1. Is there something you think is inherently wrong with poor people that causes them to not succeed?
2. Sounds like schooling is better off left in the free-market.
1. Yeah its called money. Having no money is kind of a poor thing.
2. The only reason the private school is so nice is because its taken all the money from public funding. Imagine everyone getting a free education to a nice school. Everyone on the right side is shouting that the poor have equal chances to become rich as everyone else but here we see a school system that requires the person who starts out rich getting a better advantage than the person who started out less wealthy.
I've already talked about this the US spends the most money in the world on public education... BY LEVELS OF MAGNITUDE.
Right, but the problem is its going to the wrong parts - school administration instead of the teachers and the classrooms.
The administrative costs for public schooling are astronomical compared to the rest of the world. Another benefit that private schools have (since they don't have a large administrative machine to feed)
Look at how most people feel about UAW, public school administration has MORE of an effect on how money gets spent, and blockades more of it getting to the public schools in comparison to the hate the UAW gets by a factor of many times over I'm sure.
So you are so disillusioned that you don't have any faith in poor people to better themselves? Seems pretty cynical to me.
Are you so ignorant that you deny the fact that public schooling doesn't work as well as private schooling? (Even though you stated otherwise earlier...)
And are you ignorant of the fact that private school costs tens of thousands of dollars per year outside of a HANDFUL of lucky scholarships restricting them to only those with affluent parents?
[Not meaning to sound flame-ish - apologies if it comes off as such, but I don't know how to express my confusion about how obtuse he's come off flipping from one side of the coin to the other without acknowledgement of cost]
Are you so ignorant that you deny the fact that public schooling doesn't work as well as private schooling? (Even though you stated otherwise earlier...)
And are you ignorant of the fact that private school costs tens of thousands of dollars per year outside of a HANDFUL of lucky scholarships restricting them to only those with affluent parents?
[Not meaning to sound flame-ish - apologies if it comes off as such, but I don't know how to express my confusion about how obtuse he's come off flipping from one side of the coin to the other without acknowledgement of cost]
Why are you so angry? I was talking to WalkingPlanes.
Also, public schools are not as dismal as you think. It's like you guys think the only way to be successful is to attend a private school.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[thread=52196][Alliance of Rogue Deckers!][/thread][My Cube List]
So you are so disillusioned that you don't have any faith in poor people to better themselves? Seems pretty cynical to me.
How very injudicious of you to believe that i have any less faith in the poor as you. I want to invest in the poor, because i believe in them so strongly. Are you willing to give to others at the cost of not being wealthy?
Also, public schools are not as dismal as you think. It's like you guys think the only way to be successful is to attend a private school.
Why do public schools have to be dismal at all? I really wish all our children can recieve the same education and chances no matter what the class.
How very injudicious of you to believe that i have any less faith in the poor as you. I want to invest in the poor, because i believe in them so strongly. Are you willing to give to others at the cost of not being wealthy?
If you have complete faith in them, then why do you think they need help?
Why do public schools have to be dismal at all? I really wish all our children can recieve the same education and chances no matter what the class.
They aren't..? And children receiving a good education has more to do with how involved the parents are than how good the school is.
If you have complete faith in them, then why do you think they need help?
They aren't..? And children receiving a good education has more to do with how involved the parents are than how good the school is.
In my area, there is not much difference. It's not the end of the world. Try to calm down next time.
1. I never said i have complete faith in the poor, and i think it would be foolish to have total faith in any one group, even the rich.
2. So if one is born with mean, cruel, non-intelligent, or just no parents that means they're not entitled to as many benefits? I think its important to have a good education anyways, regardless how much your parents would like to teach you on their own time.
3. If there isn't much of a difference then its left-sided...
Its funny to me, because it seems you actually like the rich and poor to not be seperated by status so much all of a sudden.
1. I never said i have complete faith in the poor, and i think it would be foolish to have total faith in any one group, even the rich.
Quit avoiding the question.
2. So if one is born with mean, cruel, non-intelligent, or just no parents that means they have no right to succeed? I think its important to have a good education anyways, regardless how much your parents would like to teach you on their own time.
My point is that education has a lot more to do with personal choices and circumstances than anything the state can do for you.
