|
|
On October 31 2012 13:19 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 13:18 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 13:16 Souma wrote:On October 31 2012 13:15 sam!zdat wrote:On October 31 2012 10:32 nevermindthebollocks wrote:
edit: Also, sam, could you please make your own thread and stop hijacking the politics thread with your philosophizing? No, sorry, my opinion about US politics is that it needs to be hijacked by philosophizing because nobody is even asking the right questions to begin with. If you try to do politics without philosophy that just means you've already assumed a stupid philosophy and you just don't want to talk about it. People are allowed to talk their half-assed philosophy about libertarianism or abortion or the "role of the state" or their silly little "state of nature" stories or whatever, I think it's reasonable that I be allowed to talk about mine. If people don't want philosophical discussions, they shouldn't provoke me by asking about what a "useful" life would be, or whether or not fiat currency has "real" value, because I have very involved opinions about these things. Keep in mind this most recent discussion arose out of a discussion about flat tax; I didn't just come in here and bring it up myself (something you'll notice I pretty much never do - these little "outbursts" generally escalate from smaller arguments about other things). On October 31 2012 12:06 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On October 31 2012 12:03 BluePanther wrote:On October 31 2012 11:48 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On October 31 2012 11:45 BluePanther wrote:On October 31 2012 11:43 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On October 31 2012 11:40 jdseemoreglass wrote:
[quote]
1) I don't care about wealth disparity. I care about the functions of government being fulfilled, and I don't think redistribution is one of them.
2) We have PLENTY of revenue to pay for education. But it's getting diverted to wasteful programs, pensions, etc.
3) What in the actual economy would you like me to comment on? You realize wealth disparity in and of itself causes economic and social problems right? The French revolution did not happen because some people just decided the guillotines were not getting enough use. And economic and social problems cause wealth disparity. Which came first, the hen or the egg? Circular argument. In my opinion social problems came first as primitve humans fought over original wealth thereby creating wealth inequality when some won and others lost, I think this is called the human condition. Doesn't mean we should not try to do something about it. This isn't an opinion. Studies show both. Studies also show that social stratification is required to have a functioning society. In our society, we use wealth to define stratification (for the most part). Income discrepencies aren't only useful, I would argue they are imperative. I don't think it's a bad thing to keep them small, but to do away with them would obviously be disastrous to our nations productivity. Haha, I am not sam!zdat and don't argue for communism hah, I'd love to know what "communism" was so that I could argue for it  I still hate you for degrading atheism. All smart people know that agnosticism is more rational than atheism. 7-0 Me  If I had to be totally honest, I'm not sure whether or not I'm atheist or agnostic. I just don't care if there's a God or not.
You don't know, and don't think you can know, so you interpret that as not caring. It's really difficult to not care about the fundamental nature of your own existence, without some serious drugs or mental disorder.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 31 2012 13:21 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 13:19 Souma wrote:On October 31 2012 13:18 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 13:16 Souma wrote:On October 31 2012 13:15 sam!zdat wrote:On October 31 2012 10:32 nevermindthebollocks wrote:
edit: Also, sam, could you please make your own thread and stop hijacking the politics thread with your philosophizing? No, sorry, my opinion about US politics is that it needs to be hijacked by philosophizing because nobody is even asking the right questions to begin with. If you try to do politics without philosophy that just means you've already assumed a stupid philosophy and you just don't want to talk about it. People are allowed to talk their half-assed philosophy about libertarianism or abortion or the "role of the state" or their silly little "state of nature" stories or whatever, I think it's reasonable that I be allowed to talk about mine. If people don't want philosophical discussions, they shouldn't provoke me by asking about what a "useful" life would be, or whether or not fiat currency has "real" value, because I have very involved opinions about these things. Keep in mind this most recent discussion arose out of a discussion about flat tax; I didn't just come in here and bring it up myself (something you'll notice I pretty much never do - these little "outbursts" generally escalate from smaller arguments about other things). On October 31 2012 12:06 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On October 31 2012 12:03 BluePanther wrote:On October 31 2012 11:48 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On October 31 2012 11:45 BluePanther wrote:On October 31 2012 11:43 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:
[quote]
