Now we got 20% more youth unemployment, media taken over by industrialists and neoliberal think tanks, venture capitalists taking over schools and old age homes, 2 wars, massive economic inequality, secret election funds, big brother reading all mails, a Karl Rove puppet as prime minister, massive sellout of all publicly owned companies to china and the cia running our military.
@lethalidiotz "Now"!? It's been like that for 20 years or more. Most of the things you mention are things implemented by the social democrats. S recently decided to agree to give the secret police access to all the email surveillance as well.
@regebro It was the socialdemocrats who introduced neoliberalism in sweden and at that moment the socialdemocracy in the socialdemocratic party died. And yes that was about 20 years ago.
@lethalidiotz You are completely ignorant about political history. Socialism died in the social party the second they got power. And that's good, as common ownership is an idea that doesn't work. Socialism has failed and died. Welcome to the 21st century.
I agree that it is silly for conservatives to ignore the fact that tax money is given to private companies (schools) and not call it socialist. But it is a good idea, since it is not likely that we can get Uncle Sam out of the education business. At least we can give some choice back to the citizens.
@regebro In USA, FDR created 11 million jobs - in Sweden the unemployment rate was alot lower under the rule of the social democrats than under the rule of the right.
1989 (social-democratic rule) the unemployment rate was 1.3% (EUROSTAT data), it is the lowest that this country has ever had.
The reason this fairytale stopped was because the Capitalists were getting out of profits and therefore they wanted to void the "Saltsjöbadsavtalet" with the confederation of trade unions.
@MazdakTV No, unemployment has gone down under Alliansen. Again your facts are wrong. FDR's economical policy delayed recovery in the US from the crisis. He didn't create 11 million jobs. 11 million jobs was created, he didn't do anything. They would have been created faster without the Keynsian politics.
Also: Socialism really mean that the means of production are commonly owned.
If you own something, then you also control and get to decide - therefore a command economy dictated by the state (like the Soviet Union) can never be Socialism, but rather State-Capitalism.
So for a society to practice Socialism, all the workers get to decide every week or so what should be done - Socialism is an expansion of democracy.
Socialism works, ask the computer programmers in Seattle.
@MazdakTV With that definition, socialism is simply impossible. You can't have common ownership with having political control, and that creates a centralized system where only the top actually have power, something you claim is not socialism. If you think any computer programmers in Seattle work in a socialist system you are completely deluded.
@regebro What does private ownership in combination with a market do to balance in power? It's an absolute fact that private capital accumulates into fewer and fewer hands, and with this they cease more and more of the state apparatus. Do you think that we have political democracy in Sweden? It's a facade, it is still a bourgeoisie dictatorship. Who owns the political power, he who controls the economy or the people with their votes? Who have the power in the current capitalist system - the top.
@MazdakTV No, capital does not accumulate into fewer hands. Marxist economic theory has been proven to be completely wrong. Your view of the world has no connection to reality. It is not the rich who control Sweden, it is the politicians. They don't bend for the rich, the bend for USA, unfortunately.
@regebro In fact - in the Soviet Union, there were de-centralized soviets who ran stuff, but after several wars most of the party cadre of the communist party were dead, and in came old bureaucrats of the tsarist regime.
About computer programmers in Seattle - they summarize the essence of Socialism. Socialism is void without workplace democracy, and actual workers control of production and the profits of it.
With Internet and modern technology, it is becoming easier and easier.
@regebro If you doubt the fact that the computer programmers in Seattle - who practice workplace democracy and own everything as a collective - practice Communism / Socialism or not, please let the marxian economist Richard Wolff explain it to you: watch?v=TZU3wfjtIJY
I never said they work in a socialist system, that would implicate that all other companies and people they'd interact with would also practice Socialism.
@MazdakTV i'm not going to listen to two hours of talk of something that is obviously incorrect. I don't care if he is wrong or you misunderstood him. "the computer programmers in seattle" (Which is a big town) do not in general practice communism. They have not abandoned ownership.
@regebro Briefly explained: a system with workplace democracy would mean that you work 4/5 days (this is an example, it is up to the workers) and on the 5th you either vote on issues - or: each xxx (every year maybe?) days you vote on (from your own ranks) people who should be the "board of directors" of the factory. You could also vote on your fellow workers to represent you in the communal (municipality) assembly.
The vouchers system has not worked "good" - most swedes dislike (statistical fact) the idea of private schools (there ain't nothing free about 'em) owned by corporations with headquarters located at tax-havens like Jersey, taking out profits from tax-money that is supposed to go to education.
The public schools in Sweden are better and they have more teachers / 100 students (8.2 for public, ~7 for private).
@MazdakTV Bullshit, the Swedish public is positive to the voucher system, and nowadays only one party (the ex-comunists) are against them. This is because it has worked and improved the quality of Swedish schools. Private schools consistently have better performance that public schools.
@regebro No, the Swedish people are not positive to the private schools - there are opinion polls on this issue - the fact that they don't vote on what they believe doesn't change the fact that they believe it.
Please explain to me how private schools have consistently improved performance?
It's a fact that private schools have fewer teachers, and they run on about 15-30% overhead (profits).
Also, it is almost fascist-leaning (the state giving out money to private business).
@MazdakTV There are no opinion polls that claim that people want to abandon the voucher system. Don't lie.
*How* the improved performance? Because people can select the best schools, and the worst schools end up having to get better or close down. That's how.
It's already clear you don't know what communism is. Evidently you also do not know what fascism is. That's hardly surprising.
The American political use of the term liberal isn't the same as the universal term, and its actual meaning. Actually, it's the exact opposite. A more accurate term for American "liberals" would be statists.
So there is a reason for the disagreement beyond just being different parties.
USA is not a capitalist economic system..it's an imperialist elite, fuckin Lucifer worshippers..read books about secret societies, freemasonery, Skull and Bones, Bohemian Club..liberty my ass, your free to do want they want you to do
Correct the voucher system and healthcare are both socialist. However, for the Republicans, the voucher option drives a dagger through the heart of the teacher unions which gives millions of dollars to the democrats. Democrats know that vouchers would improve education but the money is hard to resist.
1. I listened but I disagree. Democrats are pro abortion because conservative are anti-abortion? Democrat are pro large government because conservatives are anti-government? People have no underlying values just mindless tit for tat. Vouchers are more efficient socialism. When the government takes a citizen's property (taxes) and uses it for the benefit of another citizen that is socialism. It's the taking of private property not the spending of it that counts. Thanks.
@garybsg Of course people have values, but parties are not people, but groups of people, and the republican party does not behave like one single republican would behave. The US Parties do not have values, they just try to grab votes anywhere and anyhow they can.
And no, taxes aren't socialism either. That would make every ideology socialist (except stupidly dogmatic anarcho-capitalism). Socialism is the common ownership of the means of production. Vouchers isn't ownership at all.
@regebro 1. Parties are not people? A church congregation is not people? A school is not people? Huh? What number of people make you lose your value to the group?
2. Who cares what it is called, I care what it does. Socialism is public ownership of private property fine, fascism is the public ownership of the benefits of private property (taxes). Socialism is more honest. Vouchers still force one man to pay for another man's children. We own private property for the advantages it yields.
@garybsg You do not lose the value to the group ever. I said nothing about value, I just said that a political party is not a person but a *group* of people and do not behave like ONE person would. This is NOT a difficult concept to understand.
It isn't socialism, which you by now know. So calling it socialism is dishonest. Why be dishonest if you don't care what it's called? I guess saying you didn't care was dishonest too.
Stop using nonsense arguments, and maybe we could have a discussion.
@regebro "Politicians are neither evil or conspiratorial" How do you know that? You must have magic power. Socialism has no definition, the Soviets were socialist owned public property but then murdered millions so they become communist but communist changed it to Stalinist, Nazi were called socialist but didn't own property but controlled the entire economy however they murdered millions and were then call fascist, Mussolini was a socialist.....the label means nothing, look at the action
@garybsg I'm sorry, you haven't got the slightest clue of anything you are talking about. It's pointless to talk to you when all you do is spew out incorrect nonsense. The only thing you say above that is even remotely correct is that both the Soviet union and Nazi Germany murdered millions. Everything else is utter nonsense. You should probably stop claiming things and start asking questions instead.
@bazmataz Socialism doesn't work, and the leadership of the social democrats know this well. That's why you'll notice that they don't have any policies. They don't actually suggest any changes. No significant changes will happen even with a social democrat government.
The wealth gap is only relevant for those who think wealth is a problem. I don't. I think poverty is a problem, and in Sweden there isn't much poverty to talk about.
Sweden may not be 100% socialist but it definitely has more socialist elements to its society than the USA. There is more of an effort to spread wealth evenly across the society which is a socialist principle although a 100% purely socialist economy it definitely isn't as you say.
