# Beneficial Capitalism



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

A good article about the breath the West needs to take regarding economics.



We can't forget a big reason why Western Civ was so successful.


----------



## pendennis (Oct 6, 2005)

This article is brilliant in its depth, and yet has a simplicity with which the author reduces three hundred years of capitalistic good to a few succinct paragraphs.

Well done!


----------



## Tom Bell-Drier (Mar 1, 2006)

this article puts into words exactly as I feel ,but I myself have never been able to find the words to so elequently describe my gut feeling.

I was brought up with a very strong protestant work ethic and have never for one moment believed the world owed me a living.

thankyou JRR for posting the article.


----------



## GT3 (Mar 29, 2006)

Coming from an intellectual property backround, this article is fascinating. It describes human nature. The financial incentives for inventions drive ingenuity and competition, but don't be deceived by the prosperity of the land. There are many people that don't compete or lack the skills to compete, they are forced out of the way and forgotton. There are always two sides in any system, there are always winners and losers. Good stuff, this article. Long live capitalism... For those who can fight anyway.

One thing that I have been interested in but can not get good data on is the relative happiness of different countries. If anyone can point me into the right direction I would appreciate it.


----------



## mr_economy (May 13, 2006)

The author fails to make a key distinction between the laissez-faire capitalism envisioned by the likes of Adam Smith, and the present system of regulated capitalism.

Put quite simply, laissez-faire does not work. It does not work for precisely the same reason that socialism does not work - people are simply too greedy. Just as we forget the improvements capitalism has brought, so too do we easily overlook its sometimes-catastrophic results. The Great Depression, though not caused solely by one failure over another, was certainly fueled by a system of nonexistant regulations.

Enron is yet another example of capitalism at its worst, and conversely a wonderful example of greed. People become so drunk with the power associated with money that they do anything to get more - including intentionally leading the people doing most of the real work into destroying their future. Without the government regulations in place, these corporate thiefs would have gotten away with their actions.

The bottom line? Capitalism is neither inherently perfect, nor inherently evil. Its benefits and consequences depend on which iteration of capitalism is being discussed.


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

mr_economy said:


> The author fails to make a key distinction between the laissez-faire capitalism envisioned by the likes of Adam Smith, and the present system of regulated capitalism.
> 
> Put quite simply, laissez-faire does not work. It does not work for precisely the same reason that socialism does not work - people are simply too greedy. Just as we forget the improvements capitalism has brought, so too do we easily overlook its sometimes-catastrophic results. The Great Depression, though not caused solely by one failure over another, was certainly fueled by a system of nonexistant regulations.
> 
> ...


Of course it is not perfect. Nothing human is.

Also, I don't think perfection is possible. There will always be winners and losers in life.

At least capitalism provides a pretty broad chance to most.


----------



## mr_economy (May 13, 2006)

JRR said:


> Of course it is not perfect. Nothing human is.
> 
> Also, I don't think perfection is possible. There will always be winners and losers in life.
> 
> At least capitalism provides a pretty broad chance to most.


Yet again this depends on which variation of capitlism we are discussing. I would argue laissez-faire capitalism is just as dangerous as socialism, while regulated capitalism is easily the world's most effective economic system.

I will grant, however, that the American implementation of capitalism has done a decent job. I still wish there were more class mobility, but we must remember that capitalism collapses without a strong lower class, so the system cannot become too sympathetic.


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

mr_economy said:


> Yet again this depends on which variation of capitlism we are discussing. I would argue laissez-faire capitalism is just as dangerous as socialism, while regulated capitalism is easily the world's most effective economic system.
> 
> I will grant, however, that the American implementation of capitalism has done a decent job. I still wish there were more class mobility, but we must remember that capitalism collapses without a strong lower class, so the system cannot become too sympathetic.


There is pretty good mobility for the educated and the flexible. As an econ student, if you play your cards right, you should be able to move up to a comfortable station.

Can't worry too much about people who wish we had the economy we had fifty years ago where all you needed was a strong back to earn a middle income.


----------



## mr_economy (May 13, 2006)

The key is "educated". Our education system itself is just as stratified by economic class. The wealthy kids live in areas with good schools and poor kids live in areas with poor kids - there are exceptions, of course, but those are few and far between.

99.9% of my issues with American capitalism would evaporate if public primary and secondary schools were made more equal. IMO, this is also the solution to affirmative action. If everyone is given a (somewhat) equal primary education, then the need to automatically privilege certain groups over others evaporates.

Unfortunately we as a nation seem to love top-down solutions and band-aid type fixes - treating the symptoms rather than the problem - so this does not look to change anytime soon.