You realize wealth disparity in and of itself causes economic and social problems right? The French revolution did not happen because some people just decided the guillotines were not getting enough use. And economic and social problems cause wealth disparity. Which came first, the hen or the egg? Circular argument. In my opinion social problems came first as primitve humans fought over original wealth thereby creating wealth inequality when some won and others lost, I think this is called the human condition. Doesn't mean we should not try to do something about it. This isn't an opinion. Studies show both. Studies also show that social stratification is required to have a functioning society. In our society, we use wealth to define stratification (for the most part). Income discrepencies aren't only useful, I would argue they are imperative. I don't think it's a bad thing to keep them small, but to do away with them would obviously be disastrous to our nations productivity. Haha, I am not sam!zdat and don't argue for communism hah, I'd love to know what "communism" was so that I could argue for it I still hate you for degrading atheism. All smart people know that agnosticism is more rational than atheism. 7-0 Me If I had to be totally honest, I'm not sure whether or not I'm atheist or agnostic. I just don't care if there's a God or not. You don't know, and don't think you can know, so you interpret that as not caring. I don't think it's really possible to not care about the fundamental nature of your own existence, without some serious drugs or mental disorder.
I don't care because I believe if there is a God out there, he's not an interventionist so it matters not. And also, I don't care about the nature of my existence, I care what I do with it.
|
Hmmm, well ummm... We are kind of off topic again. I don't mind being off topic, people usually digress to the topics that are more interesting to them, but I fear the gods. We all believe in the TL gods.
|
On October 31 2012 13:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 12:34 aksfjh wrote:On October 31 2012 12:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 31 2012 12:10 aksfjh wrote:On October 31 2012 11:58 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 11:54 aksfjh wrote:On October 31 2012 11:50 jdseemoreglass wrote:
No, the most vapid posts are one's that attack a post without offering a single argument or constructive criticism in response. There's nothing in there one can respond to, hence the use of the word "vapid." There is a notion that you paint across multiple posts that bothers me. What makes government spending necessarily inefficient (or less efficient) than consumer or business spending? What makes it less efficient is the absence of both the price mechanism and the profit incentive. How do neither of those exist? We don't live in a world where government doesn't have to pay for goods or services at market competitive prices, and their capital resources, while large, are budgeted tightly, and are limited in turn. Profit incentive is replaced by the incentive to get reelected, which should largely be judged by how effectively the people are governed, which includes the services and goods government provides. That's often incorrect. The government doesn't price, say, K-12 education at a market rate and then tax people based on that market rate. The government basically takes their cost (which may or may not be reasonable) and passes it onto the taxpayer. Which is what businesses do when they provide a product or service. They offer it at cost, which may or may not be reasonable, and then expect to profit as well. Consumers are then supposed to weigh the costs and benefits of the product/service and determine if it is reasonable for them. The market only serves as an empty term to pin efficiency to as well. There is no "market price," only the price people are willing to pay for a good or service. The closest thing you have to the idealized notion of a "market" is the reference point people have of different prices being offered for differing quality of the same product/service. No, generally businesses don't simply do cost plus pricing. The cost of comparable goods and services play a huge role in determining pricing. For example, GM couldn't simply pass its high production costs onto the consumer. If it could it never would have need to seek bankruptcy protection. The reason it couldn't pass its cost onto the consumer was that competitors could offer comparable cars at a lower price and still turn a profit - because they had more efficient cost structures. The same competitive pressure doesn't exist in public education and so there is no check on inefficient spending.
Competing cost of goods play a different role depending on the industry involved. Sometimes that role is huge, and people hunt for the lowest price available. Other times, the role is almost nonexistent, where people want the job done (right) and weigh the price against their available finances.
As for education, the pressure exists in another way. People are always clamoring for more government spending and/or lower taxes, so education is often in competition with other departments for a limited pool of resources. There are a ton of checks on inefficient spending, and budgets are often strictly controlled and rigid in implementation. After all, if the education system is 5% under budget, that's a lot of money that can go to roads/transportation, parks, health, public safety, or a future tax break.