@bazmataz Sweden and most european countries prefer to spread the wealth of workers and consumers, not investors and big business. Did you know that top corporate tax rate in Denmark is 15 points lower than in America?
In Sweden you can get a gun license if you are a member of a gunclub and have passed an exam, or have a hunter exam. The process takes at least six months. That's it, as I understand it.
So how is Sweden doing now that tjhe conservatives have stripped away many of the social programs? Is crime higher or lower now? Is the suicide rate higher or lower (Although that can be caused by an amoral psychology field).
First of all, the current government is more liberal than conservative. Second of all they have not "stripped away the social programs". They have lowered some of the payments a bit, and had stricter control of sick leave and some other things. As a result of this, unemployment has gone down during these last years (they have only been in power three and a half years). I have no suicide statistics for these years. Crime tends to go up in prosperous times, at least in Sweden. :)
your right. if you think about it, about 300 years ago, when famers had to give 10 % of their harvest to their patrons, and today we have to give those vampires 50%. and yet, if we look in history-books, we think we have more freedom today, then the people had in the past. the world is crazy. stupid too.
I would say Sweden is the most free country in the world, for avrage working people. For rich ppl, yes, its high taxes. But since 90's the taxes have been lowered and state property sold. The effect? The difference between rich and poor has never been as big as now. Schools are sold, eduction has gotten worse, hospitals suck. They will fire 700 ppl in a hospital near me soon. It sucks.
Its good for the avrage working people too. Everything else is false. THe welfare state we had in Sweden that now is history was only possible because of taxes. Now we're going towards a new liberal shitty society. I've noticed how everything is getting worse and im not the only one.
Yes, but it's the social-democrats policies that make it worse. In Sweden now there are high taxes and no social security. High taxes doesn't automatically mean that they are used well.
The claim that the difference between rich and poor never has been so high is completely bogus. Sweden still has the lowest income differences in the world, there is no difference there. Private schools work better and give better education and are also free in Sweden. Yes, the hospitals suck. Swedish hospitals are socialist planned economies. Of course they suck. They should be privatized too.
@shananagans5 Hospitals don't get shut down because they're not needed. So the answer is not privatizing. It is to stop viewing health care as a source of income. Health care should never differ depending on social class/financial situation.
No, more tax does not equal a better health care system. It *may* but it doesn't have to. Swedens health care ain't that great, even though we have extreme taxes. More taxes does equal less economic freedom, though, but you are right that if spent correctly it can increase other kinds of freedom.
Socialism(fake kind- aka Sweden) and Capitalism both promote putting the largest amount of wealth in the control of top few. You will Never get wealthy working for a corporation or a government.
This video proves why both socialism and capitaliam do not work!!!..Democrats are socialist and republicans are capitalist...THEY Both supposrt BIG business..aka The Corporation. Small independent business is the way for growth/sustainability(check statistics)...both parties claim to support SB....cough..BS!...socialism and capitalism both support big business...Americans are fairly dumb when it comes to this. Thanks for your video..:)
I have a question for you which I hope isn't too naïve. I'm not so well-versed in these matters.
We can expect that, under a school voucher system, the state will give the same amount to all pupils so they are free to choose their school. But in health care some people are healthy and don't need treatment whereas some may have a disease that is extremely expensive to treat. How do you think this problem of redistributing resources is best dealt with?
So who ultimately decides the treatment? Doctors might want to do more treatments than is really necessary if they get to profit from the voucher. A bureaucrat calling the shots risks denying people treatment that they need in order to fulfill his/her obligations of manging the money. What's your take on this?
It's rarely the doctor who decides the treatment that does it, and makes money from it, so this is rarely a problem. A doctor that says you need a blood test of pharmaceuticals will not make any money from this.
You also of course need to have the public service also monitoring doctors and hospitals, but this goes for everything.
They will get the payment, yes. But again, your doctor is not a pharmaceut, and hence, he will NOT gain money from prescribing drugs. The pharmaceut that *you* choose will get that money.
Sure. But again, it's you who chooses the hospital, etc. The case where the doctor chooses what to do, and does it is almost only when it comes to surgery, so it's an unusual case.
Den större delan av socialdemokraterna är funktionssocialister, det vill säga såna som vill ha en kapitalism som man begränsar på det viset så att samhället går i socialistisk riktning.
Over 50 % of all jobs in Sweden is state, local or other government jobs. Sweden is not 100 % socialist but way over 50 %, and the socialdemocrats tried to take over all large corporation with union funds, which was a forces tax, the money went to the unions to buy all large firms. They tried but were stopped. So Sweden is lost to the anticapitalists, and 50 000 swedes leave every year, a record braindrain equal to the massemmigration in the late 1800's.
Well, that's a very funny definition of socialism. And in any it's not over 50%, it's 34%.
Yes, the tried (in past tense). They were not stopped, thy stopped by themselves as the social democrats knew it was a bad idea already when the unions bribed them to do it in 1981. And since them social democrats has privatized just as much as the liberal-konservatives.
You need to read Andreas Berghs book "Den liberala välfärdsstaten". Get your facts straight, and stop being so hysterical. ;)
So? Your argument is still invalid. You say that earning money from education is wrong. Hence, you say teachers should not get payed. That is what you are saying, and that is a ridicolous argument.
And if John Bauer is so bad, and still one of the best in Sweden, that says a whole lot about how bad public education is in Sweden.
No, no, teachers do not profit, they earn their money, it's called wage, they do their job to earn this.
Profit is surplus, i understand.
And it's not a reform, it's a patch.
"This", as you put it, can not be learned in the swedish educational system, "this" can only be learned if you study on your own, revising classicals and going through "college".
And even then, "this" is only at your disposal depending on what you study then.
Mandatory knowledge we should aquire in 9th grade onwards.
So, what's the difference between "profit" and "wages" and "earning" and "surplus" then? In all cases you do something and as a result make money. How come it becomes acceptable if you use the word "wage" to describe this, but not acceptable if you call it "surplus"?
No, it's not a patch, it's a reform.
Everybody has their own ideas of what you "should" know in 9th grade. What is needed is the freedom to choose. Btw nobody knows why crime exists, so it's a bit hard to teach...
Wage is what ur employer decides ur work effort is worth, surplus u get if ur work is payed more than it's worth, u seem kind of old for me to be explaining this to u, no offense.
correct me if i'm wrong.
Yes, correct, a patch, cause it really hasn't improved alot.
We still don't learn things like the consequences of apathy in a society, that everything goes through quantitative/qualitative changes, thinking outside the box, etc.
Our school system exists only to supply what the market demands.
You are wrong. Surplus is not if you are payed more than it's worth. Surplus is if you have more after than you had before. You get a wage because an employer decides you are worth it, correct. You make a surplus because a customer decides it's worth it. Why do you believe that one is immoral and the other is not? There is no real difference.
in most cases surplus is profit, concentrated in few hands.
not something given by the customer, since he has no choice other than fixed price.
profiting is immoral cause the people that a capitalist economy profits off don't have a choice, that's pretty much why u have a 3rd world, new markets to conquer and natural resources to control.
No, neither profit not surplus means "what exceeds the necessary".
The whole point of markets is that the customer HAS a choice.
No, you have fantasies as your references. Nothing you say has anything to do with the real world. You are an excellent example of how todays school fail in teaching people critical and independent thinking.
Yes, free thinking should be more encouraged. I totally agree. And teaching kids to think critically, which isn't done today. Note that the *only* way that is ever going to happen is to have *more* freedom and *more* choice in the educational system.
"Still"? That is new, and as mentioned, we need *more* of that. Why? Because the alternative is that students are programmed to satisfy the STATES need. Brave New World, here we come. The market, that *us*, you and me and he and she. That's the market.
It has *everything* to do with freedom to choose. You can't have independence without having freedom to choose.
You have no idea what capitalism is or how it works. Indeed, it's likely that everything you think you know is wrong.
please, feel free to quote me where ever i entitle the educational system to the state.
Or where those premature conclusions?
its EXACTLY why i want a reform, we will never learn how much freuds ideas put into practice in form of PR affect the masses if the state dictates what we shall learn.
the market only gives u the choices that don't threaten the status quo.
we need to learn more, and ur theory is not complatible with reality, i havent heard of a single school that teaches freethinking.
You argue against the privatization of the educational system. WTF do you think the altermative is? Right: The state.
Geez, man, you really don't think one step ahead of what you are saying.
Markets often give choices that threaten the status quo. In fact, most changes of status quo, like almost all technological breakthroughs, are market-driven.
You simply have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to anything.
but now that u mentioned it, it's interesting how we don't study it, we don't learn how exploitation happens or how the minds of "independent" & "critical" people, like urself, are in advance designed by the system.
it's futile to think we can consume ourselves to independence, as if emancipation was a commodity or a service.
this vision has not proved anything but the opposite so far.
burst ur bubble son, and visit the 3rd world while not on vacation to thailand.