3. If there isn't much of a difference then its left-sided...
Its funny to me, because it seems you actually like the rich and poor to not be seperated by status so much all of a sudden.
What? and when did I say I wanted them to be separated?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[thread=52196][Alliance of Rogue Deckers!][/thread][My Cube List]
2. My point is that education has a lot more to do with personal choices and circumstances than anything the state can do for you.
3. What? and when did I say I wanted them to be separated?
1. How am i avoiding the question? I already said i don't have faith that they'll succeed, they're obviously disadvantaged. Its not opinion its actually fact. But i've said i think they'll do fine if we give them equal chances, and you don't believe this to be true, so who has more faith? i don't know
2. Yes, but some of these choices you won't be able to aquire on your own if your disadvantaged socially.
3 .This is the whole point of being left and right. Neither has to do with being poor or rich, its how close the two are seperated.
You won't see ultra rich or poor in a left society. In a right society, this is the whole purpose of freedom and economic gain, to allow the rich to crush the poor because they'll be able to use that money more effeciently. There are plently of pros and cons to both systems as i've already stated across this thread. I like the left better because i don't like the rift in social class and i think if you destroy your working class your only asking for less competition which would destroy you economically.
The problem is subsequent generations that inherit after the hard graft has been done, most of these rich think the world belongs to them by right. They sleepwalk into the best courses in college, the best jobs available, (just look at george bush) and have no concept of reality in the sense of actually working for something the way poorer people do.
Argh there needs to be a population overhaul and if its skips the lower /upper middle classes i wouldn't complain.
Nah actually they get to keep it because Daddy knows the best accountant in the bussiness, you know the one who's so good by the time his done with your accounts the Governments probably somehow paying you money.
A perfect example of someone who is completely wrong - at least your name is fitting. >_>
Though I'd congratulate you on maintaining such persistent hate despite the fact that I've already posted evidence that directly contradicts your opinion. Why, then, do you keep on blindly hating?
This is ridiculously false - a well diversified portfolio will allow a good "salary" in just interest/dividends/etc with a relatively small nest egg - mine isn't even 6-digits and until the market downturn I was staying afloat on it just by managing my spending.
Not at all. Having a successful generational portfolio requires a large nest egg and proper maintenance - while not a full time job, its no easy feat.
...Mostly everything you said, just quoted this bit for absurdity. If you believe in determinism, what right do you have to complain? If we all have an equal chance of being rich and you didnt roll the right number, its just the way it has to be.
How very injudicious of you to believe that i have any less faith in the poor as you. I want to invest in the poor, because i believe in them so strongly. Are you willing to give to others at the cost of not being wealthy?
A perfect example of someone who is completely wrong - at least your name is fitting. >_>
Though I'd congratulate you on maintaining such persistent hate despite the fact that I've already posted evidence that directly contradicts your opinion. Why, then, do you keep on blindly hating?
Not at all. Having a successful generational portfolio requires a large nest egg and proper maintenance - while not a full time job, its no easy feat.
...Mostly everything you said, just quoted this bit for absurdity. If you believe in determinism, what right do you have to complain? If we all have an equal chance of being rich and you didnt roll the right number, its just the way it has to be.
Death < Poor < Lower Middle < Middle < Upper Middle < Ulta Rich
Thats because there is more* risk in giving up money when your poor. if everyone was middle class, would we give more, no, because nobody is living below their means? isn't what i'm purposing to eliminate the lowerclass? a philanthropic cause in itself?
1. How am i avoiding the question? I already said i don't have faith that they'll succeed, they're obviously disadvantaged. Its not opinion its actually fact. But i've said i think they'll do fine if we give them equal chances, and you don't believe this to be true, so who has more faith? i don't know
So you don't think they can better themselves? Because I do...
2. Yes, but some of these choices you won't be able to aquire on your own if your disadvantaged socially.
Yes the rich have an advantage.. but that doesn't mean the poor are hopeless.
3 .This is the whole point of being left and right. Neither has to do with being poor or rich, its how close the two are seperated.
You won't see ultra rich or poor in a left society. In a right society, this is the whole purpose of freedom and economic gain, to allow the rich to crush the poor because they'll be able to use that money more effeciently. There are plently of pros and cons to both systems as i've already stated across this thread. I like the left better because i don't like the rift in social class and i think if you destroy your working class your only asking for less competition which would destroy you economically.