Your real gripe seems to be that schools don't go "bankrupt" enough, but when they do, it greatly impacts the lives of the students involved. Instead of getting a poor education, they're stuck with no education.
|
On October 31 2012 12:55 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 12:51 BlueBird. wrote:On October 31 2012 12:44 Souma wrote:On October 31 2012 12:39 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 12:34 Souma wrote:On October 31 2012 12:32 BlueBird. wrote:On October 31 2012 12:23 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 12:18 BlueBird. wrote:On October 31 2012 12:14 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 12:10 aksfjh wrote:
[quote]
How do neither of those exist? We don't live in a world where government doesn't have to pay for goods or services at market competitive prices, and their capital resources, while large, are budgeted tightly, and are limited in turn. Profit incentive is replaced by the incentive to get reelected, which should largely be judged by how effectively the people are governed, which includes the services and goods government provides. I've worked in government. My wife works in government. My parents work in government. I know how it works, trust me. And most of the time, it isn't "tightly budgeted." Most of the time, it's "We better spend the rest of our money before next fiscal year or our budget will get cut, so go out and waste some money." My wife is a school teacher. Her school recently bought those aforementioned LCD TV's for all the classrooms. They didn't actually go to the classrooms, they are sitting in storage. They just didn't want their budget cut. I know people hate anecdotal stories so much, but I can't ignore the experiences which have shaped my world view. On October 31 2012 12:12 Souma wrote:
[quote]
That's assuming I'm advocating a stance that says we must eliminate capitalism. The higher the percentage of government assistance, the lower the percentage of capitalism. My mom's school she taught at a few years ago couldn't afford paper and pencils, it was an extremely poor neighborhood. My high school, in the same exact city, but a much nicer area, had a brand new baseball field, a bunch of fancy electronics in the classrooms, etc. Property taxes ftw. Yes I have heard about people spending money to maintain the budget, I think those rules are stupid. What state do you live in? I live in California. In my state, the teacher's union and administrators instructs the teachers to say that they have no money for a $5 ring of paper for the classroom, and then they spend $21,000,000 on proposition 32 alone. Obviously it's not the same everywhere, and I don't want to paint with too wide a brush here. But people who champion government as the savior are either ignorant of these situations or intentionally blind. I was in Nevada where that happened, now I'm in Oregon and I have no clue how the public education school system works here yet, I am not a part of it. It wasn't the teachers union lying about money in Nevada it was simply they had no money for basic school items at certain schools, where other schools had money coming out of their ears for basically anything beyond the means, and they weren't complaining about it they were exploiting the fuck out of it. I have no doubt the teachers union can be corrupt some times, But I still love teachers and education, and I am not informed on prop 32, so I have no comments on that. Prop. 32 basically cripples unions from donating to campaigns while still allowing businesses to donate without much hindrance. The left are up in arms trying to fight it because if they don't, that's pretty much it for them. I'm all for campaign finance reform, but not when it's so one-sided. Prop 32 aligns California law with the federal laws already in place, which state that if you want to spend someone's income on political contributions to buy votes, you have to have their explicit consent. This is absolute common sense and no one except union special interests would believe it's right to take money out of people's paychecks to pay for political contributions they may not agree with. I don't know why people even make a distinction between corporations and unions. I regard them both as simply, "individuals organized for profit." People still have this 1920's vision of unions that has no relation to the current reality, modern unions are the same and in many cases more powerful than corporations. Yes, but what Prop. 32 basically does is give the big finger to unions. Sorry if I rather not have corporations/businesses dictating my politics than a more even ground. If you want campaign finance reform, cripple both sides and put a limit on all contributions. I've said this before, but I will always trust teachers over corporations and businesses. They're supporting this proposition for a reason, and that reason is definitely not to help the masses. Edit: And stating that unions are 'in many cases more powerful than corporations' when corporations nationwide spend 15 times more on campaigns than unions do is insane. Not to mention how much weaker unions have been getting over the years. The California Teacher's Union just happens to be pretty big, but then again there are a ton of teachers in California. You have convinced me to call all of my family in California and make sure they know whats up  . jdseesmore, I'm really not buying the whole unions are bankrupting everyone, sorry. So you go by your gut instead of actually looking up the facts and statistics. Standard. As I said, my home town declared bankruptcy just this year due to government pensions. The reason California had a reduced credit rating is because of union pensions. All the facts are there waiting to be looked at. But don't buy it if it doesn't conform to your ideology.