I have visited the third world, something I sincerely doubt you have. You are uneducated, unthinking, uncritical. You have no idea what you are talking about or how things work.
Everything you think you know is wrong. From start, to finish.
"Peoples education, like health care, isnt something you should make profit from. "
So teachers should be forced to work for free? If not, then they are making a profit from education, and your argument collapses.
And again: One private school is not an argument, it's an anecdote, nothing more. I could tell you equal horror-stories about public schools, that doesn't mean that one follow of the other. And if you had seen the public school system in Sweden in the 80's, you'd know what I mean.
John Bauer, which is my school, has alot of schools in sweden and my is said to be the best one, in jönköping and it truly sucks. I don't meen the teachers, i meen the company owners ofcourse! My argument is valid. The owners are not the ones teaching the students.
.. the owners even sold the school into the hands of a danish investment company, how the hell do they know how to care about the students in my local school in sweden? Private schools are only placed were they earn money ex. typical places where people have it easy and not in the ghettos because there is no profit which leads to segregation. Peoples education, like health care, isnt something you should make profit from. Everyone should have an equally good education!
What you have to do, is you have to make a large study covering many schools. And such studies show clearly that private schools are better, for the same funding. Also in Sweden. The voucher system saved the Swedish education system, as it forced schools to become better.
It's all about choice. Consider this: The private school you mention evidently was really bad. But yet each student they had has chosen to go there. Why would they do that, if there was better alternatives?
Yes, everybody should have access to equally good education. That's exactly why you MUST have a voucher system with private schools, so you can choose schools. In the old private system, you were placed in schools. You had no choice. So if your school sucked, touch luck for you.
Result? Immigrants and workers ended up in chaotic bad schools where they were taught nothing, and the upper class in nice good schools with great teachers.
That's what the public system results in. Is that equality?
.. they kicked and hired new teachers very often, the teachers often did not show up on the lessons and many of them did multiple lessons at the same time! The shittiest thing was that they gave students an oppertunity to go to anexpensive campus and study in spain for some months and the students that arrived noticed that the campus wasnt even finished building! I noticed in every way how they were trying to make profit of us..
I'm from Sweden, ive been in a private owned school, it sucked like hell. They were making profit on peoples education and at the same time getting aid from the state like a public school, and as a socialist, i have studied how this works. The majority of the teachers does not have education (expensive to hire), the food is bad, the enviroment (ventilation etc) is not good (we didnt have ventilation - hot on summer, cold on winter and bad air), there were no emergency exits..
As usual, you didn't read my question before you answered it.
Again:
Can you name one country who has mostly private schools funded by vouchers?
And the answer is: No you can't. Because it doens't exist. Finlands schools are good. They are the top of public schools. But they are NOT better than private schools. You can't compare country by country, because THERE ARE NO COUNTRIES TO COMPARE WITH.
Right. But if we instead look at public schools vs private schools it turns out that private schools are better, even for the same money. That's because private schools work on a market with competition, which forces them to bee god if they want to stay profitable.
On a free market, wanting to make a profit is a Good Thing.
Yes, and using that as an argument is incorrect for a whole host of reasons.
1. You can't draw conclusions from one country. It's not an argument, it's not support for your position, it's just an anekdote.
2. You are comparing countries. That's kinda funny, since we are talking about countries with public schools vs voucher systems. What you *should* do, is to compare private schools vs public schools.
3. Can you name one country who has mostly private schools funded by vouchers?
I just want to make it clear that I think having education and health care in the free market and giving people welfare like you said is a really great idea. I was just expressing my concerns about putting those things in the free market. I think health care should probably be in the free market but I am not sure on education. Finland probably has the best education in the world and 97% of their students attend public schools which of course are owned and paid for by the government.
"I was just expressing my concerns about putting those things in the free market."
And it's completely clear that those concerns are completely unfounded and based on misunderstandings and a desire to put responsibility on abstractions instead of individuals.
You can't draw conclusions from one country. Especially a small one with less people than New York. That's not an argument, it's an anekdote.
I was just pointing out that there education is the best in the world and it's socialized. Places like Canada also have socialized and great education.
No, it's not my opinion. It's a fact. You do not know what you are talking about, but as 99% of the population, you are completely incapable of changing your mind when proven wrong, at least in a debate over the internet.
As mentaioned: Talk less, listen more. You'll learn something that way.
You just think your right. I think I am right. We disagree. You have good ideas but they aren't facts just because you say they are. You have changed my mind on health care by the way. I agree with you now but I am still skeptical about your ideas on education.
It's nice to know that I changed your mind on health care.
Note that my position on health care and on education is exactly the same for exactly the same reasons. There is no principal difference between health care and education when it comes to this. It's both services that everybody should have access to, but neither of them are better provided by the state than by commerce. In fact, commerce is *proven* to be better at it, less corrupt and more efficient.
I have another concern. Maybe not in Sweden, but in the U.S. people here are really stupid and only 4/10 of them believe in the Theory of Evolution. What if we give kids the choice and they start going to private schools where they start learning that pseudo-scientific crap Intelligent design. Won't that seriously fuck up our science education in this country?
Most people in the US goes to a public school, so you can't say that the public schools has protected against this crap. The problem in US isn't private religious schools, but crazy school boards. And most religious fanatics home school their kids anyway.
But sure, vouchers will increase the amount of specialized schools, including religious schools. The fix? Require schools to actually teach the curriculum. Or, in the US, refuse payments to religious schools as a state/church separation issue.
You can always find somebody to dispute anything. That does not make it a matter of dispute.
Why are you trying to say that I blame CRA? I don't. I say that the securitization, which came in as sugar to make the banks accept the CRA, is one major part of the problem. The only reason to put words in my mouth is if you know what I *really* am saying is correct and you try to build a straw man instead. So don't do that.
It is disputed by many credible economists and law professors. They say that it was banks engaging in risky lending practices that caused the problem.
"Why are you trying to say that I blame CRA?"
The CRA is what most people are talking about when they say the Government forced banks to make bad loans. They didn't force the banks to make bad loans they encouraged banks to discriminate based on whether people could pay the loan back not where they lived.
That's an effect of the securitization policies which the Clinton administration put into effect, when they increased the regulation of the mortgage industry in the US (which is one of the most highly regulated in the western world, btw).
In short, it wanted to force banks to take higher risks. To make the banks agree to this it agreed to new ways of securitization, ie new ways of pushing the risk over to someone else. These failed, and instead ended up just hiding the risks from the banks.
That is a matter of dispute. Many economists and law professors(i.e. Michael Barr) say that the CRA which you're referring to had little to do with the crisis. Also the banks that were CRA regulated were only responsible for 25% of the bad loans and were half as likely to sell their mortgages to other investors to be securitized. They didn't want banks to make risky loans they only wanted banks to discriminate based on whether they could pay it back and not on not on where they lived.
Summary: You claim McDonalds are lying. To support that claim, you state that the contradict nutritionists. That is not true.
You also state that McDonalds should take responsibility for peoples health, but you reject what that would mean in practice. That's inconsistent.
Lastly, you claim that greed is the cause of the crisis, yet you evidently has not studied the causes even briefly, and can give no argumentation for how greed would be the cause.
You want them to be dishonest so you can blame then instead of letting individuals control their own lifes. Therefore you invent that they claim that it's healthy to eat loads of fatty and sugary McDonalds food. But they have made no such claim.
They are not being dishonest. It's just you who desperately wishes that they are to find a scapegoat to avoid responsability.
McDonald's did lie because it's obvious that they can't be part of a healthy diet and this is confirmed by nutrition experts. Yet they lied and said that they could be part of a healthy diet.
And stop repeating the same thing over and over and over, even though I have explained to you why you are wrong. It makes you look like you are incapable of listening and learning.
You are sure about a lot of things that simply isn't correct. The problem with the banks risks here was that they didn't know what kind of risks they were taking. Not that they were taking risks. And that was only part of the problem.
And the people you criticise have the same view on profit and greed as you do. But you don't see that, you just want to blame the problem on something, so you blame it on an abstraction. That doesn't work. Abstractions like greed are never the problem.
No, greedy banks didn't cause it. The causes are complex and caused both by the banks and by the state in unison. In no case is greed involved in the process. Yes, it's all for profit. If banks didn't make a profit, we wouldn't have banks. Which goes for restaurants as well, and any kind of business. Why don't you like profit? Do you have a large inheritance to live off, or do you also try to make a profit so you can eat and have somewhere to live?
I am sure banks knew that engaging in risky and predatory lending would have detrimental effects and I think they knew they were being irresponsible. The risk taking that caused the crisis wasn't normal risk taking to make a profit it was dangerous risk taking that lead to economic decline. They were being greedy. there is no way they could have been that precarious about loans if they weren't greedy.
I do like profit but I don't like causing problems for other people in order to quench a greedy thirst for gratuitous amounts of profit. I for earning as much profit as possible until it starts to hurt other people.