----------



## pendennis (Oct 6, 2005)

mr_economy said:


> The key is "educated". Our education system itself is just as stratified by economic class. The wealthy kids live in areas with good schools and poor kids live in areas with poor kids - there are exceptions, of course, but those are few and far between.
> 
> 99.9% of my issues with American capitalism would evaporate if public primary and secondary schools were made more equal. IMO, this is also the solution to affirmative action. If everyone is given a (somewhat) equal primary education, then the need to automatically privilege certain groups over others evaporates.
> 
> Unfortunately we as a nation seem to love top-down solutions and band-aid type fixes - treating the symptoms rather than the problem - so this does not look to change anytime soon.


The key to your argument is "public". As long as there are public schools, dominated by teachers' unions, they will never compete with private schools. The key to education is the same as for the rest of the economy; competition for private money will improve the education system immeasurably. Most private schools educate children far better, and for less money per pupil than public schools.

As the axiom goes - Money talks and B.S. walks.


----------



## Lord Foppington (Feb 1, 2005)

JRR said:


> There is pretty good mobility for the educated and the flexible. As an econ student, if you play your cards right, you should be able to move up to a comfortable station.
> 
> Can't worry too much about people who wish we had the economy we had fifty years ago where all you needed was a strong back to earn a middle income.


Erm. Well not everybody can be, or desires to be, an "econ student."

There are lots of occupations our society absolutely requires, such as policemen, teachers, nurses, firemen, soldiers, guys who deliver furniture, farmers, social workers, museum curators, ditch diggers, and so on, who can't expect to make a killing in a capitalist marketplace.

I think government programs, among other things, should help insure these people can have decent places to live, decent health care, decent education, etc., for themselves and their children.

We need, and certainly entrepreneurs need, all such people to be successful, to have what could be called successful lives, i.e. middle-class ones. Entrepreneurs (at least these days) need literate, relatively healthy people to employ, and need to conduct business in offices with furniture, offices that aren't perpetually being burglarized or burning down.

But if we make it the case that the only occupations that can fund a decent standard of living are business- or high-end service-sector oriented, then only an absolute idiot would decide to become a cop or a social worker or a fireman or a teacher.

And who wants a bunch of idiot cops, social workers, firemen, and teachers walking around?


----------



## mr_economy (May 13, 2006)

pendennis said:


> The key to your argument is "public". As long as there are public schools, dominated by teachers' unions, they will never compete with private schools. The key to education is the same as for the rest of the economy; competition for private money will improve the education system immeasurably. Most private schools educate children far better, and for less money per pupil than public schools.
> 
> As the axiom goes - Money talks and B.S. walks.


That leads to nothing more than an exponential increase in the gap between rich and poor - or at the very least changes nothing from the status quo. The rich will go to rich private schools, and the poor to poor private schools, if at all.

Primary education, at least, ought not be infused with economics. We have lost touch with the entire purpose of education as a form of enlightenment a la Socrates and Plato - it is fast becoming little more than a factory to mold workers for production. We live in a society that canonizes the rich and powerful - athletes, entrepreneurs, etc. - and punishes the thinkers - the philosophers, the theorists, the teachers. This is a tragedy, and one whose primary cause is capitalism.

If capitalism were truly a system where the hard workers are rewarded and the lazy ones punished, it would be an entirely different situation. But the way it works in reality is far, far different - and that means a change in thinking is required.

Put differently, I cannot think of a single leading world country with a privatized education system.


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

Lord Foppington said:


> Erm. Well not everybody can be, or desires to be, an "econ student."
> 
> There are lots of occupations our society absolutely requires, such as policemen, teachers, nurses, firemen, soldiers, guys who deliver furniture, farmers, social workers, museum curators, ditch diggers, and so on, who can't expect to make a killing in a capitalist marketplace.
> 
> ...


Lord Fopp,

Didn't say that the government should let people starve to death. Was merely trying to get the point across to mr. econ that one who is in college earning a solid degree shouldn't waste time and energy being greatly concerned that one cannot earn a middle income working in a steel mill or auto factory as a person could in the 50s.

Your points about civil service employees are misguided. Most of them make fairly good money. Just ask my neighbors. The funny thing is, they make more than my wife and me, and we both work in the private sector.
Their situation with a solid salary, combined with not having to pay into the grand Ponzi scheme that is Social Security and union job security, makes me think that I am an idiot for choosing not to go into teaching. Some days I wonder....

I just don't understand why it is BAD to look out for one's own interests. I understand why teachers etc vote to support unions, big govt etc. It is in their best economic interest to do so. So why is it wrong to look out for my interests and allow me to take home more money? I don't need government handouts, just let me keep my earnings.

The Kumbaya guilt tripping of the mushy left is getting very old.