This isn't what left or right is about.
Death < Poor < Lower Middle < Middle < Upper Middle < Ulta Rich
Thats because there is more* risk in giving up money when your poor. if everyone was middle class, would we give more, no, because nobody is living below their means? isn't what i'm purposing to eliminate the lowerclass? a philanthropic cause in itself?
How do you propose we do this?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[thread=52196][Alliance of Rogue Deckers!][/thread][My Cube List]
1.So you don't think they can better themselves? Because I do... Yes the rich have an advantage.. but that doesn't mean the poor are hopeless.
2.This isn't what left or right is about.
3. How do you propose we do this?
1.They can better themselves, but they have to put in more effort while a rich person can just stay wealthy with less effort.
2.yes it is. The more right sided you get the more the richest person becomes richer and the poorest person poorer. I'm sure a poor person can switch positions with a rich person, but its usually over generations and the middle class spot is the stepping stone for both of them.
left side brings them all closer into the middle class. This isn't up for debate, i'm telling you this is left and right economics. Your free to say that a country can be poor and rich because of these systems, but left sided people suffer together, and right sided individuals will have the weak suffer even more to keep the strong from suffering as much. Actually i'd like to hear what you think left and right side means, because i'm dying to know whats causing the confusion.
3.Giving to the government. Its like charity but called taxes.
2.yes it is. The more right sided you get the more the richest person becomes richer and the poorest person poorer.
Proof?
Left-leaning economics focuses on heavy regulation and limiting investment capital which gives poor people more money to spend.
Right-leaning economics focuses on deregulation and providing investment capital, which creates more, better paying jobs.
I guess you're correct, if everyone that is poor is also lazy. "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime" - Awfully applicable, isnt it?
Though, don't take this as me being in total support of full out deregulated free-markets. Minor government regulation to prevent Enron, Madoff, ect is wonderful - but crippling the most important sector of our economy in order to appease the masses is never a good thing.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I've officially quit magic. Don't like the crap that WotC's been taking on us.
So you don't think they can better themselves? Because I do...
Yes the rich have an advantage.. but that doesn't mean the poor are hopeless.
This isn't a theoretical discussion though. Of course it is POSSIBLE for a poor person to make it, to "better themselves" (in the context of our very specific definition of value). The problem is that without redistribution only the smallest percentage will be able to.
This is only going to get worse too unless things change. With an economy that is moving more and more towards being information based, if effective schooling is not provided equally to all, we are looking at the institutionalization of a permanent underclass, the vast majority of whom will never be able to move up.
And you know who tends to be the ones arguing against policies that might solve this? Upper-middle and upper class people. And it seems a little suspicious when they pull out these arguments against one of the only ways to remedy the growing income gap that just so happens to threaten their position in society.
Left-leaning economics focuses on heavy regulation and limiting investment capital which gives poor people more money to spend.
Right-leaning economics focuses on deregulation and providing investment capital, which creates more, better paying jobs.
I guess you're correct, if everyone that is poor is also lazy. "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime" - Awfully applicable, isnt it?
Though, don't take this as me being in total support of full out deregulated free-markets. Minor government regulation to prevent Enron, Madoff, ect is wonderful - but crippling the most important sector of our economy in order to appease the masses is never a good thing.
That doesn't tell the whole truth. someone who has no idea what we're talking about might think that it just creates more jobs althogether, but really what your saying is that people are being paid more for the better jobs and being paid less for the worst jobs. Its just public vs. private, equality vs. freedom, left vs right.
Rockefeller (see Citi group) was the first billionaire, and he got there, with other private banking interests, by sucking the life out of the industrial-yet-infantile U.S. economy that primed it for the depression. Before the last century of inflation he and other interests engineered, his wealth grew to an amount equalling with that inflation some $200 billion. We lionize him today for giving away about 2.5% of his wealth...
Ah, I get your transmission interpretation now thanks. You dislike the system itself, and interpreting it differently than I do.
Anyway, the issue with the gold standard is that it would create a huge shift to mercantilism. Since gold=money, people would search out gold as well as the commodity would increase in inflation. A tin standard or whatever sort of metal would create further issues.