What's bad about taking risks, mostly. It's obvious you think greed is behind it, and it's equally obvious you are wrong. Greedy people are not taking more risks than others. Taking risks may mean you can make a lot of money, but it also means you can lose a lot of money.
Greedy banks caused the sub prime lending crisis. If those banks wouldn't have engaged in lending as risky as they did the crisis wouldn't have happened. It was all for profit. There was no regard for the catastrophic effects it would have on the economy.
A crisis can only happen if you had a boom before. The only way to prevent the crisis is to prevent the boom. A crisis is only returning to normal levels, and not a catastrophic effect. If you want to prevent economic crisis, you have to prevent economic growth. That is NOT an improvement.
So, even though vouchers and universal health care are not socialist, would you consider them aspects of a welfare state?
Also, wouldn't moving education and health care into the private sector be kind of dangerous since the industries might become concerned with making a profit instead of serving people's learning and health needs?
Yes, of course it's still a welfare state. And no, it's not dangerous. Companies trying to make a profit out of serving peoples needs have never been dangerous. The danger lies in removing profit, because that removes the incentive to be better.
In a free market competition, you make money by having better value for money than the competitors. This makes greed a *good* thing, as a greedy company will make sure they are better value than the competition.
Since when is it the restaurants fault that Americans like to eat deep fried sugar? It's reasonably the customers fault for not asking for healthy food? And now when healthy food is getting popular, restaurants change.
What is the problem with risky lending, in your opinion?
"Since when is it the restaurants fault that Americans like to eat deep fried sugar? It's reasonably the customers fault for not asking for healthy food? And now when healthy food is getting popular, restaurants change."
My point was that fast food businesses profit from serving low quality crap to Americans and ruin people's health. I don't blame fast food but they did benefit from not providing the best quality food so greed cause detriment.
You are blaming the fast food industry, and greed, for selling people what they want. There are some assumptions underlying that:
It assumes that fast food is the problem. It assumes the fast food industry knows this and sees themselves as selling bad products. It also assumes that the fast food industry knows better than you what you should eat.
I don't think any of these assumptions are correct. But if they are, it still means you don't want a nanny state, You want nanny restaurants!
I think McDonald's knows that they load their food with fat and additives and I suspect they realize what it does to people and then they lie about it to continue to profit at the expense of the people's health.
In what way do they lie about it? They tell you exactly what's in their food. That sugar and fries aren't good for you is not exactly news to anyone.
Do you really, honestly, think that McDonalds should refuse to sell fries to fat people and only serve it to thin people? It that their responsability? Does McDonalds really hold a bigger responsability for fat peoples health than the fatty does?
I don't know about you, but I'm way to fat. That is NOT McDonalds fault, it's my fault.
Now we got 20% more youth unemployment, media taken over by industrialists and neoliberal think tanks, venture capitalists taking over schools and old age homes, 2 wars, massive economic inequality, secret election funds, big brother reading all mails, a Karl Rove puppet as prime minister, massive sellout of all publicly owned companies to china and the cia running our military.
And you are just another paid propaganist...
lethalidiotz 2 months ago
@lethalidiotz "Now"!? It's been like that for 20 years or more. Most of the things you mention are things implemented by the social democrats. S recently decided to agree to give the secret police access to all the email surveillance as well.
You may not be lethal, but...
regebro 2 months ago
@regebro It was the socialdemocrats who introduced neoliberalism in sweden and at that moment the socialdemocracy in the socialdemocratic party died. And yes that was about 20 years ago.
lethalidiotz 2 months ago
@lethalidiotz You are completely ignorant about political history. Socialism died in the social party the second they got power. And that's good, as common ownership is an idea that doesn't work. Socialism has failed and died. Welcome to the 21st century.
regebro 2 months ago
I agree that it is silly for conservatives to ignore the fact that tax money is given to private companies (schools) and not call it socialist. But it is a good idea, since it is not likely that we can get Uncle Sam out of the education business. At least we can give some choice back to the citizens.
faelismaegnus 4 months ago
No matter what word you try to slap on Sweeden and other similar countries, be it France or Denmark or whatever, it allboils down to this:
They are responsible and do not have a "Let's fuck everyone elseout of all they have." mentality.
Anthoric 10 months ago
@Anthoric I think that view is highly naïve...
regebro 10 months ago
Sweden has never been Socialist - just like USA has never been.
However, Sweden just like USA (under FDR) did use Keynesian public & welfare spending...
MazdakTV 1 year ago
@MazdakTV Yeah, and that also didn't work very well.
regebro 1 year ago
@regebro In USA, FDR created 11 million jobs - in Sweden the unemployment rate was alot lower under the rule of the social democrats than under the rule of the right.
1989 (social-democratic rule) the unemployment rate was 1.3% (EUROSTAT data), it is the lowest that this country has ever had.
The reason this fairytale stopped was because the Capitalists were getting out of profits and therefore they wanted to void the "Saltsjöbadsavtalet" with the confederation of trade unions.
MazdakTV 1 year ago
@MazdakTV No, unemployment has gone down under Alliansen. Again your facts are wrong. FDR's economical policy delayed recovery in the US from the crisis. He didn't create 11 million jobs. 11 million jobs was created, he didn't do anything. They would have been created faster without the Keynsian politics.
regebro 1 year ago
Also: Socialism really mean that the means of production are commonly owned.
If you own something, then you also control and get to decide - therefore a command economy dictated by the state (like the Soviet Union) can never be Socialism, but rather State-Capitalism.
So for a society to practice Socialism, all the workers get to decide every week or so what should be done - Socialism is an expansion of democracy.
Socialism works, ask the computer programmers in Seattle.
MazdakTV 1 year ago
@MazdakTV With that definition, socialism is simply impossible. You can't have common ownership with having political control, and that creates a centralized system where only the top actually have power, something you claim is not socialism. If you think any computer programmers in Seattle work in a socialist system you are completely deluded.
regebro 1 year ago
@regebro What does private ownership in combination with a market do to balance in power? It's an absolute fact that private capital accumulates into fewer and fewer hands, and with this they cease more and more of the state apparatus. Do you think that we have political democracy in Sweden? It's a facade, it is still a bourgeoisie dictatorship. Who owns the political power, he who controls the economy or the people with their votes? Who have the power in the current capitalist system - the top.
MazdakTV 1 year ago
@MazdakTV No, capital does not accumulate into fewer hands. Marxist economic theory has been proven to be completely wrong. Your view of the world has no connection to reality. It is not the rich who control Sweden, it is the politicians. They don't bend for the rich, the bend for USA, unfortunately.
regebro 1 year ago
@regebro In fact - in the Soviet Union, there were de-centralized soviets who ran stuff, but after several wars most of the party cadre of the communist party were dead, and in came old bureaucrats of the tsarist regime.
About computer programmers in Seattle - they summarize the essence of Socialism. Socialism is void without workplace democracy, and actual workers control of production and the profits of it.
With Internet and modern technology, it is becoming easier and easier.
MazdakTV 1 year ago
@MazdakTV Profits?So it's not communism. Communism is a practical impossibility. Sorry. Wake up from your religious stupor.
regebro 1 year ago
@regebro If you doubt the fact that the computer programmers in Seattle - who practice workplace democracy and own everything as a collective - practice Communism / Socialism or not, please let the marxian economist Richard Wolff explain it to you: watch?v=TZU3wfjtIJY
I never said they work in a socialist system, that would implicate that all other companies and people they'd interact with would also practice Socialism.
MazdakTV 1 year ago
@MazdakTV i'm not going to listen to two hours of talk of something that is obviously incorrect. I don't care if he is wrong or you misunderstood him. "the computer programmers in seattle" (Which is a big town) do not in general practice communism. They have not abandoned ownership.
regebro 1 year ago
@regebro Briefly explained: a system with workplace democracy would mean that you work 4/5 days (this is an example, it is up to the workers) and on the 5th you either vote on issues - or: each xxx (every year maybe?) days you vote on (from your own ranks) people who should be the "board of directors" of the factory. You could also vote on your fellow workers to represent you in the communal (municipality) assembly.
MazdakTV 1 year ago
@MazdakTV That has nothing to do with communism. Communism is not the same thing as workplace democracy.
regebro 1 year ago
The vouchers system has not worked "good" - most swedes dislike (statistical fact) the idea of private schools (there ain't nothing free about 'em) owned by corporations with headquarters located at tax-havens like Jersey, taking out profits from tax-money that is supposed to go to education.
The public schools in Sweden are better and they have more teachers / 100 students (8.2 for public, ~7 for private).
MazdakTV 1 year ago
@MazdakTV Bullshit, the Swedish public is positive to the voucher system, and nowadays only one party (the ex-comunists) are against them. This is because it has worked and improved the quality of Swedish schools. Private schools consistently have better performance that public schools.
regebro 1 year ago
@regebro No, the Swedish people are not positive to the private schools - there are opinion polls on this issue - the fact that they don't vote on what they believe doesn't change the fact that they believe it.