Cheers


----------



## whnay. (Dec 30, 2004)

Enron was a case of fraud not faulty regulation or government oversight. Greed exists within any system, its a part of the human condition.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

*A couple of thoughts*

First, as we all know, capitalism is based on supply and demand. Whoever said above that capitalism requires a certain amount of low income earners is quite correct. But then again, all other systems require that also, the key difference being that under capitalism, one can rise out of low income. Given this, it would be ludicrous to accept that something with a huge supply and moderate to low demand would earn a large, or even more than average, salary.

So there is no reason to expect a social worker would command a better than average salary. I am not picking on them, but I am here to tell you that the majority of social work positions can be filled by individuals without social work degrees and it is only legislation causing licensed social workers to keep jobs. For instance, OBRA laws require a social worker in a skilled nursing facility, _only if the facility has 120 beds or more_. So how many skilled nursing homes do you think a) come in just under 120 beds and those that do b) do not employ a licensed social worker? This is merely an example of supply and demand laws, with artificial barriers to entry to the market.

Another thought: nurses were mentioned above. An 18 month diploma course can make you an RN. RNs easily make $30/hour in my area, one with a relatively low cost of living. Over 60k, before overtime, most are OT hogs. Not a ROI if you ask me. PTs, OTs, and SLPs can make 80-90k no problem.

Teachers: should be paid far more. Why such low wages? I have seen much to indicate standards are low as to who can obtain an education degree and it seems many times incentives are not given to outstanding teachers. Make entry pay 100k but raise the levels, both incoming standards and performance levels on the job.

Funding k-12 education: Make State tax pools. Come on people, it does not take a brain surgeon to know if you mainly fund schools through property taxes, ghettos will have poorer schools than wealthy areas. Education is an investment, let us cast our nets wide.

Just some thoughts, have to run.

Warmest regards


----------



## mr_economy (May 13, 2006)

whnay. said:


> Enron was a case of fraud not faulty regulation or government oversight. Greed exists within any system, its a part of the human condition.


And yet in a laissez-faire system the actions of Enron's executives would go unpunished - a simple consequence of the beauty that is capitalism. Prior to FDR's New Deal, that is precisely what would have happened.


----------



## mr_economy (May 13, 2006)

JRR said:


> So why is it wrong to look out for my interests and allow me to take home more money? I don't need government handouts, just let me keep my earnings.


Why? Because in a civilized society everyone ought to have the _opportunity_ at proper healthcare and a roof over their heads before you have a shot at that new Mercedes.

There is nothing wrong with a class system, but when there are people still starving to death in the most developed nation in history while people throw down millions to have diamonds installed on their teeth, that to me indicates a bit of a problem.


----------



## whnay. (Dec 30, 2004)

mr_economy said:


> And yet in a laissez-faire system the actions of Enron's executives would go unpunished - a simple consequence of the beauty that is capitalism. Prior to FDR's New Deal, that is precisely what would have happened.


How exactly do you come to that conclusion?


----------



## whnay. (Dec 30, 2004)

mr_economy said:


> Why? Because in a civilized society everyone ought to have the _opportunity_ at proper healthcare and a roof over their heads before you have a shot at that new Mercedes.


How does opportunity translate to handout?


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

mr_economy said:


> Why? Because in a civilized society everyone ought to have the _opportunity_ at proper healthcare and a roof over their heads before you have a shot at that new Mercedes.
> 
> There is nothing wrong with a class system, but when there are people still starving to death in the most developed nation in history while people throw down millions to have diamonds installed on their teeth, that to me indicates a bit of a problem.


Ohh to be 19 again, without the constraints of the mortgage, student loan payments, car payments (though not a Mercedes LOL, that will be distant day if ever), food, clothing, taxes, social security extortion etc...

Let me know how you think about "opportunity" (handouts) for the underpriviledged once you settle down and become a boring adult like me.

Cheers


----------



## mr_economy (May 13, 2006)

whnay. said:


> How exactly do you come to that conclusion?


If for no other reason, the establishment of the FTC did not occur until the New Deal. Beyond that, it simply goes against the idea of a hands-off policy to impliment safeguards of any kind - after all, the market is said to be self-correcting. This does not, however, apply to any capitalism derivative other than laissez-faire.



> How does opportunity translate to handout?


It does not need to, nor have I implied it does. I simply believe that all human beings ought to be given an equal chance at succeeding, and that means equal access to essential means toward this end like healthcare and education. In my opinion, with the exception of those who are simply unable to care for themselves (the mentally ill, for instance), society's responsibility for an individual's welfare extends only to providing this equal access.

If the condition of equal access to proper education is met, then I think people ought to be on their own from that point on.