Copper? Silver? All used in electronics. Even gold is used in cars. By drawing away from paper cloth, there's more competition over those resources. There were also issues of exchange of gold and silver within the economy.
The "usuary" system has worked for multiple centuries for the distribution of wealth. Our fraction reserve system is deposit dependant. I'm under the definition that's been around since the Council of Trent on usuary. Where a person can expect a small amount of return on money, but not a significantly huge profit such as in excess of what credit cards do.
I'm not really convinced you can have an advanced commerce system without banking in its current form (prior to the deregulation frenzy). The same goes for some Keynesian systems such as unemployment insurance. It's kept a "cushion" in the economy, but there needs to be more property owners and people independent of the market.
The thing is people can take advantage of the system, or get taken advantage by it. Considering the old school nepotism with families and clans, I'd rather have the "evil banks" than dealing with family for "favors."
Property is the mainstay of wealth, not gold. Gold is a worthless metal and prone to manipulation and corruption just as the Greenback.
The issue with the current system was poor monetary issues, the hyper liquidity with zero solvency in the banking deposits and others such caused too much overleveraging. In a nut shell, the "system" worked post WWII with the modern banking system. It went crackers after 2000ish through government and private enterprise manipulation.
As for the Grant administration shenanigans and other such, the corporations lack responsibility and are the typical assertion of the plutocrat. A corporation has all the benefits of a person, yet not all of its responsibilities. This is why you have rampant corruption, no checks or balances.
That doesn't tell the whole truth. someone who has no idea what we're talking about might think that it just creates more jobs althogether, but really what your saying is that people are being paid more for the better jobs and being paid less for the worst jobs. Its just public vs. private, equality vs. freedom, left vs right.
We produce nothing but ideas, and ideas have little weight after they have been passed around. Democracy? Industry? Technology? We've lost our advantage.
Are you so ignorant that you deny the fact that public schooling doesn't work as well as private schooling? (Even though you stated otherwise earlier...)
And are you ignorant of the fact that private school costs tens of thousands of dollars per year outside of a HANDFUL of lucky scholarships restricting them to only those with affluent parents?
[Not meaning to sound flame-ish - apologies if it comes off as such, but I don't know how to express my confusion about how obtuse he's come off flipping from one side of the coin to the other without acknowledgement of cost]
Most private schools I have come in contact with run more in the 5-8k a year range.. So your point is the ultra rich(A TINY PERCENTAGE) can afford to send there kids to a private tutor in essence. What about the Ivy Leage? Lets bring that institution of wealthy predation on the poor down as well. Hell while we are at it lets just pull down EVERYTHING that is advantageous by having wealth. Then we wont need the stuff anymore right?
This isn't a theoretical discussion though. Of course it is POSSIBLE for a poor person to make it, to "better themselves" (in the context of our very specific definition of value). The problem is that without redistribution only the smallest percentage will be able to.
This is only going to get worse too unless things change. With an economy that is moving more and more towards being information based, if effective schooling is not provided equally to all, we are looking at the institutionalization of a permanent underclass, the vast majority of whom will never be able to move up.
And you know who tends to be the ones arguing against policies that might solve this? Upper-middle and upper class people. And it seems a little suspicious when they pull out these arguments against one of the only ways to remedy the growing income gap that just so happens to threaten their position in society.
Then why do we have a bunch of people in this thread arguing for it? I am certainly not upper middle class. I come from a home with a triple felon mother and a father whose disabled from working menial labor all his life(he was disabled at 32). So yeah obv. only the wealthy believe in defending the wealthy. Neat how easy it is to dislike minorities.
Most private schools I have come in contact with run more in the 5-8k a year range.. So your point is the ultra rich(A TINY PERCENTAGE) can afford to send there kids to a private tutor in essence. What about the Ivy Leage? Lets bring that institution of wealthy predation on the poor down as well. Hell while we are at it lets just pull down EVERYTHING that is advantageous by having wealth. Then we wont need the stuff anymore right?
Colleges aren't really comparable - scholarships are relatively plentiful in comparison to those available for private schooling, since the university system is basically entirely privatized. (Even the state schools here are self-managed, just get lots of government dollars to keep tuition costs down)
And considering that's a benefit that no matter who on Earth you are, unless you get really lucky, you'll never be able to better yourself out of.