Please explain to me how private schools have consistently improved performance?
It's a fact that private schools have fewer teachers, and they run on about 15-30% overhead (profits).
Also, it is almost fascist-leaning (the state giving out money to private business).
MazdakTV 1 year ago
@MazdakTV There are no opinion polls that claim that people want to abandon the voucher system. Don't lie.
*How* the improved performance? Because people can select the best schools, and the worst schools end up having to get better or close down. That's how.
It's already clear you don't know what communism is. Evidently you also do not know what fascism is. That's hardly surprising.
regebro 1 year ago
Socialism has gone down the past years and have gone to social conservatism in Sweden
heavyspy13 1 year ago
fianlly the cold hard inside facts from a swede about what swedish people think of the system.
samm1809 1 year ago
Very informative, tack :) och helpful!
djbex77 1 year ago
Three important points:
1. Sweden is prosperous because it has a strong economic foundation from when they followed FREE MARKET ECONOMICS years ago.
2. Their health care is good because they use imported technology and medication from the private health care system of the UNITED STATES.
3. And they have a GROWING PRIVATE HEALTH CARE system that has proven to be MUCH MORE EFFICIENT then their public one.
sn8andy 1 year ago
The American political use of the term liberal isn't the same as the universal term, and its actual meaning. Actually, it's the exact opposite. A more accurate term for American "liberals" would be statists.
So there is a reason for the disagreement beyond just being different parties.
breakinthebend 1 year ago 2
@breakinthebend The republicans are pretty damn statist too. ;) Neither party's politics is run by ideology in any significant measure.
regebro 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
USA is not a capitalist economic system..it's an imperialist elite, fuckin Lucifer worshippers..read books about secret societies, freemasonery, Skull and Bones, Bohemian Club..liberty my ass, your free to do want they want you to do
lolmercier 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
no need to be defensive dude, Sweden is awesome the way it is! screw the US imperialism and capitalism.
mddhkrd666 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
no need to be defensive dude, Sweden is awesome the way it is! screw the US imperialism and capitalism.
mddhkrd666 1 year ago
no need to be defensive dude, Sweden is awesome the way it is! screw the US imperialism and capitalism.
mddhkrd666 1 year ago
no need to be defensive dude, Sweden is awesome the way it is! screw the US imperialism.
mddhkrd666 1 year ago
Also see Andreas Berg not ranting on the same subject on reason TV. The link is in the video above.
regebro 1 year ago
Correct the voucher system and healthcare are both socialist. However, for the Republicans, the voucher option drives a dagger through the heart of the teacher unions which gives millions of dollars to the democrats. Democrats know that vouchers would improve education but the money is hard to resist.
garybsg 1 year ago
@garybsg Did you listen to anything I said? I explained why all things you say here are incorrect.
regebro 1 year ago
@regebro
1. I listened but I disagree. Democrats are pro abortion because conservative are anti-abortion? Democrat are pro large government because conservatives are anti-government? People have no underlying values just mindless tit for tat. Vouchers are more efficient socialism. When the government takes a citizen's property (taxes) and uses it for the benefit of another citizen that is socialism. It's the taking of private property not the spending of it that counts. Thanks.
garybsg 1 year ago
@garybsg Of course people have values, but parties are not people, but groups of people, and the republican party does not behave like one single republican would behave. The US Parties do not have values, they just try to grab votes anywhere and anyhow they can.
And no, taxes aren't socialism either. That would make every ideology socialist (except stupidly dogmatic anarcho-capitalism). Socialism is the common ownership of the means of production. Vouchers isn't ownership at all.
regebro 1 year ago
@regebro 1. Parties are not people? A church congregation is not people? A school is not people? Huh? What number of people make you lose your value to the group?
2. Who cares what it is called, I care what it does. Socialism is public ownership of private property fine, fascism is the public ownership of the benefits of private property (taxes). Socialism is more honest. Vouchers still force one man to pay for another man's children. We own private property for the advantages it yields.
garybsg 1 year ago
@garybsg You do not lose the value to the group ever. I said nothing about value, I just said that a political party is not a person but a *group* of people and do not behave like ONE person would. This is NOT a difficult concept to understand.
It isn't socialism, which you by now know. So calling it socialism is dishonest. Why be dishonest if you don't care what it's called? I guess saying you didn't care was dishonest too.
Stop using nonsense arguments, and maybe we could have a discussion.
regebro 1 year ago
@regebro "Politicians are neither evil or conspiratorial" How do you know that? You must have magic power. Socialism has no definition, the Soviets were socialist owned public property but then murdered millions so they become communist but communist changed it to Stalinist, Nazi were called socialist but didn't own property but controlled the entire economy however they murdered millions and were then call fascist, Mussolini was a socialist.....the label means nothing, look at the action
garybsg 1 year ago
@garybsg I'm sorry, you haven't got the slightest clue of anything you are talking about. It's pointless to talk to you when all you do is spew out incorrect nonsense. The only thing you say above that is even remotely correct is that both the Soviet union and Nazi Germany murdered millions. Everything else is utter nonsense. You should probably stop claiming things and start asking questions instead.
regebro 1 year ago
@regebro I hate to break this to you, but Swedish politicians just try to grab votes as well.
vent5 1 year ago
@vent5 Did I ever contradict this?
regebro 1 year ago
Great points. I really feel sad for the "propaganda" spreading in the US about sweden being a socialist hell....
jagda09 1 year ago
@bazmataz Socialism doesn't work, and the leadership of the social democrats know this well. That's why you'll notice that they don't have any policies. They don't actually suggest any changes. No significant changes will happen even with a social democrat government.
The wealth gap is only relevant for those who think wealth is a problem. I don't. I think poverty is a problem, and in Sweden there isn't much poverty to talk about.
regebro 1 year ago
Sweden may not be 100% socialist but it definitely has more socialist elements to its society than the USA. There is more of an effort to spread wealth evenly across the society which is a socialist principle although a 100% purely socialist economy it definitely isn't as you say.
bazmataz 1 year ago
@bazmataz There is that effort in the US too but sure it's much more pronounced in Sweden.
regebro 1 year ago
@regebro Yes exactly. Since the Social
Democrats will probably win the next
election but they are also committed to
privatisation as you say, do you think they will roll back
any of the current government policies
or do you think the socialist elements of
Sweden's society will continue to be
dismantled and the wealth gap will grow?
bazmataz 1 year ago
@bazmataz Sweden and most european countries prefer to spread the wealth of workers and consumers, not investors and big business. Did you know that top corporate tax rate in Denmark is 15 points lower than in America?
xaviqaz 1 year ago
Great point our system is completely politicized and corrupted with big money from interest groups and lobbyist.
mef75baby 2 years ago
Who said that? I didn't.
regebro 2 years ago
I live in the U.S. , and was considering moving to Sweden. What are the gun ownership laws for someone in my situation?
ttown55 2 years ago
What do you mean "your situation"?
In Sweden you can get a gun license if you are a member of a gunclub and have passed an exam, or have a hunter exam. The process takes at least six months. That's it, as I understand it.
regebro 2 years ago
My situation. Being a U.S. Citizen. If I wanted to be a gun carrying private investigator in Sweden, how would I do that, being a U.S citizen?
ttown55 2 years ago
@ttown55 You wouldn't. Provate investigators do not have guns.
regebro 1 year ago
haha.. why do need a gun?
alexiuzzz 1 year ago
This guy is cute
mesatowne 2 years ago
So how is Sweden doing now that tjhe conservatives have stripped away many of the social programs? Is crime higher or lower now? Is the suicide rate higher or lower (Although that can be caused by an amoral psychology field).
Is Sweden now more productive or less?
Rockguitarnow 2 years ago
First of all, the current government is more liberal than conservative. Second of all they have not "stripped away the social programs". They have lowered some of the payments a bit, and had stricter control of sick leave and some other things. As a result of this, unemployment has gone down during these last years (they have only been in power three and a half years). I have no suicide statistics for these years. Crime tends to go up in prosperous times, at least in Sweden. :)
regebro 2 years ago
Well Sweden got 50% tax, that's pure socialist slavery, it can't be denied. No freedom for swedes.
WinterColdify 2 years ago
your right. if you think about it, about 300 years ago, when famers had to give 10 % of their harvest to their patrons, and today we have to give those vampires 50%. and yet, if we look in history-books, we think we have more freedom today, then the people had in the past. the world is crazy. stupid too.
21jumppp 2 years ago
I would say Sweden is the most free country in the world, for avrage working people. For rich ppl, yes, its high taxes. But since 90's the taxes have been lowered and state property sold. The effect? The difference between rich and poor has never been as big as now. Schools are sold, eduction has gotten worse, hospitals suck. They will fire 700 ppl in a hospital near me soon. It sucks.