Yah that's exactly what happened, I didn't go to any sources in the meantime or anything.
|
On October 31 2012 13:27 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 13:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 31 2012 12:34 aksfjh wrote:On October 31 2012 12:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 31 2012 12:10 aksfjh wrote:On October 31 2012 11:58 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 11:54 aksfjh wrote:On October 31 2012 11:50 jdseemoreglass wrote:
No, the most vapid posts are one's that attack a post without offering a single argument or constructive criticism in response. There's nothing in there one can respond to, hence the use of the word "vapid." There is a notion that you paint across multiple posts that bothers me. What makes government spending necessarily inefficient (or less efficient) than consumer or business spending? What makes it less efficient is the absence of both the price mechanism and the profit incentive. How do neither of those exist? We don't live in a world where government doesn't have to pay for goods or services at market competitive prices, and their capital resources, while large, are budgeted tightly, and are limited in turn. Profit incentive is replaced by the incentive to get reelected, which should largely be judged by how effectively the people are governed, which includes the services and goods government provides. That's often incorrect. The government doesn't price, say, K-12 education at a market rate and then tax people based on that market rate. The government basically takes their cost (which may or may not be reasonable) and passes it onto the taxpayer. Which is what businesses do when they provide a product or service. They offer it at cost, which may or may not be reasonable, and then expect to profit as well. Consumers are then supposed to weigh the costs and benefits of the product/service and determine if it is reasonable for them. The market only serves as an empty term to pin efficiency to as well. There is no "market price," only the price people are willing to pay for a good or service. The closest thing you have to the idealized notion of a "market" is the reference point people have of different prices being offered for differing quality of the same product/service. No, generally businesses don't simply do cost plus pricing. The cost of comparable goods and services play a huge role in determining pricing. For example, GM couldn't simply pass its high production costs onto the consumer. If it could it never would have need to seek bankruptcy protection. The reason it couldn't pass its cost onto the consumer was that competitors could offer comparable cars at a lower price and still turn a profit - because they had more efficient cost structures. The same competitive pressure doesn't exist in public education and so there is no check on inefficient spending. Competing cost of goods play a different role depending on the industry involved. Sometimes that role is huge, and people hunt for the lowest price available. Other times, the role is almost nonexistent, where people want the job done (right) and weigh the price against their available finances. As for education, the pressure exists in another way. People are always clamoring for more government spending and/or lower taxes, so education is often in competition with other departments for a limited pool of resources. There are a ton of checks on inefficient spending, and budgets are often strictly controlled and rigid in implementation. After all, if the education system is 5% under budget, that's a lot of money that can go to roads/transportation, parks, health, public safety, or a future tax break. Your real gripe seems to be that schools don't go "bankrupt" enough, but when they do, it greatly impacts the lives of the students involved. Instead of getting a poor education, they're stuck with no education.
No, the gripe is the lack of accountability, and lack of alternatives.
He mentioned GM, and for good reason. When GM puts out a shit product, they get punished for it, they lose money. They shouldn't have gone bankrupt, but that's another story...
When schools put out a shit product, oh well. The parents have no alternative. It costs to go to private schools, it costs to move. The really scary thing is, sometimes the worse schools do, the more funding they get, they actually get rewarded!
I don't believe in accountability to government or to taxpayers. That is almost impossible to implement in practice. But accountability to the parents is possible and simple to implement, all that is required is parent choice.