----------



## mr_economy (May 13, 2006)

JRR said:


> Ohh to be 19 again, without the constraints of the mortgage, student loan payments, car payments (though not a Mercedes LOL, that will be distant day if ever), food, clothing, taxes, social security extortion etc...
> 
> Let me know how you think about "opportunity" (handouts) for the underpriviledged once you settle down and become a boring adult like me.
> 
> Cheers


Speaking of student loans, thanks to this wonderful administration's war on college students everywhere, the interest rates on my student loans will jump by about 2% this year. I think it's amazing that even with a college fund and $20,000 in scholarships, I'll be more than $10,000 in debt before the end of my junior year of college - and that's at one of the more affordable schools in the midwest.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

*Maybe I am just thankful...*

I walked out of grad school with a 50k loan. I was HAPPY to have that loan. It showed me how much society was willing to invest in my potential. Just because I could not pay 30k in tution and books alone every year, I did not miss my potential for growth. That 50k loan is the best investment I could ever make in myself.

Equal access to things? So does the guy living in BFE Alaska need "equal access" to health care as the person living five minutes from the Mayo Clinic? There's a good question for you to answer.

You seem to have some good thoughts Mr. Economy. Some, not all 

Warmest regards


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

pendennis said:


> The key to your argument is "public". As long as there are public schools, dominated by teachers' unions, they will never compete with private schools. The key to education is the same as for the rest of the economy; competition for private money will improve the education system immeasurably. Most private schools educate children far better, and for less money per pupil than public schools.
> 
> As the axiom goes - Money talks and B.S. walks.


I don't really get the logic behind this argument. Rich people drive Mercedes and BMW, poor people drive Hyundai and Kia; rich people go to the best doctor in the city, poor people go to a doctor with an overcrowded waiting room where it takes hours to see a doctor who just got his medical degree last year; rich people hire powerful law firms with the best lawyers in the country, poor people hire the guy down the street.

If all schools were private schools, why would this be any different? If a poor family can afford a crappy 2 bedroom apartment on the outskirts of a town with a good public school, their kid can get a better education than they would ever be able to afford on their own. For example, my family lived in "the flood zone" of an otherwise upper middle class town where the cost of a house was about 1/3 of the cost of houses in the rest of town, but I got to go to a pretty good public school. My family would have never been able to afford a private school that was anywhere near equal to the public school I went to. In fact, before public schools were made mandatory, most poor people did not even send their children to school.

It is because of the availability of public education that there is so much mobility in our society. It is because the poor were torn out of ignorance that they have been able to shed their poverty and advance their position in society. I'm almost as libertarian as they come, but if there is one area where government involvement has been beneficial to society - it is in the area of public education.


----------



## Badrabbit (Nov 18, 2004)

Government should stay out of the education business and the healthcare business. These are the two areas where they can cause the most harm.

Schools should never be run by the federal government. The reason American public schools perform so badly is that all state run schools do is teach our children to be good little sheep, so that when they get older and their government begins to fleece them, they won't revolt. The US government currently spends $7500 per year per student in our public schools and they still have some of the poorest in the western world. The bureaucracy of government eats up 60% of this money before it even gets to the schools (I am looking for my source on these numbers as I am sure someone will ask me for them so give me a minute) When tuitions are paid privately or at least handled at a somewhat local level, more of the money can actually go to teaching children.

Secondly, in a country as diverse as the US, there is no way that an educational program can be designed that will be appropriate for all the communities. This is why it was originally done privately or at least by the states. Government school programs don't teach people to critically think; they teach them to memorize and follow blindly. The way the US government has directed schools is Orwellian in design and scope. They have almost eliminated academics from our schools in lieu of "job training" as early as 6th grade. Surely, all the people who go to these schools without academics will end up living the delta life that the government has planned for them.

Health care is the worst of all things for government to be involved in. Every country that has enacted socialized medicine has seen a dramtic decrease in the quality of medicine. Bureaucrats make medical decisions about appropriate treatments when they have absolutely no medical training. Doctors are tied down and not allowed to use the proper treatments because medicare says they aren't cost effective. When medicine is free to everyone, the system gets bogged down. Everytime someone gets a cold they go to the doctor. People who really need treatment have to wait. Cancer deaths go up because noone can get treated. My friend who is an oncologist in upstate New York says that since Canada has socialized their health care, he treats 10 to 15 Canadians a month. As opposed to the one or two a year he treated in years before the socialization measures.

Leonard Peikoff gave an interesting scenario of the dangers of government bureaucracy being involved in healthcare.