HIgh taxes is good.
Tompskij 2 years ago
Sure High taxes is good for the Gov. They rape you and you ask for more.
WinterColdify 2 years ago
Its good for the avrage working people too. Everything else is false. THe welfare state we had in Sweden that now is history was only possible because of taxes. Now we're going towards a new liberal shitty society. I've noticed how everything is getting worse and im not the only one.
Tompskij 2 years ago
Yes, but it's the social-democrats policies that make it worse. In Sweden now there are high taxes and no social security. High taxes doesn't automatically mean that they are used well.
regebro 2 years ago
The claim that the difference between rich and poor never has been so high is completely bogus. Sweden still has the lowest income differences in the world, there is no difference there. Private schools work better and give better education and are also free in Sweden. Yes, the hospitals suck. Swedish hospitals are socialist planned economies. Of course they suck. They should be privatized too.
regebro 2 years ago
@Tompskij Have you considered the fact that if the hospital was private and their services were needed those people would not be losing their jobs.
shananagans5 2 years ago
@shananagans5 Hospitals don't get shut down because they're not needed. So the answer is not privatizing. It is to stop viewing health care as a source of income. Health care should never differ depending on social class/financial situation.
cemalson 1 year ago
You know more tax doesnt equal less freedom. I does however equal more tax wich improves our helth care system.
mumumumusikman2 2 years ago 2
No, more tax does not equal a better health care system. It *may* but it doesn't have to. Swedens health care ain't that great, even though we have extreme taxes. More taxes does equal less economic freedom, though, but you are right that if spent correctly it can increase other kinds of freedom.
regebro 2 years ago
@WinterColdify 50% ? Where did you find that information? In your ass? The accurate number is 30%
cemalson 1 year ago
FREEDOM! CAPITALISM! NO POVERTY!
titans797979 2 years ago
Fuck this- I'm moving to Sweden- going to my sister city of Gothenburg! woooo!
holycattle 2 years ago
Nice video! You have a good way of explaining things that isn't used here in the mainstream U.S. Media. Gud jeg hater Amerikansk politikk!
OmarAlQaseer 2 years ago
Socialism(fake kind- aka Sweden) and Capitalism both promote putting the largest amount of wealth in the control of top few. You will Never get wealthy working for a corporation or a government.
lionstar111 2 years ago
This video proves why both socialism and capitaliam do not work!!!..Democrats are socialist and republicans are capitalist...THEY Both supposrt BIG business..aka The Corporation. Small independent business is the way for growth/sustainability(check statistics)...both parties claim to support SB....cough..BS!...socialism and capitalism both support big business...Americans are fairly dumb when it comes to this. Thanks for your video..:)
lionstar111 2 years ago
Good video, very straight forward!
I have a question for you which I hope isn't too naïve. I'm not so well-versed in these matters.
We can expect that, under a school voucher system, the state will give the same amount to all pupils so they are free to choose their school. But in health care some people are healthy and don't need treatment whereas some may have a disease that is extremely expensive to treat. How do you think this problem of redistributing resources is best dealt with?
rhododendron2 2 years ago
Buy paying equal amounts for a certain type of treatment, instead of equal amounts per person.
regebro 2 years ago
So who ultimately decides the treatment? Doctors might want to do more treatments than is really necessary if they get to profit from the voucher. A bureaucrat calling the shots risks denying people treatment that they need in order to fulfill his/her obligations of manging the money. What's your take on this?
rhododendron2 2 years ago
It's rarely the doctor who decides the treatment that does it, and makes money from it, so this is rarely a problem. A doctor that says you need a blood test of pharmaceuticals will not make any money from this.
You also of course need to have the public service also monitoring doctors and hospitals, but this goes for everything.
regebro 2 years ago
But if people choose to go to one doctor or hospital over another, shouldn't this be rewarded?
rhododendron2 2 years ago
They will get the payment, yes. But again, your doctor is not a pharmaceut, and hence, he will NOT gain money from prescribing drugs. The pharmaceut that *you* choose will get that money.
regebro 2 years ago
Surely the payments would go to other things than drugs, such as surgery?
rhododendron2 2 years ago
Sure. But again, it's you who chooses the hospital, etc. The case where the doctor chooses what to do, and does it is almost only when it comes to surgery, so it's an unusual case.
regebro 2 years ago
@regebro What would then happen to people unable to pay an "amount" at all?
cemalson 1 year ago
@cemalson I'm sorry, I was unclear. The "amount" is payed by the state, not the patient.
regebro 1 year ago
Den större delan av socialdemokraterna är funktionssocialister, det vill säga såna som vill ha en kapitalism som man begränsar på det viset så att samhället går i socialistisk riktning.
tovebox 2 years ago
Jag tror du överskattar den idiologiska insikten hos socialdemokraterna.
regebro 2 years ago
Over 50 % of all jobs in Sweden is state, local or other government jobs. Sweden is not 100 % socialist but way over 50 %, and the socialdemocrats tried to take over all large corporation with union funds, which was a forces tax, the money went to the unions to buy all large firms. They tried but were stopped. So Sweden is lost to the anticapitalists, and 50 000 swedes leave every year, a record braindrain equal to the massemmigration in the late 1800's.
whathitthefan 2 years ago
Well, that's a very funny definition of socialism. And in any it's not over 50%, it's 34%.
Yes, the tried (in past tense). They were not stopped, thy stopped by themselves as the social democrats knew it was a bad idea already when the unions bribed them to do it in 1981. And since them social democrats has privatized just as much as the liberal-konservatives.
You need to read Andreas Berghs book "Den liberala välfärdsstaten". Get your facts straight, and stop being so hysterical. ;)
regebro 2 years ago
So? Your argument is still invalid. You say that earning money from education is wrong. Hence, you say teachers should not get payed. That is what you are saying, and that is a ridicolous argument.
And if John Bauer is so bad, and still one of the best in Sweden, that says a whole lot about how bad public education is in Sweden.
regebro 2 years ago
I think he is meaning it's wrong to profit from the educational system?
And tbh, i'd like to see a pedagogic reform, instead of 12834120941029839012 "freeschools" where u have the 'freedom' to 'choose'.
Not cause i personally have a hard time to trust a private institution, but, because our learning should encompass alot more PRACTICAL knowledge.
We should be learning why poverty exists, why crime exists and so on.
aleckzz 2 years ago
Yes, that's exactly what he is saying. And teachers profit from the educational system.
Vouchers/freeschools enable pedagogical reform. You can now choose a school where you learn this, assuming there is enough interest for it.
regebro 2 years ago
No, no, teachers do not profit, they earn their money, it's called wage, they do their job to earn this.
Profit is surplus, i understand.
And it's not a reform, it's a patch.
"This", as you put it, can not be learned in the swedish educational system, "this" can only be learned if you study on your own, revising classicals and going through "college".
And even then, "this" is only at your disposal depending on what you study then.
Mandatory knowledge we should aquire in 9th grade onwards.
aleckzz 2 years ago
So, what's the difference between "profit" and "wages" and "earning" and "surplus" then? In all cases you do something and as a result make money. How come it becomes acceptable if you use the word "wage" to describe this, but not acceptable if you call it "surplus"?
No, it's not a patch, it's a reform.
Everybody has their own ideas of what you "should" know in 9th grade. What is needed is the freedom to choose. Btw nobody knows why crime exists, so it's a bit hard to teach...
regebro 2 years ago
Wage is what ur employer decides ur work effort is worth, surplus u get if ur work is payed more than it's worth, u seem kind of old for me to be explaining this to u, no offense.
correct me if i'm wrong.
Yes, correct, a patch, cause it really hasn't improved alot.
We still don't learn things like the consequences of apathy in a society, that everything goes through quantitative/qualitative changes, thinking outside the box, etc.
Our school system exists only to supply what the market demands.
aleckzz 2 years ago
You are wrong. Surplus is not if you are payed more than it's worth. Surplus is if you have more after than you had before. You get a wage because an employer decides you are worth it, correct. You make a surplus because a customer decides it's worth it. Why do you believe that one is immoral and the other is not? There is no real difference.
It has improved a lot.
The market should control more.
regebro 2 years ago
ooh, misstype, ment profit thx for correction.
But no, no, surpluse is what exceeds necessary:)
in most cases surplus is profit, concentrated in few hands.
not something given by the customer, since he has no choice other than fixed price.
profiting is immoral cause the people that a capitalist economy profits off don't have a choice, that's pretty much why u have a 3rd world, new markets to conquer and natural resources to control.
i have the world as my reference.
aleckzz 2 years ago
No, neither profit not surplus means "what exceeds the necessary".
The whole point of markets is that the customer HAS a choice.
No, you have fantasies as your references. Nothing you say has anything to do with the real world. You are an excellent example of how todays school fail in teaching people critical and independent thinking.
regebro 2 years ago
and most possibly i was ironic by the word "earning", forgot to put out quotation marks.
