BBC or Parliament. But the state must force education to be equitably available.
I live in the U.S. and the government's infringement on our rights has not yet reached the level that it as there. The state subsidizes education only because the positive externalities of everyone achieving a certain level outweigh the enormous cost to taxpayers to educate them.
Funny that you mention Harvard in your analogy because as it turns out if either of your parents make below $60K annually and you get accepted Harvard will pay your tuition for you. Secondly, competition with other good schools would help keep costs down.
Fair argument. Yet in countires where universities simply cannot attract the funding to pay for people's tuition, society foots the bill and frankly, that helps make uni feasible for a lot of people. I totally understnd the point about state subsidy demarketising and removing competition, yet state aid towards universities (ie to help studetns pay for it) is necessary where you have many poor students going to unis that don;t have the resourcse Harvard can muster. Do they pay ALL of it @Harvard?
Yes depending on you parents net income. But as you realized Harvard has a lot of resources and many alumni with very deep pockets. Federal taxes don't go to unis here. Only state taxes. If you go to school on your home state you get lower tuition. The thing about american public unis that separate it from public high schools is that there is (even in state subsidized sys) a great deal of competition. Poor performing unis can't fund good programs and students ...
@yammyspeed13 Did they give you the SAT? Submission, abdication & trust in authority?
The model of graduated certification to have jobs bestowed upon the tame which follow the model & pursue a sociopath's life of self-interest climbing to the top fails
Like John Lennon said, "There's room at the top they are telling you still but first you must learn how to smile as you kill" If you can't make it on your own you can join the big team & be army strong, maybe get a job in law enforcement after
abolish the "department of education" leave the local school districts to run the school. That's the reason the parents lost control of the education of the kids.
The problem is not that, the parents is not involved in the school, but rather: - Socio-economic reasons - Too much beurocracy - The availability of weapons - Poor conditions in school -> poor behavior and that kind -> worse conditions
In Denmark where I live, the public schools is in quite good conditions, and the best teachers don't want to go to the Private schools because the parents have too much influence on the lessons.
I'm not saying that parents shouldn't care about the learning of their kids.
I just believe the parents should instead try to make their kids interested in the subjects of school.
As well as making the kids capable of behaving normal, which can be a huge problem.
Further i still find it necessary for the parents to make sure that the school is functioning well and that their children is learning. But i just don't think they should mess to much around with the teachers assignments
Well here is the USA, i think its the opposite. Parents have to much influence on public education. This is why ridiculous things like creationism want to be thought in public schools. But there is also a big difference in population with USA and Denmark so that makes a difference also.
Please do your research sir. Cdesign proponentsistsism, I mean intelligent design, was forced upon the Dover Area School District by the Dover Area School District Board of Directors (two of the defendants of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case). The plaintiffs were local parents and after the trial ended the parents elected new officials to the Dover Area School District Board of Directors. Intelligent design would still be being taught at that school but for those meddling parents.
This is a great argument for why education should be privately delivered and publicly funded. Nobody would be angry about what boards of directors were doign because there would be more choice.
There shouldn't be strong gun control (it's unconstitutional). Parent's need to stop being lazy and actually raise their children instead of letting Government, TV, Video games,music, etc. do it for them.
More gun regulation has never stopped a criminal from carrying a gun. In fact it encourages criminals to carry a gun because everywhere they go all they find are unarmed victims!
Well.. free carry of firearms would be even better.. There'd be no school shooting like Columbine if teachers and adults were armed.. The perp would be killed quickly instead of having to wait for the police to count the bodies.
So youre advising for all teachers to carry guns just in case some student brings an AK-47 to kill everyone. Brilliant! Why stop there why not have soldiers in every classroom, armoured doors, foxholes in front of every entrance and snipers on the roof. What a fun school would that be a perfect environment for learning. Yeah and thats how the system should work instead of talking to students teachers should kill them.
Well, the guns would only be there for the worst case scenario.
No matter how many gun laws you make, no matter how much regulation you impose on gun stores, criminals and crazy people will still get their hands on them, i promise you.
Every single major shooting takes place in a "Gun Free Zone", because no one is capable of stopping the shooter.
Google, "Virginia Law School Shooting", for a good example of 2 students with guns, stopping a killer with guns after he only killed a couple people
Just like if there was strong drug regulation, teenagers wouldn't have drugs, right? You're just too smart, but thanks for taking the time to come point out these complex solutions for us peons.
You are comparing completely two different things. If you come to the school with a gram of weed you wont be able to kill 20 people unlike when you come with a Semi-automatic gun bought by your father for ""hunting". Thats the bottom line.
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one."
Listen its very difficult to own a guns in my country and never in the fucking history did we have a school shooting its as simple as that and you can take that poetic nonsense and shove it up your ... know where
The US population need guns, but they also need proper training. Criminals get guns anyway, and if they meet someone with a gun, they will back off. School shootings could have been stopped if people had guns. Guns isn't the problem, people is. Lots if guns in Canada too Government is just a violent monopolistic company that force you to pay for services, no matter how crappy they are, so don't expect good protection. I think there's a need in the US to balance power with an armed population.
First of all you must live in some kind of Hollywood-fantasy land if you think that just because you have a gun the criminal will back off. If a criminal stumbles upon an armed citizen during a bank robbery he will not back off he will shot you BECAUSE you have a GUN. Secondly, if you think that the less government the better then you should move to Africa because let me tell you governments there provide absolutely no services of any kind and have completely no interest in their citizens.
Not saying guns are absolute protection, just better than nothing, and think it should be a choice. Your example is just that, the situation may be different. The state is an unnecessary evil, but i don't see it going away anytime soon.
Most of the school shootings in the US may be related to SSRI's (anti-depressants).
Well you are comparing apples to oranges. If government were to disappear in the USA, we would not turn into Africa. The problems in africa stem from many things, and one of them is there government.
What makes you think that America wouldnt turn into Africa if there was no US government?Whats so fundamentally different?What US has less black people than Africa, is that it?Think about LA gangs,now imagine that theres no police in LA.Now imagine thats how the entire country looks like.Imagine that a company producing meat is not regulated by any governmental agency,they would make 3kg of sausages out of 1kg of meat.You would eat pig shit and you wouldnt even know about it.
umm...I hope you are being satirical. Anyway, the system we have now is dumbing down our society to a point where it's sad. Do you really think our government wants us to be educated? Able to think for ourselves? Think about it.
If you read history, you see that rulers used to control their subjects through force (e.g. threatening to cut off arms if they "get out of line"). This is not what happens today of course. Now "rulers" or politicians have to convince us to "stay in line" or, as we call it, vote and act a certain way. They achieve this through forms of propaganda. Critical thinking diminishes the effectiveness of propaganda. I'm not a CT or anything, I just can think. I've learned more on my own than in school.
But you have to admit, vouchers would be much better than public education itself. Of course, if you did repeal the income tax then people would have alot more money to invest in education.
Thats a good idea. Government is a very inefficient machine. You put £1000 in and get £200 out. That might be an understatement or an overstatement but you get what Im saying. As soon as government funds something money is lost in administration costs.
@Scoforever I've got a better one- democrat and republican bend over the american people on behalf of their corporate donors- oil companies, banks, insurance, big pharma, defense contractors.
THEN- a few corporations control and own and media- and convince idiots there is a difference between corporate whore A (dem) and corporate whore B (rep).
