You need to check your facts. Belgium and Hungary are both immensely more socialist than the U.S. Although your astounding ignorance is compelling evidence of the inadequacy of the capitalist American education system.
I know you're socialist. Listen to what I say rather giving it a cursory hearing.
It's obvious from the comments you've left on my vids that you're passionate about socailism. For whatever reason, you think it's wonderful and deserving of defense. However, do me and the watchers of my videos a favor, and have the courtesy to listen to what we say.
I agree that diet and exercise need to be improved. however, the biggest reason doctors have debt to society has to do with the price of education! the average doctor is in debut up to their eyeballs from student loans long before they ever treat a patient.
Look, I'm only intimate with general education theory. I don't have enough information about the political issues higher education must contend with, but I can certainly tell you what forces drive up prices. We can discuss the laws of supply, demand, marginal utility, and inflation if you wish. However, like I said, I don't have enough detailed information on this topic to give a thorough response.
the flaw in this is obvious. we don't know where the next bill gates or warren buffet, etc. will come from. furthermore, geniuses are not always productive, and those that make the most profound impact on the world are not always geniuses.
Actually, it makes perfect sense. The next Bill Gates or Warren Buffet will either a) be a part of that 10% or b) their genius will manifest itself later in life. Either way they will have the ability to succeed.
Plus, we won't have to waste all that money on dumbasses and underachievers. That saved money can be kept by citizens and used to support beneficiaries like Bill Gates.
lol, bill gates needs money? in YOUR model he would not have gotten any help if he was not top 10 and by his own admission he was not.
gates: "It was kind of funny because there was a whole period when I got terrible grades and my sister got straight A's. That was until I was in eighth grade."
No where in your response do you prove that a) prolonged public education is THE reason that he became a success or b) demonstrate how he wouldn't have been able to succeed in life in market with privatized education.
Blujesus, you're embarassing yourself. You cannot adequately formulate an argument for your position within 500 characters so I suggest you make a video.
yes- the money for education in many european systems is tied to the child and not the school, HOWEVER where do you think THAT money comes from?...TAXES! for you to attempt to use this as validation for privatization is absurd
You weren't listening very closely, were you. It's the COMPETETIVE ELEMENT of those education institutions which make them better than ours. The strength of their system lies in competition, not being funded by tax dollars. Private education, also, has this competitive element, so there's no reason to believe that it wouldn't accomplish the same goal.
yes I was listening- to you contradict yourself. you say that capitalism is responsible for promoting competition. yet you praise the socialist european educational model as being more "COMPETITIVE". if institutions can be more competitive despite being publicly funded, does that not negate your "capitalism promotes competition" argument?
I'm not praising the socialist program, merely pointing out why it's better than our socialist program: competition.
No, they can't be "more competitive" b/c it's a monopoly. What if someone wants to pay more for that quality of education? What if someone wants to pay less? Are they allowed to under a socialist system? No!
I said US schools are not COMPETITIVE and that COMPETITION is the reason for the success of any good or service. And, yes, I'm saying that US schools are not "capitalistic" at all.
Second, I was comparing public school against public school and identifying that element which made one better. (cont.)
Lastly, Blujesus, while competition does not rely ONLY on a capitalist economy to exist(it is a natural phenomena), competition is the element which leads to all economic improvement; AND capitalism allows for greater competition than socialist economies.
Since you admit that competition is the reason for the better performance of those European schools, why do you then proceed to advocate for a system which inherently limits that element responsible for their success?
Furthermore, I never said that the socialist system is "more 'COMPETITIVE'" than the free market alternative. That's something you threw in there yourself.
TomPaine29's fact is fiction. Belgium's economic freedom index is hardly different from America's.
Kl0kw3rk 3 years ago
Terrible analysis
TomPaine29 4 years ago
You need to check your facts. Belgium and Hungary are both immensely more socialist than the U.S. Although your astounding ignorance is compelling evidence of the inadequacy of the capitalist American education system.
TomPaine29 4 years ago
I know you're socialist. Listen to what I say rather giving it a cursory hearing.