But freethinking is what should be encouraged, that society is not an establishment and that a minority doesn't necessarily make u the odd one out.
we need to learn that neither the PARTY or the MEDIA should alter our behaviour or way of thinking.
Maybe introduce philosophy could be nice, i dunno, it's just off the top off my head.
aleckzz 2 years ago
Yes, free thinking should be more encouraged. I totally agree. And teaching kids to think critically, which isn't done today. Note that the *only* way that is ever going to happen is to have *more* freedom and *more* choice in the educational system.
You can not organize freedom.
regebro 2 years ago
No, i graduate a couple of years ago, and students are still being programmed to satisfy the markets needs.
that is wrong, cause capitalism is wrong.
no, it has nothing to do with freedom to choose, cause freedom is relative and in a capitalist society choices are selected for you to make.
yes, you cannot organize freedom cause freedom is a subjective feeling, that really isnt the important issue, independence is.
we will not see this in a capitalist society, as it protects certain interests.
aleckzz 2 years ago
"Still"? That is new, and as mentioned, we need *more* of that. Why? Because the alternative is that students are programmed to satisfy the STATES need. Brave New World, here we come. The market, that *us*, you and me and he and she. That's the market.
It has *everything* to do with freedom to choose. You can't have independence without having freedom to choose.
You have no idea what capitalism is or how it works. Indeed, it's likely that everything you think you know is wrong.
regebro 2 years ago
u fail to see that the state is at the service of the private institution, protect private property and repress people.
ofc, u cannot have independence without choice, but who says that choice has to be presented by the market?
consumer ourselves to independence?
please tell me how capitalism works, cause saying my vision of the world wrong doesn't actually prove me wrong or right.
it just proves that u don't share the same vision me, and is a pretty lame statement, even retards repeat it
aleckzz 2 years ago
*I* fail to see this? YOU are the one who wants the state to have power over the education. Hello! THINK, man, THINK!
Without a market, you can't have choice, because if you don't have a market, you have a monopoly, hence, no choice.
You haven't learned what capitalism is after what, twelve years in school, and you expect me to teach you in 500 characters on YouTube?
No, I don't have the same vision as you. I think. Independently and critically.
THINK, man, THINK!
regebro 2 years ago
please, feel free to quote me where ever i entitle the educational system to the state.
Or where those premature conclusions?
its EXACTLY why i want a reform, we will never learn how much freuds ideas put into practice in form of PR affect the masses if the state dictates what we shall learn.
the market only gives u the choices that don't threaten the status quo.
we need to learn more, and ur theory is not complatible with reality, i havent heard of a single school that teaches freethinking.
aleckzz 2 years ago
You argue against the privatization of the educational system. WTF do you think the altermative is? Right: The state.
Geez, man, you really don't think one step ahead of what you are saying.
Markets often give choices that threaten the status quo. In fact, most changes of status quo, like almost all technological breakthroughs, are market-driven.
You simply have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to anything.
regebro 2 years ago
know capitalism.
but now that u mentioned it, it's interesting how we don't study it, we don't learn how exploitation happens or how the minds of "independent" & "critical" people, like urself, are in advance designed by the system.
it's futile to think we can consume ourselves to independence, as if emancipation was a commodity or a service.
this vision has not proved anything but the opposite so far.
burst ur bubble son, and visit the 3rd world while not on vacation to thailand.
aleckzz 2 years ago
I have visited the third world, something I sincerely doubt you have. You are uneducated, unthinking, uncritical. You have no idea what you are talking about or how things work.
Everything you think you know is wrong. From start, to finish.
regebro 2 years ago
@regebro So you've been to Malmo as well?
vent5 1 year ago
@vent5 Well, duh!
regebro 1 year ago
"Peoples education, like health care, isnt something you should make profit from. "
So teachers should be forced to work for free? If not, then they are making a profit from education, and your argument collapses.
And again: One private school is not an argument, it's an anecdote, nothing more. I could tell you equal horror-stories about public schools, that doesn't mean that one follow of the other. And if you had seen the public school system in Sweden in the 80's, you'd know what I mean.
regebro 2 years ago
John Bauer, which is my school, has alot of schools in sweden and my is said to be the best one, in jönköping and it truly sucks. I don't meen the teachers, i meen the company owners ofcourse! My argument is valid. The owners are not the ones teaching the students.
smoskprosk 2 years ago
.. the owners even sold the school into the hands of a danish investment company, how the hell do they know how to care about the students in my local school in sweden? Private schools are only placed were they earn money ex. typical places where people have it easy and not in the ghettos because there is no profit which leads to segregation. Peoples education, like health care, isnt something you should make profit from. Everyone should have an equally good education!
smoskprosk 2 years ago
What you have to do, is you have to make a large study covering many schools. And such studies show clearly that private schools are better, for the same funding. Also in Sweden. The voucher system saved the Swedish education system, as it forced schools to become better.
It's all about choice. Consider this: The private school you mention evidently was really bad. But yet each student they had has chosen to go there. Why would they do that, if there was better alternatives?
regebro 2 years ago
Yes, everybody should have access to equally good education. That's exactly why you MUST have a voucher system with private schools, so you can choose schools. In the old private system, you were placed in schools. You had no choice. So if your school sucked, touch luck for you.
Result? Immigrants and workers ended up in chaotic bad schools where they were taught nothing, and the upper class in nice good schools with great teachers.
That's what the public system results in. Is that equality?
regebro 2 years ago
.. they kicked and hired new teachers very often, the teachers often did not show up on the lessons and many of them did multiple lessons at the same time! The shittiest thing was that they gave students an oppertunity to go to anexpensive campus and study in spain for some months and the students that arrived noticed that the campus wasnt even finished building! I noticed in every way how they were trying to make profit of us..
smoskprosk 2 years ago
I'm from Sweden, ive been in a private owned school, it sucked like hell. They were making profit on peoples education and at the same time getting aid from the state like a public school, and as a socialist, i have studied how this works. The majority of the teachers does not have education (expensive to hire), the food is bad, the enviroment (ventilation etc) is not good (we didnt have ventilation - hot on summer, cold on winter and bad air), there were no emergency exits..
smoskprosk 2 years ago 2
As usual, you didn't read my question before you answered it.
Again:
Can you name one country who has mostly private schools funded by vouchers?
And the answer is: No you can't. Because it doens't exist. Finlands schools are good. They are the top of public schools. But they are NOT better than private schools. You can't compare country by country, because THERE ARE NO COUNTRIES TO COMPARE WITH.
Do you understand?
regebro 2 years ago
"Do you understand?"
I see. I wasn't aware there were none.
hitballfootler 2 years ago
Right. But if we instead look at public schools vs private schools it turns out that private schools are better, even for the same money. That's because private schools work on a market with competition, which forces them to bee god if they want to stay profitable.
On a free market, wanting to make a profit is a Good Thing.
regebro 2 years ago
Yes, and using that as an argument is incorrect for a whole host of reasons.
1. You can't draw conclusions from one country. It's not an argument, it's not support for your position, it's just an anekdote.
2. You are comparing countries. That's kinda funny, since we are talking about countries with public schools vs voucher systems. What you *should* do, is to compare private schools vs public schools.
3. Can you name one country who has mostly private schools funded by vouchers?
regebro 2 years ago
"Can you name one country who has mostly private schools funded by vouchers?"
I don't know but Finland is the best pretty much.
"it's just an anekdote."
No it's an example of how socialized education can work.
hitballfootler 2 years ago
I just want to make it clear that I think having education and health care in the free market and giving people welfare like you said is a really great idea. I was just expressing my concerns about putting those things in the free market. I think health care should probably be in the free market but I am not sure on education. Finland probably has the best education in the world and 97% of their students attend public schools which of course are owned and paid for by the government.
hitballfootler 2 years ago
"I was just expressing my concerns about putting those things in the free market."
And it's completely clear that those concerns are completely unfounded and based on misunderstandings and a desire to put responsibility on abstractions instead of individuals.
You can't draw conclusions from one country. Especially a small one with less people than New York. That's not an argument, it's an anekdote.
regebro 2 years ago
Okay, but that's your opinion.
"You can't draw conclusions from one country."
I was just pointing out that there education is the best in the world and it's socialized. Places like Canada also have socialized and great education.
hitballfootler 2 years ago
No, it's not my opinion. It's a fact. You do not know what you are talking about, but as 99% of the population, you are completely incapable of changing your mind when proven wrong, at least in a debate over the internet.
As mentaioned: Talk less, listen more. You'll learn something that way.
regebro 2 years ago
"It's a fact"
You just think your right. I think I am right. We disagree. You have good ideas but they aren't facts just because you say they are. You have changed my mind on health care by the way. I agree with you now but I am still skeptical about your ideas on education.
hitballfootler 2 years ago
It's nice to know that I changed your mind on health care.