People that still vote for repubs or dems are destroying the republic.
@tristramshandy3 You can't blame the corporations and the media.. who ulitmately has the power? The people put the the politicians into office, not themselves. You must get to core, underlying problem which is the apathy and ignorance of the American people. The best one can do is his own research on his politicians and then vote. Notice, not just vote blindly, you must do research. We only have a third of our citizens participating in the presidential election..
@tristramshandy3 By saying that your vote doesn't matter whether you vote democrat or republican only enchances the corporate entities.. Im sure that you wouldn't consider a vote for Ron Paul destructive to our republic, yet hes been a republican for decades... Friedman again says it best "you have to make it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right things".. So if the people speak, politicians are going to want to keep their jobs, and must side with people. So read and vote.
@pureaggression I do consider a vote for Paul destructive. I am a leftist, and while we sure enjoy his anti-imperialism, libertarianism is really just corporatism run amuck- a world with no regulation, no epa, no rules- NO THANKS DUDE!
@tristramshandy3 We dont have regulation? Thats a joke, truely. What we have is the product of too much government regulation. When has regulation made this country more productive and prosperous?
@pureaggression I never said we don't have regulation, although one could argue that it isn't at all effective- but that is a whole other story.
I said PAUL doesn't believe in any govt regulation, and well, most of us do.
I WANT the EPA watching over polluters.
I WANT the sec prosecuting corporate fraud on wall street.
I can tell you specifically when deregulation has caused havoc- see the repeal of glass steigal, followed eight years later by the worst financial crisis since the depression.
@tristramshandy3 Well we have all that and we have the gulf coast spill, wall street's throwing a party as our commodities rise in price, sure the economy may be growing but its slowing down as far as acceleration goes, like 17% real unemployment. Get the government out and let the free market work its course. China's doing it, and if the same trends continue they'll have US on OUR knees.
@pureaggression get the govt out of the way and let the free market work? LOL! I didn't know that failed ideology was still actually given credence by some people. You must work for goldman sachs.
@tristramshandy3 There's nothing childish about it, fool. You're the one who's trying to seem cute, and doesn't acknowledge or appreciate where his privledges and oppurtunities come from. Like that of using a computer. What economic system encourages the advancement of technology and the accessibility of the masses to that technology. Capitialism. You're the child who basks in his great gifts but hasn't the mind to conisder the sender. Had there been no "free market", you wouldn't be alive.
@pureaggression LOL! So, nobody lived before capitalism and the free market? LOL! That's adorable. I really needed a good laugh- so thanks!
I happen to know, as clearly you do not, that the internet would not exist were it not for govt subsidized research, specifically from the defense department. So capitalism had far less to do with the internet than socialism did.
You should thank socialism for the gifts of computers and the internet.
Government always does a great job. Just look at how they are so frugal with other people's money. Only 12 trillion in debt! Let's let them educate our children forever! Yes! More government! 90% of America has been educated in government schools. Any coincidence we have a nation of morons?!?!
competetion is part of life. teachers need to be fired or rewarded for a students progress. I dont have the luxury of a union to protect my job. I have to work to keep it.
The teacher's union and lousy teachers are the only ones opposed to reforming the school system. The teacher's union is not a criminal organization like the Mafia legally speaking but they are in spirit. On the other hand they are more powerful and the Mafia is kinder to kids.
Well, unfortunately a union is a necessary evil to make sure a system continues to function, and quite frankly i'd rather have teachers in power than teamsters or gamblers. People are so quick to point the finger at teachers forgetting that there are pornographers and pedophiles seeking political clout.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
BULLSHIT !! so explain to me why the rich Boston Weston school kids parents don't have to pay tuition and the Bronx kids parents do. I hope 'ol Milton lies peaceful in his sleep but is also forgotten.
What do you expect? Government runs it, and most government employees are just featherbedders who don't care about anything but a paycheck. This is just a sample of what Obama will be offering to the country.
How hypercritical,the reason these folks are poor is because their jobs have been outsourced to the third world. Free market capitalism at its finest. The american middleclass has had their wealth donated to the thirdworld in order to build consumer markets for multinational corperations. Everyone cannot be a banker or businessman, the low skilled jobs these people can preform has all been exported, thanks to free market capitalism. The greed philosophy at its finest. Tariffs, Tariffs, Tariffs
91%+ of unskilled workers are employed, but how much are they getting paid? It should be a worker friendly labor market with that high percentage of employment, yet how much of them are paid minimum wage? Minimum wage is a distortion of the free market by the state. Without those, it seems to me that the situation would be even worse for unskilled labor. If the workers were rational, they would band together and demand company stock as part of their compensation.
If there weren't a minimum wage, then with a pool of unemployed workers, the agreed upon price will be determined by the most desperate members of the unemployment pool. As capital increases, the unemployment pool gets larger because the machines typically replace skilled labor w/ unskilled labor and/or make workers more efficient. W/o minimum wage, larger labor pools lower labor market prices.
I suppose this could all be fixed with worker unions. Taft-Hartley limits them however.
With minimum wage, this leads to unemployment, and people starving on the street. Basically what minimum wage says is if you can't demand at least so much for your wage, then you are legally prohibited from working.
Lower labor costs don't necessarily lower the market price, right? The market price is determined by supply and demand, and if consumers have less money, there will be less demand. I think that if the market price of unskilled labor were to drop by 10%, the market price of all goods would drop by less than 10%. So everyone except unskilled labor wins. Is it their punishment for not becoming a skilled laborer or a business owner, even if they are working harder than the other two?
You have fallacies in your statements to numerous for me to go through one by one. But here are the generalized flaws.
1) You want the system to be fair, but what system is fair? Russia, China, America. Why do you think political self interest will make a fairer society the economic self interest?
2) You look at the idealistic goals of government programs, but ignore the reality of what these programs actually are.
3) You didn't state any facts, just hearsay and conjecture.
I think that capitalism would be a better system if laborers were always given the option to earn company stock as part of their compensation. I believe that in capitalism there is a compulsion for businesses to accumulate more and more capital which ultimately drives down labor prices while at the same time making the actual work more mindless, repetitive, and thus shitty. As a concrete example, I would cite fast food jobs. I am essentially rehashing Marx arguments in Capital.
In regards to your second statement, it is extremely easy, conceptually and in practice, to just say that all government is bad. It is a much more difficult problem do decide the best way to structure a government program or regulation to promote equal opportunity. There exists a bad govt. program does not prove all govt. is bad.
I don't think "laissez faire" is equal opportunity to a child born in Manhattan vs. Harlem. Do you?
"the best way to structure a government program or regulation to promote equal opportunity"
I don't believe in equal opportunity. I believe in equality under the law.
If a person is born blind how are you going to give him equal opportunity? Should we poke out everyone else's eye?
The historic facts show that government will always side with business against it's people. From the beginning when they shot labor strikers, to now where they steal $700 billion for a bail out (and more).
"it is extremely easy, conceptually and in practice, to just say that all government is bad."
It is easy to say these government programs are good. It is much harder to look up the numbers, do the math calculations, look at the broad picture, and decide for yourself.
I challenge you to find one "Socialist Government Program" which achieves their "Stated Goals", without "Severely Harming" the people it claims it is trying to help.