*In medicine, above all, the mind must be left free. Medical treatment involves countless variables and options that must be taken into account, weighed, and summed up by the doctor's mind and subconscious. Your life depends on the private, inner essence of the doctor's function: it depends on the input that enters his brain, and on the processing such input receives from him. What is being thrust now into the equation? It is not only objective medical facts any longer. Today, in one form or another, the following also has to enter that brain: 'The DRG administrator [in effect, the hospital or HMO man trying to control costs] will raise hell if I operate, but the malpractice attorney will have a field day if I don't -- and my rival down the street, who heads the local PRO [Peer Review Organization], favors a CAT scan in these cases, I can't afford to antagonize him, but the CON boys disagree and they won't authorize a CAT scanner for our hospital -- and besides the FDA prohibits the drug I should be prescribing, even though it is widely used in Europe, and the IRS might not allow the patient a tax deduction for it, anyhow, and I can't get a specialist's advice because the latest Medicare rules prohibit a consultation with this diagnosis, and maybe I shouldn't even take this patient, he's so sick -- after all, some doctors are manipulating their slate of patients, they accept only the healthiest ones, so their average costs are coming in lower than mine, and it looks bad for my staff privileges.' Would you like your case to be treated this way -- by a doctor who takes into account your objective medical needs *and* the contradictory, unintelligible demands of some ninety different state and Federal government agencies? If you were a doctor could you comply with all of it? Could you plan or work around or deal with the unknowable? But how could you not? Those agencies are real and they are rapidly gaining total power over you and your mind and your patients. In this kind of nightmare world, if and when it takes hold fully, thought is helpless; no one can decide by rational means what to do. A doctor either obeys the loudest authority -- *or* he tries to sneak by unnoticed, bootlegging some good health care occasionally *or,* as so many are doing now, he simply gives up and quits the field."*


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

I'd be interested to learn what you guys that think we should have no public schools would do to replace them and how this would benefit the poor and lower middle classes.

And all this crap about public school only teaching "job training" and not "academics," what's that all about? My public school taught academics. We read Tom Sawyer just like everyone else. In poor inner city areas where they have vocational public schools, they do it because jobs pay the bills, Tom Sawyer doesn't.

I have a nagging feeling that you guys have never been poor and therefore do not know what poor people experience. In fact, I have a feeling that you think so lowly about public schools because you have to contribute paying for them even though your kids don't go there. What you are overlooking is that because those kids are in their public school during the day, they are not at your house robbing you while you are at work.

There is no doubt in my mind that if there were no public schools, the vast majority of poor and lower middle class families would not send their children to school at all and American society would quickly decline.

And one final point, I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of public schools are run by state and local governments, not the federal government.


----------



## Badrabbit (Nov 18, 2004)

odoreater said:


> And one final point, I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of public schools are run by state and local governments, not the federal government.


The government still maintains that it is run locally and left in the control of the states but they threaten to withhold federal funding if the objectives set out in the federal plans are not met. There are a bunch of federally mandated objectives disguised so that the average person does not realize that it has taken all the choices in curriculum away from the states.

When the US government originally got involved in our education, it was a direct result of several American leaders (Horace Mann of Mass., Calvin Stowe of Ohio, Barnas Sears of Conn) visiting Prussian schools in the early 19th century. This is John Taylor Gatto's (Teacher of the year for NY state and NYC) take on the results:

*So at the behest of Horace Mann and other leading citizens, without any national debate or discussio, we adopted Prussian schooling or rather most had it imposed on them... The schoolhouses of the day, highly efficient as academic transmitters, breeders of self reliance and independence, intimately related to their communities,...had to be put to death.

Prussian policy makers had learned by experimentation that it was easier to apply behavior-shaping techniques to children who knew very little and were modestly literate than to train children who had been trained early in thinking techniques. Froebel's "kindergarten" with its early removal of the child's parents and culture from the scene and its replacement of serious learning with songs, games, pictures and organized group activities was remarkably effective in delivering compliant material to the state. *

Today, this early intervention has been taken to new extremes. Under the new Goals 2000 act passed in 1994, there is a statute which employs certified parent educators as part of an "early childhood education program for children BIRTH to 5 years old" to "ensure that parents do everything necessary to ensure school success." Those lines came directly from the bill. You don't think this reeks of government control over parenting.

As for your other assertions that without the government's involvement schools would fail and children would not attend, history does not bear that out. Before the introduction of government education Alexis de Toqueville visited the US and remarked that he knew "of no people who have established schools so numerous and efficacious" Similarly Pierre DuPont was amazed at the phenomenal literacy he found remarking that "fewer than 4 in one thousand could not read or do numbers well."


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

Yeah, and who established those schools? I'd rather have the government educating my kids than any church.

I don't think I've suffered at all because of my public school education, acadamically or otherwise. Quite the contrary actually.


----------



## Badrabbit (Nov 18, 2004)

odoreater said:


> Yeah, and who established those schools? I'd rather have the government educating my kids than any church.
> 
> I don't think I've suffered at all because of my public school education, acadamically or otherwise. Quite the contrary actually.


Actually in the US, most of the early schools were run by the local communities not the churchs.

So you've not suffered "acadamically", now that is interesting.

If you received a good public education, then you are one of the lucky ones. Latest estimates say that 13% of people who graduate from public schools are functionally illiterate. Of course there are some public schools where you can receive an excellent education. There are far more where you can receive no education at all.