The university system works fine as it is right now, the same principles need to be applied to 1-12 however.
Look at the inner city schools where less than 20% even go to college and tell me that is a fair starting out point that doesn't need to be fixed with a straight face.
It's perfectly fair to have deck stacking against adults that have had a chance to prove themselves already and not taken advantage of it - it's absolutely ridiculous that inequity in the US applies to children WORSE than adults however.
Heck, you want to know a family secret of mine for how we've gotten great educations for the kids in our family of the generation beyond mine? Hardcore home schooling 1-4 on top of public schooling, then sending them to Europe to get their 4-8 (I think it starts at 4th - perhaps 5th or 6th - I know at least 3 years over there) education in an exchange student program (Germany, Italy and France for each of the 3), then tossing them into an expensive private school here for high school ($60k/4 yrs for the boys school - not sure for the girls). We've as a family gotten them a full scholarship to Hopkins (he was accepted to better schools but wanted to stay in Maryland - and its pretty much the best of the state in many programs), a 90% for Harvard, and Michelle's already been accepted for her pick of what she's applied to but not heard her scholarship status. [She's on sabbatical spending what would be her Freshman college year in Italy before she starts next Fall]
And you may be right about private school tuition for pre-high school, as I stated above the numbers I know of are only relevant to the final years of private schooling.
Don't get me wrong, underdog stories would be far less cool if those types of reforms ever took place - but I'm one of those sappy sorts that see every child as a beacon of hope to improve the world, not "Oh, they're an (X race) attending (Y school), odds are they're only every going to amount to (Z status)" as it exists right now.
Heck, in my personal life growing up - although I was upper middle/lower upper class, my friends by and far were amongst the poor folks in my rural area - I was a lazy slacker and thanks to my parents willingness to overspend I got a cushy $60k/yr career for basically dozing my way through college for 4 years. (Including a bunch of switching on my majors) What of my friends? All of them were at least on par with me in intellect, and far more motivated, but circumstance had NONE of my high school friends complete college. ZERO.
I was a complete screw-up in school (although bright) and I ended up in a much better spot than any of them - last time I bumped into one of them he was making $30k from raises in the same job he had a decade ago, yet I've hopped around and been a new hire at $55k our of school.
The dream of busting your behind and making headway because of it is great, but infrequently happens - as is those in my position can coast through their youth sleeping through school and still make the grade to work a career most would die for...
Its just public vs. private, equality vs. freedom, left vs right.
At least we agree on one bit. Personally, I value privacy and freedom, while you seem to go for the forced equality (because you know, that would never, ever be voluntary.)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I've officially quit magic. Don't like the crap that WotC's been taking on us.
For the person who asked I went to Trenton Central High.
The problem with schooling is how it is funded, with property taxes. So the rich get better educations and more opportunities than the poor. This keeps the rich rich and the poor poor and unless something is changed this will continue to happen.
The game is rigged there is a reason class mobility is near impossible (up or down), trust me it takes alot of work, talent and luck. The rich get to make the rules so they make them benefit themselves and get to control the lives of the poor. Are there really people out there who believe that this is right.
We produce nothing but ideas, and ideas have little weight after they have been passed around. Democracy? Industry? Technology? We've lost our advantage.
Geez, i know what your saying, your suggesting BE the change, which is very Ghandi-like of you. And in a way, you'd be right. Even still, it means way more to me that others not be poor than be rich, and your justification that whatever gets us that small amount of money in the end is appalling. There is no way to predict the future and what system will impact the course on the people more strongly. People and services will weigh more heavy than any other resource ever will.
At least we agree on one bit. Personally, I value privacy and freedom, while you seem to go for the forced equality (because you know, that would never, ever be voluntary.)
Thank you, maybe now Phyrexian will believe me because everyone else does >.>;
you saved this thread from becoming a needless arguement lol
1. Yeah its called money. Having no money is kind of a poor thing.
2. The only reason the private school is so nice is because its taken all the money from public funding. Imagine everyone getting a free education to a nice school. Everyone on the right side is shouting that the poor have equal chances to become rich as everyone else but here we see a school system that requires the person who starts out rich getting a better advantage than the person who started out less wealthy.