Let me put that challenge on hold for a moment and ask you what you think about the libertarian left(anarchist socialism). Both sides are opposed to a central state making decisions regarding the population. The left just says that people should voluntarily work together and the right says that they should compete against each other. The left is also against renting yourself out as a laborer, or, more generally, against the separation of workers and capitalists.
The libertarian left thinks that everyone should get together and agree to work together to provide everyone with a material life. Participation is voluntary but if you choose not to participate, you are on your own. I really see the point of Rand/Friedman regarding the immorality of being chained down to the collective against your will. However, I also see pseudo-feudalistic society emerging from capitalism, as Marx believed and explained in Capital.
"The libertarian left thinks that everyone should get together and agree ..."
Neither I nor Friedman believe this to be true.
"However, I also see pseudo-feudalistic society emerging from capitalism"
This is caused by collectivism not capitalism. Thats what monarchs, dictatorships, and socialists are.
People being free to peruse there own interests is a new idea, it is the embodiment of capitalism. This more then anything else accounts for the wealth of America.
I believe that in a free-market, you will end up with a small number of people owning a majority of the wealth and the vast remainder of people with no other means of subsistence other than renting themselves to the capital owners. These masses of wage laborers will do virtually all of the work yet the capital owners will extract virtually all of the wealth. This wealth will be turned into more capital, which will make workers more efficient and thus require less of them.
"I believe that in a free-market, you will end up with a small number of people owning a majority of the wealth and the vast remainder of people with no other means of subsistence"
History shows the opposite to be true. Also economic theory shows the opposite to be true.
@amcnea Actually, history backs up that assertion PERFECTLY. Time after time, we see consolidation of wealth- then govt has to come in, BOTH Roosevelts, and break up the monopoly.
We see the same thing today- unprecedented wealth accumulated at the top- THIS is the NATURAL result of free market capitalism- monopoly.
I'd be interested to find out what books led you to such insane (as I perceive them) and erroneous conclusions from history.
First off, we don't have a free market. The monopoly poster child is generally Standard Oil, which was already decreasing in size prior to it's break up (Daniel Yergen). Furthermore, it was the government whom sent out troops to "break up" or shoot strikers trying to earn a decent wage. Finally, the entire concept of corporations was created by the government in 1865 just after the civil war when the Supreme Court declared that they had rights.
@amcnea so you are saying that when the govt acts perniciously on behalf of big business, it is the govts fault, and big business has no responsibility? LOL! I LOVE IT! Business corrupts govt, then you sit here and tell me how govt is corrupt- and we need to let businesses have their way. LOL! They already have their way- and we see what happens to the people's republic when business is aloud to run unfettered by govt- or even worse, assisted by it in its malfeasance.
1) Government is the creator of large corporate structures, which is what I think you are referring to as big business.
2) "Business corrupts govt". Of course it does, hence is why government should be small. There is a difference between a tyrannical business and a tyrannical business protected by the rule of law.
3) "business is aloud to run unfettered". No it doesn't. Government picks and chooses which businesses succeed through subsidies and regulation.
thank god my school is not like this.. however the teachers arent all that great. out of my 6 periods, only 1 teacher sucks. im pretty thankful for this. even though i think negatively about school i always remember that there is worse
karetoshare 3 weeks ago
I didn't realize all this was already happening back then!!!
mightyafrowhitey 7 months ago
My 22 yr old son told me to watch this video. It is good.
pinkpercolator 7 months ago
Unions are always foolish because they do not destroy their own jobs and then distrobute the profit from that evenly, things need to progress one way or another and the unions continually get cut out and they don't try anything new, however they do have alot of money in financial entities such as pension funds that they should use strategically.
yuri35435 8 months ago
The Government is a cartel.
RonnieNolanRaharjo 9 months ago 3
How old is this movie?
I like it very much :)
balta1900 1 year ago
@balta1900 1980 go to freetochoose(dot)tv and watch the 80's vid theres some 90's to but there just rehashes of the 80's
cost nothing to watch them 1hour long 10 of them
ssjwes 1 year ago 6
@balta1900
about 30 years old, it is from the early 80s.
Andreas1986xyz 1 year ago
I think everyone is disregarding the obvious difference between the schools. Good school ..... white kids Bad school .... black kids
Here we are 20 years later and nothing has changed. Wake up America, it is not racism, it is genetics.
You can take the n**ger out of the hood, but you cant take the hood out of the n**ger
Beelzabubalicious 1 year ago
@AlAlekhine I believe I expressed my opinon that faith should not be discussed in the same context as economics. That to me is relevant. It is my business to express my opinion and to push for freedom of speech. I'll never ask you to keep your opinions to yourself even if you are ignorant.
marketnavigator 1 year ago
government is a criminal enterprise, why would you let a criminal enterprise dictate what is taught to your kids? if it does teach your kids your kids will be unable to defend them selves from the enterprises crimes and various forms of theft like taxation and infaltion
optionsupdate 1 year ago
if the government went to the best restaurant in your city and told the owner they would tax everyones house and give him a certain amount of money every year to be open 9-5. and the amount of money had no relation to the quality of food or amount of people he served... what do you imagine that restaurant would be like in a few years? that is public school. zero metrics, zero feedback, zero accountability, predictable results.
wtube502 1 year ago
The first purpose of public paid schools is to support the TAX/THEFT SYSTEM which supports it. The FIRST DUTY of citizenship is to eliminate ALL tax and other controls on economy. Taxation is murder. The first duty in supporting tax is media control = TV, Cities' main Newspapers, Schools, Churches. YouTube is great! The Murderers are trying to eliminate YouTube, Net freedom of speech, and all LOGIC. The US Constitution was not "We The People" but 39 thieves, supporting taxation and murder.
geehuckwow 1 year ago
I love watching this. I wish they didn't cut the debates...
sniped101 1 year ago
i think the teachers union will lose all control in 5 to 10 years. the teachers union only cares about increasing their own wages.
Google has given 2 million dollars to KhanAcademy to become the free school of the future.
They are going to offer FREE Maths, English and Science courses.
They will offer FREE school, college and university courses!
YES! The teachers union will finally be abolished! Free school for everyone!
Search for KhanAcademy on youtube.
hyylo 1 year ago 17
@hyylo I agree and the Khan Academy isn't perfect either. I think we'll see what we don't have now and that is competitive education. Seriously if Google is backing Khan than Facebook could have there own program where you can't gain access to Facebook unless you do your homework and study. Just another simple innovation.