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

Badrabbit said:


> Actually in the US, most of the early schools were run by the local communities not the churchs.
> 
> So you've not suffered "acadamically", now that is interesting.
> 
> If you received a good public education, then you are one of the lucky ones. Latest estimates say that 13% of people who graduate from public schools are functionally illiterate. Of course there are some public schools where you can receive an excellent education. There are far more where you can receive no education at all.


Oh give me a break, I wrote my post at like 4 in the morning. After graduating from my public high school, I went on to a private college where I graduated magna cum laude, and then on to a private law school, where I made law review and graduated in the top 25% of my class. I'd say I did pretty good "academically."

To argue that I'm "one of the lucky ones" to receive a good public education is just ridiculous. There's obviously a big difference in the quality of public schools depending on where you live (I know, because I've lived in both the inner city and in the suburbs). I'm from suburban New Jersey, where just about every town has a highly regarded public school. I'd love to see where the 13% that are allegedly functionally illeterate come from. I'm willing to bet that they mostly come from the inner city. But to say that less than a majority of people who go to public school get a good education is just ridiculous.

As for the early schools. Sure, they were run by local communities, but most local communities were based on religious affiliation. Can you cite anything to the contrary? I'll cite some stuff in support of my argument:

"The oldest independent or private school in the United States is Collegiate School located in New York City. 'It was founded in 1628 by the *Reformed Protestant Dutch Church* as a school for children of Dutch colonists.'"

"Founded more than 260 years ago, West Nottingham is an independent boarding and day school - the oldest boarding school in the nation...In 1744, a dynamic Irish Presbyterian preacher named Samuel Finley was called to take charge of the newly formed congregation on the lower branch of the Octoraro Creek...Finley held that to be an intelligent Christian one needed to use the mind God provided...Finley opened his school in 1744."

One of the most famous early American schools is the Roxbury Latin Grammer School, whose charter stated, "Whereas the Inhabitants of Roxburie, out of their relligious care of posteritie, have taken into consideration how necessarie the education of their children into literature will be to fitt them for publick service both in Churche and Common wealthe, in succeeding ages."

How about the first school started by William Penn in Pennsylvania? It was called Friends Public School and it was run by Quakers.

I could go on, but it would take forever.


----------



## Badrabbit (Nov 18, 2004)

You've listed a few examples of large well known schools that were run by religious organizations. That does not in any way speak to how many schools were run by communities. The majority of the schools of this country were small one room school houses and not the types of institutions you have listed here. Most of the early 19th century schools probably had no other name than perhaps "_____ville school" or the like. I am sure a great many of these had church influence but when communities were usually based on shared religious values you can not expect that it would be any other way. That said, modern communities are usually not based on religious affiliation so one would not expect that modern schools run at the community level would all be religious in nature. You would most likely find both parochial and secular schools in every community in the same way that you can now find both parochial and secular private schools in most areas of the country.

As for the "acadamically" comment, I realized that it was probably a typing error but it was too good to resist (kind of like if someone typed that they were an "excelent spelerr"). Unfortunately, I have yet to figure out how to do the wink smilie on the new forum. I did not mean to cause offense.


----------



## 16128 (Feb 8, 2005)

odoreater said:


> Yeah, and who established those schools? I'd rather have the government educating my kids than any church.


I wouldn't. Government schools can be just as ideological as any church-run school. A rigorous curriculum is what would be more important to me as a parent... I'd much rather send my kids to a challenging school run by Quakers than to a public school which warehouses people until they're old enough to legally stop attending at 16, which is why some schools seem to exist.

I agree that schools should be doing a better job, and having 13% of attendees emerge functionally illiterate is horrible, but at the same time, everyone now attends school, including students who have severe learning disabilities or very low IQs. Do they not factor into these stats in some way? Do we expect every student in America to be college material? This is not likely to ever occur.


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

Badrabbit said:


> You've listed a few examples of large well known schools that were run by religious organizations. That does not in any way speak to how many schools were run by communities. The majority of the schools of this country were small one room school houses and not the types of institutions you have listed here. Most of the early 19th century schools probably had no other name than perhaps "_____ville school" or the like.
> 
> As for the "acadamically" comment, I realized that it was probably a typing error but it was too good to resist (kind of like if someone typed that they were an "excelent spelerr"). Unfortunately, I have yet to figure out how to do the wink smilie on the new forum. I did not mean to cause offense.


I see what you are saying about the community schools, but what I'm saying is that most early communities were religious communities and the teachers were usually clergy.