Note that my position on health care and on education is exactly the same for exactly the same reasons. There is no principal difference between health care and education when it comes to this. It's both services that everybody should have access to, but neither of them are better provided by the state than by commerce. In fact, commerce is *proven* to be better at it, less corrupt and more efficient.
regebro 2 years ago
I have another concern. Maybe not in Sweden, but in the U.S. people here are really stupid and only 4/10 of them believe in the Theory of Evolution. What if we give kids the choice and they start going to private schools where they start learning that pseudo-scientific crap Intelligent design. Won't that seriously fuck up our science education in this country?
hitballfootler 2 years ago
Most people in the US goes to a public school, so you can't say that the public schools has protected against this crap. The problem in US isn't private religious schools, but crazy school boards. And most religious fanatics home school their kids anyway.
But sure, vouchers will increase the amount of specialized schools, including religious schools. The fix? Require schools to actually teach the curriculum. Or, in the US, refuse payments to religious schools as a state/church separation issue.
regebro 2 years ago
Okay that's a good solution. I guess you've changed my mind on schools as well.
hitballfootler 2 years ago
I'm very happy to hear that!
regebro 2 years ago
good 1
aleckzz 2 years ago
You can always find somebody to dispute anything. That does not make it a matter of dispute.
Why are you trying to say that I blame CRA? I don't. I say that the securitization, which came in as sugar to make the banks accept the CRA, is one major part of the problem. The only reason to put words in my mouth is if you know what I *really* am saying is correct and you try to build a straw man instead. So don't do that.
"They didn't want banks to make risky loans "
And yet they forced them too.
regebro 2 years ago
It is disputed by many credible economists and law professors. They say that it was banks engaging in risky lending practices that caused the problem.
"Why are you trying to say that I blame CRA?"
The CRA is what most people are talking about when they say the Government forced banks to make bad loans. They didn't force the banks to make bad loans they encouraged banks to discriminate based on whether people could pay the loan back not where they lived.
hitballfootler 2 years ago
That's an effect of the securitization policies which the Clinton administration put into effect, when they increased the regulation of the mortgage industry in the US (which is one of the most highly regulated in the western world, btw).
In short, it wanted to force banks to take higher risks. To make the banks agree to this it agreed to new ways of securitization, ie new ways of pushing the risk over to someone else. These failed, and instead ended up just hiding the risks from the banks.
regebro 2 years ago
That is a matter of dispute. Many economists and law professors(i.e. Michael Barr) say that the CRA which you're referring to had little to do with the crisis. Also the banks that were CRA regulated were only responsible for 25% of the bad loans and were half as likely to sell their mortgages to other investors to be securitized. They didn't want banks to make risky loans they only wanted banks to discriminate based on whether they could pay it back and not on not on where they lived.
hitballfootler 2 years ago
Summary: You claim McDonalds are lying. To support that claim, you state that the contradict nutritionists. That is not true.
You also state that McDonalds should take responsibility for peoples health, but you reject what that would mean in practice. That's inconsistent.
Lastly, you claim that greed is the cause of the crisis, yet you evidently has not studied the causes even briefly, and can give no argumentation for how greed would be the cause.
Talk less, listen more, and you'll learn.
regebro 2 years ago
"You also state that McDonalds should take responsibility for peoples health"
No but they should take responsibility for being dishonest.
hitballfootler 2 years ago
You want them to be dishonest so you can blame then instead of letting individuals control their own lifes. Therefore you invent that they claim that it's healthy to eat loads of fatty and sugary McDonalds food. But they have made no such claim.
They are not being dishonest. It's just you who desperately wishes that they are to find a scapegoat to avoid responsability.
Stop blaming abstractions.
regebro 2 years ago
I don't want them to take any blame. I was just using them as an example of free market companies being corrupt.
hitballfootler 2 years ago
McDonald's did lie because it's obvious that they can't be part of a healthy diet and this is confirmed by nutrition experts. Yet they lied and said that they could be part of a healthy diet.
hitballfootler 2 years ago
What in "a part of" do you not understand?
And stop repeating the same thing over and over and over, even though I have explained to you why you are wrong. It makes you look like you are incapable of listening and learning.
regebro 2 years ago
You are sure about a lot of things that simply isn't correct. The problem with the banks risks here was that they didn't know what kind of risks they were taking. Not that they were taking risks. And that was only part of the problem.
And the people you criticise have the same view on profit and greed as you do. But you don't see that, you just want to blame the problem on something, so you blame it on an abstraction. That doesn't work. Abstractions like greed are never the problem.
regebro 2 years ago
"The problem with the banks risks here was that they didn't know what kind of risks they were taking."
How can a bank not know that loaning money to someone with bad credit is dangerous?
hitballfootler 2 years ago
No, greedy banks didn't cause it. The causes are complex and caused both by the banks and by the state in unison. In no case is greed involved in the process. Yes, it's all for profit. If banks didn't make a profit, we wouldn't have banks. Which goes for restaurants as well, and any kind of business. Why don't you like profit? Do you have a large inheritance to live off, or do you also try to make a profit so you can eat and have somewhere to live?
regebro 2 years ago
I am sure banks knew that engaging in risky and predatory lending would have detrimental effects and I think they knew they were being irresponsible. The risk taking that caused the crisis wasn't normal risk taking to make a profit it was dangerous risk taking that lead to economic decline. They were being greedy. there is no way they could have been that precarious about loans if they weren't greedy.
hitballfootler 2 years ago
"Why don't you like profit?"
I do like profit but I don't like causing problems for other people in order to quench a greedy thirst for gratuitous amounts of profit. I for earning as much profit as possible until it starts to hurt other people.
hitballfootler 2 years ago
What's bad about taking risks, mostly. It's obvious you think greed is behind it, and it's equally obvious you are wrong. Greedy people are not taking more risks than others. Taking risks may mean you can make a lot of money, but it also means you can lose a lot of money.
regebro 2 years ago
Greedy banks caused the sub prime lending crisis. If those banks wouldn't have engaged in lending as risky as they did the crisis wouldn't have happened. It was all for profit. There was no regard for the catastrophic effects it would have on the economy.
hitballfootler 2 years ago
A crisis can only happen if you had a boom before. The only way to prevent the crisis is to prevent the boom. A crisis is only returning to normal levels, and not a catastrophic effect. If you want to prevent economic crisis, you have to prevent economic growth. That is NOT an improvement.
regebro 2 years ago
So, even though vouchers and universal health care are not socialist, would you consider them aspects of a welfare state?
Also, wouldn't moving education and health care into the private sector be kind of dangerous since the industries might become concerned with making a profit instead of serving people's learning and health needs?
hitballfootler 2 years ago
Yes, of course it's still a welfare state. And no, it's not dangerous. Companies trying to make a profit out of serving peoples needs have never been dangerous. The danger lies in removing profit, because that removes the incentive to be better.
regebro 2 years ago
But isn't it possible that they could become greedy and not care about quality but only making money?
"Companies trying to make a profit out of serving peoples needs have never been dangerous"
What about fast food companies making people fatter and unhealthier to make a profit or banks engaging in risky lending practices to make a profit?
hitballfootler 2 years ago
In a free market competition, you make money by having better value for money than the competitors. This makes greed a *good* thing, as a greedy company will make sure they are better value than the competition.
Since when is it the restaurants fault that Americans like to eat deep fried sugar? It's reasonably the customers fault for not asking for healthy food? And now when healthy food is getting popular, restaurants change.
What is the problem with risky lending, in your opinion?
regebro 2 years ago
"Since when is it the restaurants fault that Americans like to eat deep fried sugar? It's reasonably the customers fault for not asking for healthy food? And now when healthy food is getting popular, restaurants change."
My point was that fast food businesses profit from serving low quality crap to Americans and ruin people's health. I don't blame fast food but they did benefit from not providing the best quality food so greed cause detriment.
hitballfootler 2 years ago
You are blaming the fast food industry, and greed, for selling people what they want. There are some assumptions underlying that:
It assumes that fast food is the problem. It assumes the fast food industry knows this and sees themselves as selling bad products. It also assumes that the fast food industry knows better than you what you should eat.
I don't think any of these assumptions are correct. But if they are, it still means you don't want a nanny state, You want nanny restaurants!
regebro 2 years ago
I think McDonald's knows that they load their food with fat and additives and I suspect they realize what it does to people and then they lie about it to continue to profit at the expense of the people's health.
hitballfootler 2 years ago
In what way do they lie about it? They tell you exactly what's in their food. That sugar and fries aren't good for you is not exactly news to anyone.
Do you really, honestly, think that McDonalds should refuse to sell fries to fat people and only serve it to thin people? It that their responsability? Does McDonalds really hold a bigger responsability for fat peoples health than the fatty does?
I don't know about you, but I'm way to fat. That is NOT McDonalds fault, it's my fault.
regebro 2 years ago