Charlesperalo 8 months ago
Faith has nothing to do with economics. It does however have much to do with control and suppression, so let's keep faith out of a discussion about economics.
marketnavigator 1 year ago 2
How many times are the bureaucrats going to get it wrong and for how long? This is a fairly old film and things are only worse. One of my professors made an observation that the knowledge of the students was getting worse each year and he couldn't understand it. That was 1994, get on the schtick!
floydsgarage 1 year ago
Capitalism is the historic evolution of private property relationship in a modality of wages system for commodity production for profit. Capitalism is a competative, hostile,anarchic mode of production, has revolutionised science and technology to a degree that has made the raison d etre of Capitalist relationship of production historically obsolete, We have all the means and resources for a world of plenty in harmony, Capitalism has taken care of scarcity. We need to share the Earth
arzoyan 1 year ago 2
@arzoyan very good point on sharing. That is something that is good for everyone. But where are you going to find the angels to do that? I haven't seen any. Government certainly won't. And the bigger the government gets the worse it is. One hand washes the other. The heinousness we are seeing is not about capitalism. "we are all susceptible to temptation; we all have lusts within us that we must suppress. And the most pernicious of those lusts is libido dominandi, the lust to dominate."
floydsgarage 1 year ago
@floydsgarage The Angels within us are being suppressed daily in a false,competative,corrupting socio-economic reality of Minority imposition of poverty and alienation, cause and effect dyalectics as some may argue. A democratic movement for a World of cooperation for our common needs and welll being is the only logical/ spiritual resolution of the CRISIS OF OUR TIMES.
arzoyan 1 year ago
@arzoyan I'm with you on that. We must have faith. Everyone on the planet would also have to be on the same page and we would need the right people in the right positions. If we take a look at the best and worst places on the planet, the better places are those with little gov intervention and greater freedom. Corporations also exist for the betterment of society, the decline of which is attributable through gov intervention and human nature. As long as there is evil, there will be problems.
floydsgarage 1 year ago
Does anyone aside from myself see the self in doing racism performed by the goverment by creating programs that dumb down minorities and make it seem impossible to perform at a white man's level and that the funding programs will help them....absolute disgrace, and i believe without those programs poverty in the minorities world would go away greatly and racism would always be on its way to being abolished...black people in no way are dumber than white people.....in no way at all
dashiznit1001 1 year ago
It amazes how progressives bitch about how terrible it is that people are affected by competition, but how none of them when they go to the store seek out to purposely purchase all their products based on them being only middle of the road both technology and efficiency wise.
I wonder how many people that truly think competition is bad, is complaining about how those poor individuals had to work/study so hard to develop the software programs for the computer that they are watching this on.
jmorse1981 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A world of cooperation for our common needs and well being is possibility moneyless,classless,stateless communities of humanity, where human creative genius is not limited to minority private gain. We can achieve together a social reality of harmony within and without and evolve a true civilisation We can transcend the ruling class ideological hold and emotional manipulation, The rulers have colonised our mind for commercial use in a Market system of alienation dominated by state/corporations
arzoyan 1 year ago
if this country was 100% white most of the problems would go away,get rid of the darkies & u get rid of the problem!!!!!!
rrrjjjmmm100 1 year ago
@rrrjjjmmm100 Your type of thinking sir is exactly what feeds what is wrong with are country. It has nothing to do with race!!! It has everything to do with who and what they are being educated, which is that they will never make anything of themselves, that the "white man" and capitalism is evil and that they will only survive on government handouts, that my good sir is the problem.
LordoftheKaty 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rrrjjjmmm100 DO NOT FEED THE TROLL
shinkengatsxa 1 year ago
We need you now more than ever Dr. Friedman
Gearhe1d 1 year ago 6
Currently, global businesses & government are turning into one entity. Save the children from the cut throat competitiveness of business! Its all about $ rather than education&moral values. Students are committing suicide over competition.Our Earth is falling apart!Large corporations labeled as a charter school is taking over, worst is yet to come!Parents keep your children close.
artdrawsyou 1 year ago
@artdrawsyou Why is competition bad? Its what drives our economy. Also, the fact that people want money is a good thing. For example, lets say I sell apples at 50 cents a piece. You also sell apples, and want to make more money. So you sell your apples at 40 cents a piece. In doing this, you make more money, and the consumer benefits because he gets cheaper apple. Also, if a corporation gives better education than a public school, how is that a bad thing?
Shootemup252 1 year ago
Propaganda. Where is the comparison of surving on minimum wage in a poor neighborhood and Weston, one of the highest income towns, not only in Massachussetts, but in all of the USA.
kiheisam 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Think of the underlying law of nature. The way of all things.
Consider its astounding inferences and implications.
The single, underlying law ... of nature! Not merely of physics, chemistry, psychology, biology, etc., but of all known fields of inquiry. The law we can all relate to, identify, understand and apply.
Ask yourself. What is the underlying law of nature?
Delight in the question. Have fun in the process of finding the answer firsthand for yourself.
Google it, as a start.
TedDGPoulos 1 year ago
he is a few person who been heated for his brilliant mind and ideas by ignorant people dont understand his idea.
he was loved by people who use his idea for their own interests.
atmark666 2 years ago
an idiot with a nobel prize, go figure. those metals detectors, police presence, guards and hidden wepons are not a product of the school system, public or private. it is a product of the society they live in. moreover, no wealthy parent would be "trapped" into sending their children to this school, is he joking?
mrredcard 2 years ago
those disadvantaged people like to complain and complain. They want to wait for the government to save them. Yes you're disadvantaged, that's why you have to work 10 times harder than the richer kid.
Good learning are self learning, if you really want to learn, you can go to local library which is free. If you're intelligent, no matter how poor you are, people will notice you're smart. If you're capable and work hard, you'll succeed. Stop asking what the gov't can do for u.
solidysnake1 2 years ago 3
Well why wouldn't you be against libraries being free? Isn't that the government providing them with something through the taxes of someone else?
majinspy 2 years ago
@majinspy Friedman would consider Libraries products of the communities rather than the government. Without the government, libraries would be provided too. For instance, anyone can go to a university library, etc. Government offered libraries (such as public libraries) are usually useless for serious research anyways,
AnantGarg92 2 years ago
Libraries are rarely the product of a community, unless by community you mean government. If you mean that then liberals (me) have already won. You say w/o government there would be libraries. Maybe, but not nearly as many and if you dispute that you must show some evidence.
In regards to libraries being for serious research, well that goes to his overall point: Taxing the poor to provide a service disproportionately used by elites.
I like Friedman because he wasn't an ideologue or hardliner.
majinspy 2 years ago
@majinspy I like Friedman too... I think we're arguing the same point rofl... And when I say that libraries are used for serious research, I mean for something beyond reading comics and Dahl books.
AnantGarg92 2 years ago
I've spent a lot of time listening to hardliners like objectivists and now Friedman. Friedman spends most of his time as a pragmatic capitalist economist. I agree mostly with him and think that capitalism should be left for the most part free. He occasionally references moral arguments for free markets that are more in line w/ objectivists but I think he's just more realistic / pragmatic than they are.
Overall, I'm still a (moderate) liberal. I think the government can help people.
majinspy 2 years ago
Im surprised you dont understand MF's point. You may have all the best intentions in the world with any program but ultimately you must look at the results. Historically Big govt intervention may have had a immediate positive result, but the long term successes are phantom and over time failed its purpose. You must look at the economic out comes of the intended program not just intention. Good will and well meaning intentions are fine but the facts of economics show the truth and success
Yereviltwin2 2 years ago
I'm aware of that. I would argue that school integration has done a huge amount to lessen the racism that was in this country and its citizens' hearts. I think SS has helped a lot of people who would have otherwise made bad decisions.
Theoretically, people don't make decisions that are just BAD (i.e. very costly to themselves) but..they do.
I also think government has helped things a great deal. The GI bill for instance. Relief during the Depression. Government can help mitigate pain.
majinspy 2 years ago
"Taxing the poor to provide a service disproportionately used by elites."