Right, but the problem is its going to the wrong parts - school administration instead of the teachers and the classrooms.
The administrative costs for public schooling are astronomical compared to the rest of the world. Another benefit that private schools have (since they don't have a large administrative machine to feed)
Look at how most people feel about UAW, public school administration has MORE of an effect on how money gets spent, and blockades more of it getting to the public schools in comparison to the hate the UAW gets by a factor of many times over I'm sure.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
Are you so ignorant that you deny the fact that public schooling doesn't work as well as private schooling? (Even though you stated otherwise earlier...)
And are you ignorant of the fact that private school costs tens of thousands of dollars per year outside of a HANDFUL of lucky scholarships restricting them to only those with affluent parents?
[Not meaning to sound flame-ish - apologies if it comes off as such, but I don't know how to express my confusion about how obtuse he's come off flipping from one side of the coin to the other without acknowledgement of cost]
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
Why are you so angry? I was talking to WalkingPlanes.
Also, public schools are not as dismal as you think. It's like you guys think the only way to be successful is to attend a private school.
How very injudicious of you to believe that i have any less faith in the poor as you. I want to invest in the poor, because i believe in them so strongly. Are you willing to give to others at the cost of not being wealthy?
Why do public schools have to be dismal at all? I really wish all our children can recieve the same education and chances no matter what the class.
Is it dismal? Not entirely depending on your region - but it can be in some areas.
My state in particular (MD) has a drastic inequity between the results of those that are private schooled vs. public outside of the rural counties.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
If you have complete faith in them, then why do you think they need help?
They aren't..? And children receiving a good education has more to do with how involved the parents are than how good the school is.
In my area, there is not much difference. It's not the end of the world. Try to calm down next time.
1. I never said i have complete faith in the poor, and i think it would be foolish to have total faith in any one group, even the rich.
2. So if one is born with mean, cruel, non-intelligent, or just no parents that means they're not entitled to as many benefits? I think its important to have a good education anyways, regardless how much your parents would like to teach you on their own time.
3. If there isn't much of a difference then its left-sided...
Its funny to me, because it seems you actually like the rich and poor to not be seperated by status so much all of a sudden.
My point is that education has a lot more to do with personal choices and circumstances than anything the state can do for you.
What? and when did I say I wanted them to be separated? Quit avoiding the question.
1. How am i avoiding the question? I already said i don't have faith that they'll succeed, they're obviously disadvantaged. Its not opinion its actually fact. But i've said i think they'll do fine if we give them equal chances, and you don't believe this to be true, so who has more faith? i don't know
2. Yes, but some of these choices you won't be able to aquire on your own if your disadvantaged socially.
3 .This is the whole point of being left and right. Neither has to do with being poor or rich, its how close the two are seperated.
You won't see ultra rich or poor in a left society. In a right society, this is the whole purpose of freedom and economic gain, to allow the rich to crush the poor because they'll be able to use that money more effeciently. There are plently of pros and cons to both systems as i've already stated across this thread. I like the left better because i don't like the rift in social class and i think if you destroy your working class your only asking for less competition which would destroy you economically.
A perfect example of someone who is completely wrong - at least your name is fitting. >_>
Though I'd congratulate you on maintaining such persistent hate despite the fact that I've already posted evidence that directly contradicts your opinion. Why, then, do you keep on blindly hating?
Not at all. Having a successful generational portfolio requires a large nest egg and proper maintenance - while not a full time job, its no easy feat.
...Mostly everything you said, just quoted this bit for absurdity. If you believe in determinism, what right do you have to complain? If we all have an equal chance of being rich and you didnt roll the right number, its just the way it has to be.
Funnily enough, Rich people donate a larger average of their income to philanthropic causes.
Death < Poor < Lower Middle < Middle < Upper Middle < Ulta Rich
Thats because there is more* risk in giving up money when your poor. if everyone was middle class, would we give more, no, because nobody is living below their means? isn't what i'm purposing to eliminate the lowerclass? a philanthropic cause in itself?
So you don't think they can better themselves? Because I do...
Yes the rich have an advantage.. but that doesn't mean the poor are hopeless.
This isn't what left or right is about.
How do you propose we do this?
1.They can better themselves, but they have to put in more effort while a rich person can just stay wealthy with less effort.