Choice would solve much of the problem overnight, and it is the lack of choice, it is the fact that government often represents a monopoly, that is the gripe here. Monopolies are antithetical to progress, to efficiency, to fairness, etc., when there is no alternative, there is no incentive to change for the better or prevent change for the worse.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
I think jd would hate me if he knew who I was interning for (a woman running for the Assembly that's a Professor and huge union-backer and helped bring collective bargaining to the state). >_>
Edit: btw I hear you guys talk about "school choice" a lot, in San Diego we can pick any public school in the city that we want to go to (backed by a great school bus system). Is it not like that in other cities?
|
On October 31 2012 13:35 Souma wrote:
I think jd would hate me if he knew who I was interning for (a woman running for the Assembly that's a Professor and huge union-backer and helped bring collective bargaining to the state). >_>
I think you'd be surprised to know that even my father supports the unions. And that's because if he didn't, he'd be thrown out of office immediately. The problem isn't individuals, the problem is the system.
|
I think jd would hate me if he knew who I was interning for (a woman running for the Assembly that's a Professor and huge union-backer and helped bring collective bargaining to the state). >_>
That explains a lot. Hope you enjoy contributing to the bankruptcy of our state.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 31 2012 13:37 Innovation wrote:Show nested quote +I think jd would hate me if he knew who I was interning for (a woman running for the Assembly that's a Professor and huge union-backer and helped bring collective bargaining to the state). >_> That explains a lot. Hope you enjoy contributing to the bankruptcy of our state.
With pleasure.
|
On October 31 2012 13:06 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 13:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 31 2012 12:34 aksfjh wrote:On October 31 2012 12:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 31 2012 12:10 aksfjh wrote:On October 31 2012 11:58 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 11:54 aksfjh wrote:On October 31 2012 11:50 jdseemoreglass wrote:
No, the most vapid posts are one's that attack a post without offering a single argument or constructive criticism in response. There's nothing in there one can respond to, hence the use of the word "vapid." There is a notion that you paint across multiple posts that bothers me. What makes government spending necessarily inefficient (or less efficient) than consumer or business spending? What makes it less efficient is the absence of both the price mechanism and the profit incentive. How do neither of those exist? We don't live in a world where government doesn't have to pay for goods or services at market competitive prices, and their capital resources, while large, are budgeted tightly, and are limited in turn. Profit incentive is replaced by the incentive to get reelected, which should largely be judged by how effectively the people are governed, which includes the services and goods government provides. That's often incorrect. The government doesn't price, say, K-12 education at a market rate and then tax people based on that market rate. The government basically takes their cost (which may or may not be reasonable) and passes it onto the taxpayer. Which is what businesses do when they provide a product or service. They offer it at cost, which may or may not be reasonable, and then expect to profit as well. Consumers are then supposed to weigh the costs and benefits of the product/service and determine if it is reasonable for them. The market only serves as an empty term to pin efficiency to as well. There is no "market price," only the price people are willing to pay for a good or service. The closest thing you have to the idealized notion of a "market" is the reference point people have of different prices being offered for differing quality of the same product/service. No, generally businesses don't simply do cost plus pricing. The cost of comparable goods and services play a huge role in determining pricing. For example, GM couldn't simply pass its high production costs onto the consumer. If it could it never would have need to seek bankruptcy protection. The reason it couldn't pass its cost onto the consumer was that competitors could offer comparable cars at a lower price and still turn a profit - because they had more efficient cost structures. The same competitive pressure doesn't exist in public education and so there is no check on inefficient spending. Oh shit, knowledge bombs being dropped! Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 12:54 Souma wrote:On October 31 2012 12:50 jdseemoreglass wrote:
They aren't just "pretty big," they are the largest special interest in the whole state, they run this state.
And you are really not understanding this issue. You still view things in a corporation vs. union dichotomy. What I'm talking about are PUBLIC unions, government unions. These are the one's that are the problem, they have far more power because as I stated before, government doesn't have a profit incentive. Government has a vote incentive, and they get votes by giving money to people. The unions are bankrupting this state, their pensions are absolutely massive. My home town has already declared bankruptcy purely because of union pensions which are unsustainable. They are bankrupting many states. And there is no way to fight them except to reform the laws, because they are the one's dictating the laws with overwhelming political funding. jd, I have no doubt that we face many problems with pensions and union influence; however, what I am saying is that if we want campaign finance reform, we should have one that's all-encompassing. Crippling only the unions will give a major edge to corporations and businesses who I don't want to be the ones our politicians pander to. And as far as Prop. 32 goes, it is pretty much a corporation vs. union dichotomy. If approved, Proposition 32 will: Ban both corporate and union contributions to state and local candidates Ban contributions by government contractors to the politicians who control contracts awarded to them Ban automatic deductions by corporations, unions, and government of employees’ wages to be used for politics http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_32,_the_"Paycheck_Protection"_Initiative_(2012)Again, all of these are reasonable and imo common sense. It takes a real stretch of reason to oppose any of these measures.