Except your claim of disproportionality is ridiculous considering the "elites" pay the vast majority of tax for your social programs.
smoochym 2 years ago
Which they don't use, I might add.
smoochym 2 years ago
You're missing the original point being made. The original point made by a poster was that the poor should "use libraries" instead of having government money spent on them. I countered by arguing "where do you think libraries come from?". The counter to this was "they are used for serious research as well" and I countered by saying that wasn't enough to justify it from a CONSERVATIVE point of view as opposed to my liberal one. I can justify schools AND libraries. The conservative can't do either
majinspy 2 years ago
you can see the privatization of education in china now. Schools are run as businesses. Farmers' children often can't afford school. Poor students from well off families can pay more tuition to stay in school.
solidysnake1 2 years ago
@solidysnake1
They should do what we do, because it works SO well.
So how many scientists and engineers does China produce a year and how many do the States?
Fucking retard. Let me guess, you are a product of public education...
savemyplaylist 2 years ago
@solidysnake1 Friedman wanted the government to not RUN schools but OFFER free education to everyone through vouchers.
AnantGarg92 2 years ago
this is similar to the charter schools of now. but the unions are trying to get them shut closed
krillin876 2 years ago
Get the government out of education. Let local and state government have public schools yet let a voucher system make it so there is fair competition.
cpblackangel88 2 years ago 3
9:11 pimp daddy lol
SuaveSavant 2 years ago
8:30 - wow- what is that accent?
Andybaby 2 years ago
Boston, I think, though this is in the Bronx. Might be just plain New York, but I say Boston.
SuaveSavant 2 years ago
Not much discussion about race affecting schools...
curea229 2 years ago
Is his point that the extreme disparity between the rich and poor in the USA due to misguided welfare policy? If it is, he argues it well, but perhaps even Friedman fans like myself should recognise that short term profit motive could lead to deliberate subjugation of the poor by the rich, mercantilism, anti-compeititon, everything agaisnt free and fair competition and efficiency that renders everyone wealthier: ie the government needs to intervene to prevent that and they have NOT.
Nintendomanwill 2 years ago
short term profit motive... in education? the government should not intervene because if someone can profit by providing more/better education, than there is a demand for it. The short-term rise in price that would stem from privatizing schools would lead to an influx of suppliers -thus reducing cost down to below the cost taxpayers pay through school.
undermyvoodoo22 2 years ago
The point is that the market isn't perfect and can't be under any sort of economic conditions recognisable to us. If privatised then so many kids wouldn't go because the cost would be greater in the better schools. The whole reason that we don't allow all universities and schools to be absolutely private is that poor kids would never, ever be able to go to good ones. If HArvard could increase fees based on demand how many poor kids do you think could go?
Nintendomanwill 2 years ago
It is very easy to get a student loan, so almost any poor kid can get in. As long as they do the work and pass their tests, they'll go on and have the education to receive much higher wages than their parents did. You are forgetting that we already pay for public schools, just indirectly and inefficiently. A voucher system would simply create competition between them.
undermyvoodoo22 2 years ago
I can assure you that I have not forgotten that we pay for public schools and that due to bureaucracy and lack of freedom of choice, costs are greater than they would be for the LOWER end of a market system. But do you not understand that unis like Oxford and Yale could and therefore would charge a sum far, far too high for the minority of their applicants who are poor but appropriately successful. They are the ferrari of unis and the costs would go too high forwhatis a tool of social mobility.
Nintendomanwill 2 years ago
Yale is a private institution and therefore have to compete against other similar private institutions such as Harvard and Yale as far as value for higher education is concerned. If they charged more than was demanded, then there would be a surplus of education and a lack of students in seats.
undermyvoodoo22 2 years ago
Nothing you say is incorrect. Nor does anything you have said defeat my argument: that if universities could charge as much as they liked, the very good ones would be profitable at a price which some people could ismply never afford. In such a system they would only have relatively rich people going to the best unis, just as only relatively rich people can afford the best things in any market. That is why to completely marketise education would lead to some people never having the chance to
Nintendomanwill 2 years ago
That is simply not true! Yale can charge as much as it likes, no government organization sets a price. Yale provides it's own financial aid, also, and makes a point to admit any student no matter their inability to pay. They are able to do this because they receive money in the form of donations/endowments and invest that money wisely to create more.
undermyvoodoo22 2 years ago
If they charged too much, students would simply go to another school such as Harvard or Stanford or Cornell. They keep their prices low to remain competitive. Perhaps you don't understand how private schools work in this country because you do not live here.
undermyvoodoo22 2 years ago
(continued) reach the top. Oxford would charge possibly as much as Eton or more. And peopel would still pay. They would take loans, they would have richer families than the average university student. But how could any Joe Bloggs go to Oxford, no matter how bright, if it would cost him more than one hundred thousand pounds? Do you think I'm overestimating the cost that Oxford would have in a private system? Think of how it's mostly middle/upper class anyway and how much demand there is togothere
Nintendomanwill 2 years ago
@Nintendomanwill
Well If Joe Bloggs was bright enough to go to Oxford and poor at the same time, chances are (in America) he would receive a substantial amount financial aid both from private academic scholarships and the government.
lockdown260 2 years ago
Financial aid? Doesn't that stop it being a marketised system? I suppose competition is still open, but I wonder how deep pockets are over there to allow universities to have high costs, so they can be free to develop as they like, while always paying for students whose family earns under 60K. It soudns like you allow a market but pay to reduce inequalities of opportunity it might produce. Surely that costs athe public a helluva lot which sort of beats the point of allowing a private uni system.
Nintendomanwill 2 years ago
see this and take their money to better schools. Our k-12 lacks this competition. That in addition to it being next to impossible to fire bad teachers here and you have a huge problem.
lockdown260 2 years ago
Through the state defining basic rates of tuition fees, such a situation is prevented. Believe me, I would love to break up most state monopolies and smash the bureaucracy. In the UK health care is now compromised as bureaucratic targets of financial prudence are the main goal for hospitals. Policemen make arrests for statistics. We are forced to pay taxes for institutions of great profit to their organisers, eg the BBC or Parliament. But the state must force education to be equitably available.
Nintendomanwill 2 years ago
I live in the U.S. and the government's infringement on our rights has not yet reached the level that it as there. The state subsidizes education only because the positive externalities of everyone achieving a certain level outweigh the enormous cost to taxpayers to educate them.
undermyvoodoo22 2 years ago
@Nintendomanwill
Funny that you mention Harvard in your analogy because as it turns out if either of your parents make below $60K annually and you get accepted Harvard will pay your tuition for you. Secondly, competition with other good schools would help keep costs down.
lockdown260 2 years ago
Fair argument. Yet in countires where universities simply cannot attract the funding to pay for people's tuition, society foots the bill and frankly, that helps make uni feasible for a lot of people. I totally understnd the point about state subsidy demarketising and removing competition, yet state aid towards universities (ie to help studetns pay for it) is necessary where you have many poor students going to unis that don;t have the resourcse Harvard can muster. Do they pay ALL of it @Harvard?
Nintendomanwill 2 years ago
@Nintendomanwill
Yes depending on you parents net income. But as you realized Harvard has a lot of resources and many alumni with very deep pockets. Federal taxes don't go to unis here. Only state taxes. If you go to school on your home state you get lower tuition. The thing about american public unis that separate it from public high schools is that there is (even in state subsidized sys) a great deal of competition. Poor performing unis can't fund good programs and students ...
lockdown260 2 years ago
subsidies drive prices up
jonshultz 2 years ago
I went to public school and leaned my 3 R's....
rudeness, racism and spelling.
yammyspeed13 2 years ago 42
@yammyspeed13 Did they give you the SAT? Submission, abdication & trust in authority?