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

VS said:


> I wouldn't. Government schools can be just as ideological as any church-run school. A rigorous curriculum is what would be more important to me as a parent... I'd much rather send my kids to a challenging school run by Quakers than to a public school which warehouses people until they're old enough to legally stop attending at 16, which is why some schools seem to exist.
> 
> I agree that schools should be doing a better job, and having 13% of attendees emerge functionally illiterate is horrible, but at the same time, everyone now attends school, including students who have severe learning disabilities or very low IQs. Do they not factor into these stats in some way? Do we expect every student in America to be college material? This is not likely to ever occur.


Fair enough. But, it's unlikely that we will ever or can ever return to privately run schools in every community such as the one room schools that they had when the New World was discovered. The fact of the matter is that if we got rid of public schools most poor people, especially the ones that are going to those warehouse schools, will get absolutely no education, or no opportunity for an education ever. Even the top graduates from inner city schools can go on to college and a better life, but if there were no public schools, it's likely that those people in the inner city who actually want to learn would never have that opportunity.


----------



## Badrabbit (Nov 18, 2004)

odoreater said:


> Fair enough. But, it's unlikely that we will ever or can ever return to privately run schools in every community such as the one room schools that they had when the New World was discovered. The fact of the matter is that if we got rid of public schools most poor people, especially the ones that are going to those warehouse schools, will get absolutely no education, or no opportunity for an education ever. Even the top graduates from inner city schools can go on to college and a better life, but if there were no public schools, it's likely that those people in the inner city who actually want to learn would never have that opportunity.


This is not necessarily true. If the federal government were to release the tax burden associated with education and allow the states or municipalities to take back their schools systems, the local governments could increase their taxes and better their schools with less money taken from the individual tax payer. All of the money that is destroyed by the massive diseconomy of scale that is the Department of Education could be either used by the states or left in the hands of the individuals.

Do you realize how much money that is earmarked for education is eaten up in the bureaucracy and never even makes it to the state and local boards? What would happen if that money instead went directly to the states? Do you really believe that the schools would have less money or be less effective? Could they even be less effective than they are now? Perhaps where you live the schools are doing a decent job. In my area, many people who graduate from high school can neither spell nor read well and have trouble with anything more complex than simple addition.


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

Badrabbit said:


> This is not necessarily true. If the federal government were to release the tax burden associated with education and allow the states or municipalities to take back their schools systems, the local governments could increase their taxes and better their schools with less money taken from the individual tax payer. All of the money that is destroyed by the massive diseconomy of scale that is the Department of Education could be either used by the states or left in the hands of the individuals.
> 
> Do you realize how much money that is earmarked for education is eaten up in the bureaucracy and never even makes it to the state and local boards? What would happen if that money instead went directly to the states? Do you really believe that the schools would have less money or be less effective? Could they even be less effective than they are now? Perhaps where you live the schools are doing a decent job. In my area, many people who graduate from high school can neither spell nor read well and have trouble with anything more complex than simple addition.


If you are saying that local schools should be run exclusively by state and local governments with no federal involvement then I agree with you 100%. If you are saying that there should be no public schools and all schools should be privately run then I disagree.


----------



## Badrabbit (Nov 18, 2004)

odoreater said:


> If you are saying that local schools should be run exclusively by state and local governments with no federal involvement then I agree with you 100%. If you are saying that there should be no public schools and all schools should be privately run then I disagree.


In my initial post, I meant to make clear that I was referring to the Fed Govt. when I said government. I am not against privatization of all of them but I realize that this is unlikely. Therefore, I am wholeheartedly in favor of returning all power to the states or municipalities.

If the schools were handled on a local level and they were failing, people could move to other cities (I realize this is not feasible for all involved) and the municipalities would be forced to either improve their schools or lose their tax base. Moving elsewhere is not a viable option for people when schools are run by the feds. Not many people can afford to move out of the country.


----------



## Badrabbit (Nov 18, 2004)

If you are really interested in this topic, I would suggest reading Charlotte Twight's book "Dependent on D.C." It is a scary account of the government's move on education, healthcare etc... Her endnotes nearly all lead to congressional record so it's hard to make the usual claims that detractors use against authors. She uses no sources that I would consider biased or even questionable (although she does quote Alexis de Toqueville quite a bit).


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

Badrabbit said:


> If you are really interested in this topic, I would suggest reading Charlotte Twight's book "Dependent on D.C." It is a scary account of the government's move on education, healthcare etc... Her endnotes nearly all lead to congressional record so it's hard to make the usual claims that detractors use against authors. She uses no sources that I would consider biased or even questionable (although she does quote Alexis de Toqueville quite a bit).


Thanks for the tip, I'll have to check that out. It's really pretty frightening how much power the federal government is grabbing in all kinds of areas that it was never intended for them to be involved in, something has to give some day.