2.yes it is. The more right sided you get the more the richest person becomes richer and the poorest person poorer. I'm sure a poor person can switch positions with a rich person, but its usually over generations and the middle class spot is the stepping stone for both of them.
left side brings them all closer into the middle class. This isn't up for debate, i'm telling you this is left and right economics. Your free to say that a country can be poor and rich because of these systems, but left sided people suffer together, and right sided individuals will have the weak suffer even more to keep the strong from suffering as much. Actually i'd like to hear what you think left and right side means, because i'm dying to know whats causing the confusion.
3.Giving to the government. Its like charity but called taxes.
Proof?
Left-leaning economics focuses on heavy regulation and limiting investment capital which gives poor people more money to spend.
Right-leaning economics focuses on deregulation and providing investment capital, which creates more, better paying jobs.
I guess you're correct, if everyone that is poor is also lazy. "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime" - Awfully applicable, isnt it?
Though, don't take this as me being in total support of full out deregulated free-markets. Minor government regulation to prevent Enron, Madoff, ect is wonderful - but crippling the most important sector of our economy in order to appease the masses is never a good thing.
This isn't a theoretical discussion though. Of course it is POSSIBLE for a poor person to make it, to "better themselves" (in the context of our very specific definition of value). The problem is that without redistribution only the smallest percentage will be able to.
This is only going to get worse too unless things change. With an economy that is moving more and more towards being information based, if effective schooling is not provided equally to all, we are looking at the institutionalization of a permanent underclass, the vast majority of whom will never be able to move up.
And you know who tends to be the ones arguing against policies that might solve this? Upper-middle and upper class people. And it seems a little suspicious when they pull out these arguments against one of the only ways to remedy the growing income gap that just so happens to threaten their position in society.
That doesn't tell the whole truth. someone who has no idea what we're talking about might think that it just creates more jobs althogether, but really what your saying is that people are being paid more for the better jobs and being paid less for the worst jobs. Its just public vs. private, equality vs. freedom, left vs right.
Ah, I get your transmission interpretation now thanks. You dislike the system itself, and interpreting it differently than I do.
Anyway, the issue with the gold standard is that it would create a huge shift to mercantilism. Since gold=money, people would search out gold as well as the commodity would increase in inflation. A tin standard or whatever sort of metal would create further issues.
Copper? Silver? All used in electronics. Even gold is used in cars. By drawing away from paper cloth, there's more competition over those resources. There were also issues of exchange of gold and silver within the economy.
The "usuary" system has worked for multiple centuries for the distribution of wealth. Our fraction reserve system is deposit dependant. I'm under the definition that's been around since the Council of Trent on usuary. Where a person can expect a small amount of return on money, but not a significantly huge profit such as in excess of what credit cards do.
I'm not really convinced you can have an advanced commerce system without banking in its current form (prior to the deregulation frenzy). The same goes for some Keynesian systems such as unemployment insurance. It's kept a "cushion" in the economy, but there needs to be more property owners and people independent of the market.
The thing is people can take advantage of the system, or get taken advantage by it. Considering the old school nepotism with families and clans, I'd rather have the "evil banks" than dealing with family for "favors."
Property is the mainstay of wealth, not gold. Gold is a worthless metal and prone to manipulation and corruption just as the Greenback.
The issue with the current system was poor monetary issues, the hyper liquidity with zero solvency in the banking deposits and others such caused too much overleveraging. In a nut shell, the "system" worked post WWII with the modern banking system. It went crackers after 2000ish through government and private enterprise manipulation.
As for the Grant administration shenanigans and other such, the corporations lack responsibility and are the typical assertion of the plutocrat. A corporation has all the benefits of a person, yet not all of its responsibilities. This is why you have rampant corruption, no checks or balances.
We produce nothing but ideas, and ideas have little weight after they have been passed around. Democracy? Industry? Technology? We've lost our advantage.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
I got about halfway through and forgot about it till just now
Good stuff though.
Most private schools I have come in contact with run more in the 5-8k a year range.. So your point is the ultra rich(A TINY PERCENTAGE) can afford to send there kids to a private tutor in essence. What about the Ivy Leage? Lets bring that institution of wealthy predation on the poor down as well. Hell while we are at it lets just pull down EVERYTHING that is advantageous by having wealth. Then we wont need the stuff anymore right?