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Text_of_California_Proposition_32_(November_2012)
Full text (Better in my opinion to get at the details)
From what I've managed to discern from a bit of googling, the main issue(s) is:
The definition of corporation since there's certain types of businesses that don't count as corporations which are still allowed to donate unlimited amounts of money to political candidates. Corporations are however, still permitted, as per citizens united to use profits to make ad buys/campaign contributions/PAC contributions as long as those do not funnel money directly to the candidate.
On the other hand, it cripples union's ability to directly help someone they support. It is allowed to tell the members of the union to contribute to someone using their own money but since all the money that unions get are directly from payroll deductions, it's pretty much impossible for them to help a candidate directly.
If citizen's united was overturned alongside the proposition, I would see the change as completely positive. As it isn't however, I'm against it as the loophole is just too big. Corporations are essentially unaffected by the bill.
The point in question:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law and this title, no corporation, labor union, or public employee labor union shall make a contribution to any candidate, candidate controlled committee; or to any other committee, including a political party committee, if such funds will be used to make contributions to any candidate or candidate controlled committee.
If the candidate doesn't control the committee citizens united applies. If I've mis-interpreted this, feel free to correct me but I believe that's the loophole that's gotten people upset.
|
On October 31 2012 13:34 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 13:27 aksfjh wrote:On October 31 2012 13:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 31 2012 12:34 aksfjh wrote:On October 31 2012 12:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 31 2012 12:10 aksfjh wrote:On October 31 2012 11:58 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 11:54 aksfjh wrote:On October 31 2012 11:50 jdseemoreglass wrote:
No, the most vapid posts are one's that attack a post without offering a single argument or constructive criticism in response. There's nothing in there one can respond to, hence the use of the word "vapid." There is a notion that you paint across multiple posts that bothers me. What makes government spending necessarily inefficient (or less efficient) than consumer or business spending? What makes it less efficient is the absence of both the price mechanism and the profit incentive. How do neither of those exist? We don't live in a world where government doesn't have to pay for goods or services at market competitive prices, and their capital resources, while large, are budgeted tightly, and are limited in turn. Profit incentive is replaced by the incentive to get reelected, which should largely be judged by how effectively the people are governed, which includes the services and goods government provides. That's often incorrect. The government doesn't price, say, K-12 education at a market rate and then tax people based on that market rate. The government basically takes their cost (which may or may not be reasonable) and passes it onto the taxpayer. Which is what businesses do when they provide a product or service. They offer it at cost, which may or may not be reasonable, and then expect to profit as well. Consumers are then supposed to weigh the costs and benefits of the product/service and determine if it is reasonable for them. The market only serves as an empty term to pin efficiency to as well. There is no "market price," only the price people are willing to pay for a good or service. The closest thing you have to the idealized notion of a "market" is the reference point people have of different prices being offered for differing quality of the same product/service. No, generally businesses don't simply do cost plus pricing. The cost of comparable goods and services play a huge role in determining pricing. For example, GM couldn't simply pass its high production costs onto the consumer. If it could it never would have need to seek bankruptcy protection. The reason it couldn't pass its cost onto the consumer was that competitors could offer comparable cars at a lower price and still turn a profit - because they had more efficient cost structures. The same competitive pressure doesn't exist in public education and so there is no check on inefficient spending. Competing cost of goods play a different role depending on the industry involved. Sometimes that role is huge, and people hunt for the lowest price available. Other times, the role is almost nonexistent, where people want the job done (right) and weigh the price against their available finances. As for education, the pressure exists in another way. People are always clamoring for more government spending and/or lower taxes, so education is often in competition with other departments for a limited pool of resources. There