The model of graduated certification to have jobs bestowed upon the tame which follow the model & pursue a sociopath's life of self-interest climbing to the top fails
Like John Lennon said, "There's room at the top they are telling you still but first you must learn how to smile as you kill" If you can't make it on your own you can join the big team & be army strong, maybe get a job in law enforcement after
Slavestorms 1 year ago
@yammyspeed13 What about 'radicalism'? Thats the third R...,
waddleduckie1 1 year ago
abolish the "department of education" leave the local school districts to run the school. That's the reason the parents lost control of the education of the kids.
hardscaperx 2 years ago 5
I LOVE UCHICAGO !!!
clochard1 2 years ago
The problem is not that, the parents is not involved in the school, but rather: - Socio-economic reasons - Too much beurocracy - The availability of weapons - Poor conditions in school -> poor behavior and that kind -> worse conditions
In Denmark where I live, the public schools is in quite good conditions, and the best teachers don't want to go to the Private schools because the parents have too much influence on the lessons.
Sry for the spelling and grammar mistakes...
Thiller11 2 years ago
I'm not saying that parents shouldn't care about the learning of their kids.
I just believe the parents should instead try to make their kids interested in the subjects of school.
As well as making the kids capable of behaving normal, which can be a huge problem.
Further i still find it necessary for the parents to make sure that the school is functioning well and that their children is learning. But i just don't think they should mess to much around with the teachers assignments
Thiller11 2 years ago
Well here is the USA, i think its the opposite. Parents have to much influence on public education. This is why ridiculous things like creationism want to be thought in public schools. But there is also a big difference in population with USA and Denmark so that makes a difference also.
lifegiver36 2 years ago
Please do your research sir. Cdesign proponentsistsism, I mean intelligent design, was forced upon the Dover Area School District by the Dover Area School District Board of Directors (two of the defendants of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case). The plaintiffs were local parents and after the trial ended the parents elected new officials to the Dover Area School District Board of Directors. Intelligent design would still be being taught at that school but for those meddling parents.
ThePissedOffAtheist 2 years ago
This is a great argument for why education should be privately delivered and publicly funded. Nobody would be angry about what boards of directors were doign because there would be more choice.
jimroletter 2 years ago 3
pure brilliance
pragmatismnotidealis 2 years ago
Excelente seria con subtitulos en español
rastitolion 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Well if there was strong gun regulation there would not have to be any policeman in schools because there would be no armed teenagers
FUCKING HELLO ?!?!?
Animatiotron 2 years ago
There shouldn't be strong gun control (it's unconstitutional). Parent's need to stop being lazy and actually raise their children instead of letting Government, TV, Video games,music, etc. do it for them.
lockdown260 2 years ago 2
More gun regulation has never stopped a criminal from carrying a gun. In fact it encourages criminals to carry a gun because everywhere they go all they find are unarmed victims!
neon806 2 years ago
Well.. free carry of firearms would be even better.. There'd be no school shooting like Columbine if teachers and adults were armed.. The perp would be killed quickly instead of having to wait for the police to count the bodies.
ronaldtimmermann 2 years ago
So youre advising for all teachers to carry guns just in case some student brings an AK-47 to kill everyone. Brilliant! Why stop there why not have soldiers in every classroom, armoured doors, foxholes in front of every entrance and snipers on the roof. What a fun school would that be a perfect environment for learning. Yeah and thats how the system should work instead of talking to students teachers should kill them.
Animatiotron 2 years ago
Well, the guns would only be there for the worst case scenario.
No matter how many gun laws you make, no matter how much regulation you impose on gun stores, criminals and crazy people will still get their hands on them, i promise you.
Every single major shooting takes place in a "Gun Free Zone", because no one is capable of stopping the shooter.
Google, "Virginia Law School Shooting", for a good example of 2 students with guns, stopping a killer with guns after he only killed a couple people
Claytrainor 2 years ago
Just like if there was strong drug regulation, teenagers wouldn't have drugs, right? You're just too smart, but thanks for taking the time to come point out these complex solutions for us peons.
Goldwater08 2 years ago
You are comparing completely two different things. If you come to the school with a gram of weed you wont be able to kill 20 people unlike when you come with a Semi-automatic gun bought by your father for ""hunting". Thats the bottom line.
Animatiotron 2 years ago
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one."
herbs814 2 years ago
Listen its very difficult to own a guns in my country and never in the fucking history did we have a school shooting its as simple as that and you can take that poetic nonsense and shove it up your ... know where
Animatiotron 2 years ago
The US population need guns, but they also need proper training. Criminals get guns anyway, and if they meet someone with a gun, they will back off. School shootings could have been stopped if people had guns. Guns isn't the problem, people is. Lots if guns in Canada too Government is just a violent monopolistic company that force you to pay for services, no matter how crappy they are, so don't expect good protection. I think there's a need in the US to balance power with an armed population.
fleskebille 2 years ago
First of all you must live in some kind of Hollywood-fantasy land if you think that just because you have a gun the criminal will back off. If a criminal stumbles upon an armed citizen during a bank robbery he will not back off he will shot you BECAUSE you have a GUN. Secondly, if you think that the less government the better then you should move to Africa because let me tell you governments there provide absolutely no services of any kind and have completely no interest in their citizens.
Animatiotron 2 years ago
Not saying guns are absolute protection, just better than nothing, and think it should be a choice. Your example is just that, the situation may be different. The state is an unnecessary evil, but i don't see it going away anytime soon.
Most of the school shootings in the US may be related to SSRI's (anti-depressants).
fleskebille 2 years ago
Well you are comparing apples to oranges. If government were to disappear in the USA, we would not turn into Africa. The problems in africa stem from many things, and one of them is there government.
lifegiver36 2 years ago 3
What makes you think that America wouldnt turn into Africa if there was no US government?Whats so fundamentally different?What US has less black people than Africa, is that it?Think about LA gangs,now imagine that theres no police in LA.Now imagine thats how the entire country looks like.Imagine that a company producing meat is not regulated by any governmental agency,they would make 3kg of sausages out of 1kg of meat.You would eat pig shit and you wouldnt even know about it.
Animatiotron 2 years ago
Im against vouchers because it means more taxes.
Scoforever 2 years ago
umm...I hope you are being satirical. Anyway, the system we have now is dumbing down our society to a point where it's sad. Do you really think our government wants us to be educated? Able to think for ourselves? Think about it.
beezalax13 2 years ago
What are you suggesting?
Scoforever 2 years ago
If you read history, you see that rulers used to control their subjects through force (e.g. threatening to cut off arms if they "get out of line"). This is not what happens today of course. Now "rulers" or politicians have to convince us to "stay in line" or, as we call it, vote and act a certain way. They achieve this through forms of propaganda. Critical thinking diminishes the effectiveness of propaganda. I'm not a CT or anything, I just can think. I've learned more on my own than in school.
beezalax13 2 years ago
I sort of agree, but if you cut many of our other useless programs, the vouchers are not much of a price.
I consider taxes a necessary evil.
TheAdamTheory 2 years ago
I prefer user fees to taxes.
Scoforever 2 years ago
But you have to admit, vouchers would be much better than public education itself. Of course, if you did repeal the income tax then people would have alot more money to invest in education.