It's obvious from the comments you've left on my vids that you're passionate about socailism. For whatever reason, you think it's wonderful and deserving of defense. However, do me and the watchers of my videos a favor, and have the courtesy to listen to what we say.
istoute 4 years ago
I agree that diet and exercise need to be improved. however, the biggest reason doctors have debt to society has to do with the price of education! the average doctor is in debut up to their eyeballs from student loans long before they ever treat a patient.
blujesus 4 years ago
Look, I'm only intimate with general education theory. I don't have enough information about the political issues higher education must contend with, but I can certainly tell you what forces drive up prices. We can discuss the laws of supply, demand, marginal utility, and inflation if you wish. However, like I said, I don't have enough detailed information on this topic to give a thorough response.
istoute 4 years ago
I'm must curious, are you saying that there's no substance to the point I made about doctors being prone to debt?
istoute 4 years ago
publicly educate only the top 10 percent?
the flaw in this is obvious. we don't know where the next bill gates or warren buffet, etc. will come from. furthermore, geniuses are not always productive, and those that make the most profound impact on the world are not always geniuses.
blujesus 4 years ago
Actually, it makes perfect sense. The next Bill Gates or Warren Buffet will either a) be a part of that 10% or b) their genius will manifest itself later in life. Either way they will have the ability to succeed.
Plus, we won't have to waste all that money on dumbasses and underachievers. That saved money can be kept by citizens and used to support beneficiaries like Bill Gates.
istoute 4 years ago
lol, bill gates needs money? in YOUR model he would not have gotten any help if he was not top 10 and by his own admission he was not.
gates: "It was kind of funny because there was a whole period when I got terrible grades and my sister got straight A's. That was until I was in eighth grade."
blujesus 4 years ago
No where in your response do you prove that a) prolonged public education is THE reason that he became a success or b) demonstrate how he wouldn't have been able to succeed in life in market with privatized education.
Blujesus, you're embarassing yourself. You cannot adequately formulate an argument for your position within 500 characters so I suggest you make a video.
istoute 4 years ago
yes- the money for education in many european systems is tied to the child and not the school, HOWEVER where do you think THAT money comes from?...TAXES! for you to attempt to use this as validation for privatization is absurd
blujesus 4 years ago
You weren't listening very closely, were you. It's the COMPETETIVE ELEMENT of those education institutions which make them better than ours. The strength of their system lies in competition, not being funded by tax dollars. Private education, also, has this competitive element, so there's no reason to believe that it wouldn't accomplish the same goal.
istoute 4 years ago
yes I was listening- to you contradict yourself. you say that capitalism is responsible for promoting competition. yet you praise the socialist european educational model as being more "COMPETITIVE". if institutions can be more competitive despite being publicly funded, does that not negate your "capitalism promotes competition" argument?
blujesus 4 years ago
No, you're seeing what you want to see. Look!
I'm not praising the socialist program, merely pointing out why it's better than our socialist program: competition.
No, they can't be "more competitive" b/c it's a monopoly. What if someone wants to pay more for that quality of education? What if someone wants to pay less? Are they allowed to under a socialist system? No!
Can they under a capitalist system? Yes!
istoute 4 years ago
first of all- in most (socialist) countries in europe there are private and parochial schools as well as public.
second- have you, or have you not stated that capitalism promotes competition?
are you saying that the US school system is not at all more capitalistic?
the european educational system that you admit is doing a better job PROVES that competition does not rely ONLY on capitalism.
blujesus 4 years ago
I said US schools are not COMPETITIVE and that COMPETITION is the reason for the success of any good or service. And, yes, I'm saying that US schools are not "capitalistic" at all.
Second, I was comparing public school against public school and identifying that element which made one better. (cont.)
istoute 4 years ago
Lastly, Blujesus, while competition does not rely ONLY on a capitalist economy to exist(it is a natural phenomena), competition is the element which leads to all economic improvement; AND capitalism allows for greater competition than socialist economies.
Since you admit that competition is the reason for the better performance of those European schools, why do you then proceed to advocate for a system which inherently limits that element responsible for their success?
istoute 4 years ago
Furthermore, I never said that the socialist system is "more 'COMPETITIVE'" than the free market alternative. That's something you threw in there yourself.
istoute 4 years ago