are a ton of checks on inefficient spending, and budgets are often strictly controlled and rigid in implementation. After all, if the education system is 5% under budget, that's a lot of money that can go to roads/transportation, parks, health, public safety, or a future tax break. Your real gripe seems to be that schools don't go "bankrupt" enough, but when they do, it greatly impacts the lives of the students involved. Instead of getting a poor education, they're stuck with no education. No, the gripe is the lack of accountability, and lack of alternatives. He mentioned GM, and for good reason. When GM puts out a shit product, they get punished for it, they lose money. They shouldn't have gone bankrupt, but that's another story... When schools put out a shit product, oh well. The parents have no alternative. It costs to go to private schools, it costs to move. The really scary thing is, sometimes the worse schools do, the more funding they get, they actually get rewarded! I don't believe in accountability to government or to taxpayers. That is almost impossible to implement in practice. But accountability to the parents is possible and simple to implement, all that is required is parent choice. Choice would solve much of the problem overnight, and it is the lack of choice, it is the fact that government often represents a monopoly, that is the gripe here. Monopolies are antithetical to progress, to efficiency, to fairness, etc., when there is no alternative, there is no incentive to change for the better or prevent change for the worse.
Their alternative is to vote and get involved in the local school system. Like I said, if the school was to be "punished" with bankruptcy or reduced funding, then the education just becomes worse. That's the actual failing of programs like NCLB.
|
On October 31 2012 13:21 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 13:19 Souma wrote:On October 31 2012 13:18 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 13:16 Souma wrote:On October 31 2012 13:15 sam!zdat wrote:On October 31 2012 10:32 nevermindthebollocks wrote:
edit: Also, sam, could you please make your own thread and stop hijacking the politics thread with your philosophizing? No, sorry, my opinion about US politics is that it needs to be hijacked by philosophizing because nobody is even asking the right questions to begin with. If you try to do politics without philosophy that just means you've already assumed a stupid philosophy and you just don't want to talk about it. People are allowed to talk their half-assed philosophy about libertarianism or abortion or the "role of the state" or their silly little "state of nature" stories or whatever, I think it's reasonable that I be allowed to talk about mine. If people don't want philosophical discussions, they shouldn't provoke me by asking about what a "useful" life would be, or whether or not fiat currency has "real" value, because I have very involved opinions about these things. Keep in mind this most recent discussion arose out of a discussion about flat tax; I didn't just come in here and bring it up myself (something you'll notice I pretty much never do - these little "outbursts" generally escalate from smaller arguments about other things). On October 31 2012 12:06 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On October 31 2012 12:03 BluePanther wrote:On October 31 2012 11:48 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On October 31 2012 11:45 BluePanther wrote:On October 31 2012 11:43 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:
[quote]
You realize wealth disparity in and of itself causes economic and social problems right? The French revolution did not happen because some people just decided the guillotines were not getting enough use. And economic and social problems cause wealth disparity. Which came first, the hen or the egg? Circular argument. In my opinion social problems came first as primitve humans fought over original wealth thereby creating wealth inequality when some won and others lost, I think this is called the human condition. Doesn't mean we should not try to do something about it. This isn't an opinion. Studies show both. Studies also show that social stratification is required to have a functioning society. In our society, we use wealth to define stratification (for the most part). Income discrepencies aren't only useful, I would argue they are imperative. I don't think it's a bad thing to keep them small, but to do away with them would obviously be disastrous to our nations productivity. Haha, I am not sam!zdat and don't argue for communism hah, I'd love to know what "communism" was so that I could argue for it I still hate you for degrading atheism. All smart people know that agnosticism is more rational than atheism. 7-0 Me If I had to be totally honest, I'm not sure whether or not I'm atheist or agnostic. I just don't care if there's a God or not. You don't know, and don't think you can know, so you interpret that as not caring. It's really difficult to not care about the fundamental nature of your own existence, without some serious drugs or mental disorder.