Then why do we have a bunch of people in this thread arguing for it? I am certainly not upper middle class. I come from a home with a triple felon mother and a father whose disabled from working menial labor all his life(he was disabled at 32). So yeah obv. only the wealthy believe in defending the wealthy. Neat how easy it is to dislike minorities.
Yes i am the same guy who trades/sells on MOTL AND Wizards of the Coast and i trade on POJO.
Colleges aren't really comparable - scholarships are relatively plentiful in comparison to those available for private schooling, since the university system is basically entirely privatized. (Even the state schools here are self-managed, just get lots of government dollars to keep tuition costs down)
And considering that's a benefit that no matter who on Earth you are, unless you get really lucky, you'll never be able to better yourself out of.
The university system works fine as it is right now, the same principles need to be applied to 1-12 however.
Look at the inner city schools where less than 20% even go to college and tell me that is a fair starting out point that doesn't need to be fixed with a straight face.
It's perfectly fair to have deck stacking against adults that have had a chance to prove themselves already and not taken advantage of it - it's absolutely ridiculous that inequity in the US applies to children WORSE than adults however.
Heck, you want to know a family secret of mine for how we've gotten great educations for the kids in our family of the generation beyond mine? Hardcore home schooling 1-4 on top of public schooling, then sending them to Europe to get their 4-8 (I think it starts at 4th - perhaps 5th or 6th - I know at least 3 years over there) education in an exchange student program (Germany, Italy and France for each of the 3), then tossing them into an expensive private school here for high school ($60k/4 yrs for the boys school - not sure for the girls). We've as a family gotten them a full scholarship to Hopkins (he was accepted to better schools but wanted to stay in Maryland - and its pretty much the best of the state in many programs), a 90% for Harvard, and Michelle's already been accepted for her pick of what she's applied to but not heard her scholarship status. [She's on sabbatical spending what would be her Freshman college year in Italy before she starts next Fall]
And you may be right about private school tuition for pre-high school, as I stated above the numbers I know of are only relevant to the final years of private schooling.
Don't get me wrong, underdog stories would be far less cool if those types of reforms ever took place - but I'm one of those sappy sorts that see every child as a beacon of hope to improve the world, not "Oh, they're an (X race) attending (Y school), odds are they're only every going to amount to (Z status)" as it exists right now.
Heck, in my personal life growing up - although I was upper middle/lower upper class, my friends by and far were amongst the poor folks in my rural area - I was a lazy slacker and thanks to my parents willingness to overspend I got a cushy $60k/yr career for basically dozing my way through college for 4 years. (Including a bunch of switching on my majors) What of my friends? All of them were at least on par with me in intellect, and far more motivated, but circumstance had NONE of my high school friends complete college. ZERO.
I was a complete screw-up in school (although bright) and I ended up in a much better spot than any of them - last time I bumped into one of them he was making $30k from raises in the same job he had a decade ago, yet I've hopped around and been a new hire at $55k our of school.
The dream of busting your behind and making headway because of it is great, but infrequently happens - as is those in my position can coast through their youth sleeping through school and still make the grade to work a career most would die for...
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
At least we agree on one bit. Personally, I value privacy and freedom, while you seem to go for the forced equality (because you know, that would never, ever be voluntary.)
The problem with schooling is how it is funded, with property taxes. So the rich get better educations and more opportunities than the poor. This keeps the rich rich and the poor poor and unless something is changed this will continue to happen.
The game is rigged there is a reason class mobility is near impossible (up or down), trust me it takes alot of work, talent and luck. The rich get to make the rules so they make them benefit themselves and get to control the lives of the poor. Are there really people out there who believe that this is right.
Geez, i know what your saying, your suggesting BE the change, which is very Ghandi-like of you. And in a way, you'd be right. Even still, it means way more to me that others not be poor than be rich, and your justification that whatever gets us that small amount of money in the end is appalling. There is no way to predict the future and what system will impact the course on the people more strongly. People and services will weigh more heavy than any other resource ever will.
Thank you, maybe now Phyrexian will believe me because everyone else does >.>;
you saved this thread from becoming a needless arguement lol