TheAdamTheory 2 years ago 2
Thats a good idea. Government is a very inefficient machine. You put £1000 in and get £200 out. That might be an understatement or an overstatement but you get what Im saying. As soon as government funds something money is lost in administration costs.
Scoforever 2 years ago
Comment removed
Scoforever 2 years ago 37
very true
crichard8 2 years ago
very insightful of you
lockdown260 2 years ago
@Scoforever I've got a better one- democrat and republican bend over the american people on behalf of their corporate donors- oil companies, banks, insurance, big pharma, defense contractors.
THEN- a few corporations control and own and media- and convince idiots there is a difference between corporate whore A (dem) and corporate whore B (rep).
People that still vote for repubs or dems are destroying the republic.
Have a nice day.
tristramshandy3 1 year ago 8
@tristramshandy3 You can't blame the corporations and the media.. who ulitmately has the power? The people put the the politicians into office, not themselves. You must get to core, underlying problem which is the apathy and ignorance of the American people. The best one can do is his own research on his politicians and then vote. Notice, not just vote blindly, you must do research. We only have a third of our citizens participating in the presidential election..
pureaggression 1 year ago
@pureaggression your post reminds me of a quote from John Milton- those who poke out the people's eyes reproach them of their blindness.
Have a nice day!
tristramshandy3 1 year ago
@tristramshandy3 By saying that your vote doesn't matter whether you vote democrat or republican only enchances the corporate entities.. Im sure that you wouldn't consider a vote for Ron Paul destructive to our republic, yet hes been a republican for decades... Friedman again says it best "you have to make it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right things".. So if the people speak, politicians are going to want to keep their jobs, and must side with people. So read and vote.
pureaggression 1 year ago
@pureaggression I do consider a vote for Paul destructive. I am a leftist, and while we sure enjoy his anti-imperialism, libertarianism is really just corporatism run amuck- a world with no regulation, no epa, no rules- NO THANKS DUDE!
Nader 2012!
tristramshandy3 1 year ago
@tristramshandy3 We dont have regulation? Thats a joke, truely. What we have is the product of too much government regulation. When has regulation made this country more productive and prosperous?
pureaggression 1 year ago
@pureaggression I never said we don't have regulation, although one could argue that it isn't at all effective- but that is a whole other story.
I said PAUL doesn't believe in any govt regulation, and well, most of us do.
I WANT the EPA watching over polluters.
I WANT the sec prosecuting corporate fraud on wall street.
I can tell you specifically when deregulation has caused havoc- see the repeal of glass steigal, followed eight years later by the worst financial crisis since the depression.
tristramshandy3 1 year ago
@tristramshandy3 Well we have all that and we have the gulf coast spill, wall street's throwing a party as our commodities rise in price, sure the economy may be growing but its slowing down as far as acceleration goes, like 17% real unemployment. Get the government out and let the free market work its course. China's doing it, and if the same trends continue they'll have US on OUR knees.
pureaggression 1 year ago
@pureaggression get the govt out of the way and let the free market work? LOL! I didn't know that failed ideology was still actually given credence by some people. You must work for goldman sachs.
Have a nice day!
tristramshandy3 1 year ago
@tristramshandy3 You are a fool.
pureaggression 1 year ago
@pureaggression your "free" market might be the most expensive thing since honey nut cheerios baby!
Also, your childish insult reminded me of this great Shakespeare quote:
The fool thinks he is wise, while the wise man knows himself to be a fool.
Have a happy new year.
tristramshandy3 1 year ago
@tristramshandy3 There's nothing childish about it, fool. You're the one who's trying to seem cute, and doesn't acknowledge or appreciate where his privledges and oppurtunities come from. Like that of using a computer. What economic system encourages the advancement of technology and the accessibility of the masses to that technology. Capitialism. You're the child who basks in his great gifts but hasn't the mind to conisder the sender. Had there been no "free market", you wouldn't be alive.
pureaggression 1 year ago
@pureaggression LOL! So, nobody lived before capitalism and the free market? LOL! That's adorable. I really needed a good laugh- so thanks!
I happen to know, as clearly you do not, that the internet would not exist were it not for govt subsidized research, specifically from the defense department. So capitalism had far less to do with the internet than socialism did.
You should thank socialism for the gifts of computers and the internet.
Also, most of the prescription drugs- socialized.
tristramshandy3 1 year ago
@tristramshandy3 Youre seriously a fucking sick person if you think the internet and computers are a product of socialism.. sad.. really
pureaggression 1 year ago
@pureaggression facts are facts- go do some research. Have a nice day- even if you are a five year old. :)
tristramshandy3 1 year ago
@tristramshandy3 bitch, youre fuckin crazy, fuck you, and shutup
pureaggression 1 year ago
@pureaggression only a 5 year old would respond that way to logic and reason when they are defeated in battle. Bitch indeed :)
tristramshandy3 1 year ago
@tristramshandy3 read your comments to yourself, then lie to me about how you dont think youre a dumbass
pureaggression 1 year ago
@pureaggression this from the child who wrote "bitch, youre [sic] fucking crazy, fuck you, and shutup"
tristramshandy3 1 year ago
@Scoforever kudos to you for displaying such humorous wit.
kkmarivate 1 year ago
Government always does a great job. Just look at how they are so frugal with other people's money. Only 12 trillion in debt! Let's let them educate our children forever! Yes! More government! 90% of America has been educated in government schools. Any coincidence we have a nation of morons?!?!
david4china 2 years ago 6
competetion is part of life. teachers need to be fired or rewarded for a students progress. I dont have the luxury of a union to protect my job. I have to work to keep it.
miguelcotto23 2 years ago 5
mr friedman puts forth a good argument.
philonaut 2 years ago 2
The teacher's union and lousy teachers are the only ones opposed to reforming the school system. The teacher's union is not a criminal organization like the Mafia legally speaking but they are in spirit. On the other hand they are more powerful and the Mafia is kinder to kids.
youngeek 3 years ago 6
Well, unfortunately a union is a necessary evil to make sure a system continues to function, and quite frankly i'd rather have teachers in power than teamsters or gamblers. People are so quick to point the finger at teachers forgetting that there are pornographers and pedophiles seeking political clout.
Aleowiciuos 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
BULLSHIT !! so explain to me why the rich Boston Weston school kids parents don't have to pay tuition and the Bronx kids parents do. I hope 'ol Milton lies peaceful in his sleep but is also forgotten.
Aleowiciuos 3 years ago
Man, stfu if you don't have anything better to do than exposing your ignorance.
glork2007 3 years ago
What do you expect? Government runs it, and most government employees are just featherbedders who don't care about anything but a paycheck. This is just a sample of what Obama will be offering to the country.
profling 3 years ago
How hypercritical,the reason these folks are poor is because their jobs have been outsourced to the third world. Free market capitalism at its finest. The american middleclass has had their wealth donated to the thirdworld in order to build consumer markets for multinational corperations. Everyone cannot be a banker or businessman, the low skilled jobs these people can preform has all been exported, thanks to free market capitalism. The greed philosophy at its finest. Tariffs, Tariffs, Tariffs
louiethegreater 3 years ago
Completely wrong. How is it bad for poor people to receive goods at lower prices? That saves them money, it doesn't hurt them.
The unemployment rate in America is 6.1%. Also, 27% of adults age 25 and over had a college degree (2003).
So, 27% is skilled, and 73% is unskilled. Let's just say that every unemployed person is unskilled. This mean that 66.9% are unskilled, and employed.