Simply accepting that a man in the sky created everything isn't how atheists see "caring about the fundamental nature of your own existence." Being agnostic myself I see nothing more rational about it than atheism. If there is a god he/she/it is clearly non-interventionalist and I highly highly doubt he passes judgement on people depending on whether they believing in him.
As for the current issue here, unions have honestly outlived their purpose. They're not fighting for basic workers' rights anymore, now they just bully companies and the government, to the point of bankruptcy. In Canada the teachers' unions are so strong that short of punching a student in the face no one can be fired, ever.
|
@Lmui
It's not about the contributions themselves, the prop is about where the money comes from. Anybody can donate any amount of money they want. You may not like that, but it has nothing, nothing, to do with prop 32.
Prop 32 says you can't spend other people's money without their permission. That's it. And it applies to everyone. It's really not as complicated and ominous as people make it out to be, it's actually the law in the majority of the country right now.
It's not right to take money from a Democrat's salary and spend the money supporting Republican's. And it's not right in the other direction either. Let's not obfuscate this issue beyond reason.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 31 2012 13:48 jdseemoreglass wrote:
@Lmui
It's not about the contributions themselves, the prop is about where the money comes from. Anybody can donate any amount of money they want. You may not like that, but it has nothing, nothing, to do with prop 32.
Prop 32 says you can't spend other people's money without their permission. That's it. And it applies to everyone. It's really not as complicated and ominous as people make it out to be, it's actually the law in the majority of the country right now.
It's not right to take money from a Democrat's salary and spend the money supporting Republican's. And it's not right in the other direction either. Let's not obfuscate this issue beyond reason.
For the record the article I linked stated that employees already have the choice to opt out of the whole thing if they really wanted to. This Proposition is nothing more than trying to trounce unions.
|
The problem with unions is that the economy has become so fragmented and departmentalized that unions just serve as interest groups for particular kinds of workers, rather than serving the interests of workers in a broader sense, like I guess they might have been able to when we were an industrial nation (don't know much about union history).
but if you don't have collective bargaining then capital just wins so idk how you fix this short of an actual left political party...
|
@Lmui
It's not about the contributions themselves, the prop is about where the money comes from. Anybody can donate any amount of money they want. You may not like that, but it has nothing, nothing, to do with prop 32.
Prop 32 says you can't spend other people's money without their permission. That's it. And it applies to everyone. It's really not as complicated and ominous as people make it out to be, it's actually the law in the majority of the country right now.
It's not right to take money from a Democrat's salary and spend the money supporting Republican's. And it's not right in the other direction either. Let's not obfuscate this issue beyond reason.
You can never win arguing reason against those who are unreasonable.
With pleasure.
I don't blame you...your job depends on it so it's not like we can expect you to have an opinion that might hurt your career goals.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 31 2012 13:52 sam!zdat wrote:
The problem with unions is that the economy has become so fragmented and departmentalized that unions just serve as interest groups for particular kinds of workers, rather than serving the interests of workers in a broader sense, like I guess they might have been able to when we were an industrial nation (don't know much about union history).
but if you don't have collective bargaining then capital just wins so idk how you fix this short of an actual left political party...
I mean, this whole problem would be negligible if we just agreed to have real campaign finance reform and lobbying reform. sigh.
|
On October 31 2012 13:54 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 13:52 sam!zdat wrote:
The problem with unions is that the economy has become so fragmented and departmentalized that unions just serve as interest groups for particular kinds of workers, rather than serving the interests of workers in a broader sense, like I guess they might have been able to when we were an industrial nation (don't know much about union history).
but if you don't have collective bargaining then capital just wins so idk how you fix this short of an actual left political party... I mean, this whole problem would be negligible if we just agreed to have real campaign finance reform and lobbying reform. sigh.
How do you do that, though? I don't really see how you legislate against these things
|
On October 31 2012 13:35 Souma wrote:
Edit: btw I hear you guys talk about "school choice" a lot, in San Diego we can pick any public school in the city that we want to go to (backed by a great school bus system). Is it not like that in other cities?
I don't think that is the norm. No place I lived ever had that, although I finished high school in 2000...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