66.9 / 73 = 0.9164
91.64%
This means that 91.64% (or more) of unskilled workers are employed. Read some facts.
amcnea 3 years ago
91%+ of unskilled workers are employed, but how much are they getting paid? It should be a worker friendly labor market with that high percentage of employment, yet how much of them are paid minimum wage? Minimum wage is a distortion of the free market by the state. Without those, it seems to me that the situation would be even worse for unskilled labor. If the workers were rational, they would band together and demand company stock as part of their compensation.
TexanProgressive 3 years ago
"but how much are they getting paid?"
Whatever is agreed to by all parties involved.
"Without those, it seems to me that the situation would be even worse for unskilled labor."
Umm, no. The facts show that minimal wage increases unemployment.
amcnea 3 years ago
If there weren't a minimum wage, then with a pool of unemployed workers, the agreed upon price will be determined by the most desperate members of the unemployment pool. As capital increases, the unemployment pool gets larger because the machines typically replace skilled labor w/ unskilled labor and/or make workers more efficient. W/o minimum wage, larger labor pools lower labor market prices.
I suppose this could all be fixed with worker unions. Taft-Hartley limits them however.
TexanProgressive 3 years ago
"W/o minimum wage, larger labor pools lower labor market prices."
With minimum wage, this leads to unemployment, and people starving on the street. Basically what minimum wage says is if you can't demand at least so much for your wage, then you are legally prohibited from working.
amcnea 3 years ago
Lower labor costs don't necessarily lower the market price, right? The market price is determined by supply and demand, and if consumers have less money, there will be less demand. I think that if the market price of unskilled labor were to drop by 10%, the market price of all goods would drop by less than 10%. So everyone except unskilled labor wins. Is it their punishment for not becoming a skilled laborer or a business owner, even if they are working harder than the other two?
TexanProgressive 3 years ago
You have fallacies in your statements to numerous for me to go through one by one. But here are the generalized flaws.
1) You want the system to be fair, but what system is fair? Russia, China, America. Why do you think political self interest will make a fairer society the economic self interest?
2) You look at the idealistic goals of government programs, but ignore the reality of what these programs actually are.
3) You didn't state any facts, just hearsay and conjecture.
amcnea 3 years ago
I think that capitalism would be a better system if laborers were always given the option to earn company stock as part of their compensation. I believe that in capitalism there is a compulsion for businesses to accumulate more and more capital which ultimately drives down labor prices while at the same time making the actual work more mindless, repetitive, and thus shitty. As a concrete example, I would cite fast food jobs. I am essentially rehashing Marx arguments in Capital.
TexanProgressive 3 years ago 2
In regards to your second statement, it is extremely easy, conceptually and in practice, to just say that all government is bad. It is a much more difficult problem do decide the best way to structure a government program or regulation to promote equal opportunity. There exists a bad govt. program does not prove all govt. is bad.
I don't think "laissez faire" is equal opportunity to a child born in Manhattan vs. Harlem. Do you?
TexanProgressive 3 years ago
"the best way to structure a government program or regulation to promote equal opportunity"
I don't believe in equal opportunity. I believe in equality under the law.
If a person is born blind how are you going to give him equal opportunity? Should we poke out everyone else's eye?
The historic facts show that government will always side with business against it's people. From the beginning when they shot labor strikers, to now where they steal $700 billion for a bail out (and more).
amcnea 3 years ago
"it is extremely easy, conceptually and in practice, to just say that all government is bad."
It is easy to say these government programs are good. It is much harder to look up the numbers, do the math calculations, look at the broad picture, and decide for yourself.
I challenge you to find one "Socialist Government Program" which achieves their "Stated Goals", without "Severely Harming" the people it claims it is trying to help.
Just one, good luck.
amcnea 3 years ago
Let me put that challenge on hold for a moment and ask you what you think about the libertarian left(anarchist socialism). Both sides are opposed to a central state making decisions regarding the population. The left just says that people should voluntarily work together and the right says that they should compete against each other. The left is also against renting yourself out as a laborer, or, more generally, against the separation of workers and capitalists.
TexanProgressive 3 years ago
"think about the libertarian left(anarchist socialism)."
I nor Friedman believe in anarchy or socialism.
"Both sides are opposed to a central state making decisions regarding the population."
Socialism is in favor of central state planning.
amcnea 3 years ago
The libertarian left thinks that everyone should get together and agree to work together to provide everyone with a material life. Participation is voluntary but if you choose not to participate, you are on your own. I really see the point of Rand/Friedman regarding the immorality of being chained down to the collective against your will. However, I also see pseudo-feudalistic society emerging from capitalism, as Marx believed and explained in Capital.
TexanProgressive 3 years ago
"The libertarian left thinks that everyone should get together and agree ..."
Neither I nor Friedman believe this to be true.
"However, I also see pseudo-feudalistic society emerging from capitalism"
This is caused by collectivism not capitalism. Thats what monarchs, dictatorships, and socialists are.
People being free to peruse there own interests is a new idea, it is the embodiment of capitalism. This more then anything else accounts for the wealth of America.
amcnea 3 years ago
I believe that in a free-market, you will end up with a small number of people owning a majority of the wealth and the vast remainder of people with no other means of subsistence other than renting themselves to the capital owners. These masses of wage laborers will do virtually all of the work yet the capital owners will extract virtually all of the wealth. This wealth will be turned into more capital, which will make workers more efficient and thus require less of them.
TexanProgressive 3 years ago
"I believe that in a free-market, you will end up with a small number of people owning a majority of the wealth and the vast remainder of people with no other means of subsistence"
History shows the opposite to be true. Also economic theory shows the opposite to be true.
What are you basing this on?
amcnea 3 years ago
@amcnea Actually, history backs up that assertion PERFECTLY. Time after time, we see consolidation of wealth- then govt has to come in, BOTH Roosevelts, and break up the monopoly.
We see the same thing today- unprecedented wealth accumulated at the top- THIS is the NATURAL result of free market capitalism- monopoly.
I'd be interested to find out what books led you to such insane (as I perceive them) and erroneous conclusions from history.
Have a great day!
tristramshandy3 1 year ago
@tristramshandy3
First off, we don't have a free market. The monopoly poster child is generally Standard Oil, which was already decreasing in size prior to it's break up (Daniel Yergen). Furthermore, it was the government whom sent out troops to "break up" or shoot strikers trying to earn a decent wage. Finally, the entire concept of corporations was created by the government in 1865 just after the civil war when the Supreme Court declared that they had rights.
amcnea 1 year ago
@amcnea so you are saying that when the govt acts perniciously on behalf of big business, it is the govts fault, and big business has no responsibility? LOL! I LOVE IT! Business corrupts govt, then you sit here and tell me how govt is corrupt- and we need to let businesses have their way. LOL! They already have their way- and we see what happens to the people's republic when business is aloud to run unfettered by govt- or even worse, assisted by it in its malfeasance.
tristramshandy3 1 year ago
@tristramshandy3
1) Government is the creator of large corporate structures, which is what I think you are referring to as big business.
2) "Business corrupts govt". Of course it does, hence is why government should be small. There is a difference between a tyrannical business and a tyrannical business protected by the rule of law.
3) "business is aloud to run unfettered". No it doesn't. Government picks and chooses which businesses succeed through subsidies and regulation.
amcnea 1 year ago