Back to the topic at hand, while I think that regulation is inescapable in our economy today, which even includes industries that are termed "heavily regulated industries" (public transportation, broadcasting, etc.) I think that generally the less government is involved and the more market forces are allowed to prevail, the better. I think of the government's role as rubber bumpers on the side of a wide river. A boat should be permitted to take its own course going down the river and should be allowed to move side to side and slower and faster as conditions require, but if the boat ever makes it to far to the edge of the river where it is in danger of crashing, the rubber bumpers are there to bump it back on course.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

*I would submit...*

Gentlemen:

I would submit two distinct points.

First, the positive externalities of having an educated population within a Representative Democracy are so vast that K-12 education is a public good and is perfectly acceptable to be funded through tax dollars. (Where those dollars come from is a seperate issue so let's not cloud the first issue.)

Second, the question of "Is the public education system providing an educated populace" is a very pressing issue, but is divorced from the first point.

I would say #1 is a given (although many will argue) and #2 is valid and needs fixing.

Warmest regards


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

Competition is a good motivator for the not-so-bright. Keeping the lower orders fighting each other over crumbs makes the ruling classes smile.

And the purpose of the thread is to celebrate this?


----------



## tiger02 (Dec 12, 2004)

JLPWCXIII said:


> Competition is a good motivator for the not-so-bright. Keeping the lower orders fighting each other over crumbs makes the ruling classes smile.
> 
> And the purpose of the thread is to celebrate this?


Bill Gates: not-so-bright. Not real clear on our history here now are we hmmmm?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

*Is that how....*



JLPWCXIII said:


> Competition is a good motivator for the not-so-bright. Keeping the lower orders fighting each other over crumbs makes the ruling classes smile.


Is that how you afford your sartorial elegance? They get crumbs and you get bespoke?

Warmest regards


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Is that how you afford your sartorial elegance? They get crumbs and you get bespoke?
> 
> Warmest regards


Wayfarer,

Philip claims to the person in the following link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:LordDextershire

If true, helps explain why he has trouble with us commoners.

Cheers


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

JLPWCXIII said:


> Competition is a good motivator for the not-so-bright. Keeping the lower orders fighting each other over crumbs makes the ruling classes smile.
> 
> And the purpose of the thread is to celebrate this?


Philip,

As a member of the middle class fighting for my crumb, I hope someday to accumulate enough to allow my future generations to be in your position. If you truly are nobility, you will understand.

Cheers


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

*Makes sense...*



JRR said:


> Wayfarer,
> 
> Philip claims to the person in the following link:
> 
> ...


If that is true, it certainly explains much about his posts. Only young people from multi-generational wealth have such contempt for those that must scrabble for a living.

Warmest regards


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

tiger02 said:


> Bill Gates: not-so-bright. Not real clear on our history here now are we hmmmm?


You don't have a good grasp of logical inference, do you?


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> If that is true, it certainly explains much about his posts. Only young people from multi-generational wealth have such contempt for those that must scrabble for a living.
> 
> Warmest regards


You (intentionally?) misinterpret my sentiments. We are posting on a thread on which is seriously proposed the abolition of any cooperative public projects and institutions, such as public education and public health programmes. It is not the rich who would suffer the most from such a regression in social policy. Are you completely unaware of your own interests?


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

JRR said:


> Wayfarer,
> 
> Philip claims to the person in the following link:
> 
> ...


 Good old fashioned _ad hominem_...are you aspiring to follow in the spirit of the late American Senator Joseph McCarthy? Perhaps you would enjoy your personal information being introduced into arguments you make, but I do not. Have you no self-respect, no honour?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

*You need to re-read the thread...*



JLPWCXIII said:


> You (intentionally?) misinterpret my sentiments. We are posting on a thread on which is seriously proposed the abolition of any cooperative public projects and institutions, such as public education and public health programmes. It is not the rich who would suffer the most from such a regression in social policy. Are you completely unaware of your own interests?


First, you need to scroll up. You'll see I argue for the case that public education is warranted. Second, my own interests? Are you basically inferring I am poor? I suppose I am compared to hereditary royalty. However, please be assured I do not qualify for any alms or largesse from the public coffers, in fact I consider myself a healthy depositor in said coffers.

Warmest Upper Middle Class Regards


----------



## tiger02 (Dec 12, 2004)

JLPWCXIII said:


> You don't have a good grasp of logical inference, do you?


Actually, I didn't think your post deserved the intellectual rigor.


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

JLPWCXIII said:


> Good old fashioned _ad hominem_...are you aspiring to follow in the spirit of the late American Senator Joseph McCarthy? Perhaps you would enjoy your personal information being introduced into arguments you make, but I do not. Have you no self-respect, no honour?


Philip,

Grow up. Nobody lives in a vacuum. Who you are shapes your worldview.

Wasn't trying to attack you. Just trying to understand you.

If you don't want your personal information found out, don't post your real name and background on the profile. I merely googled it.

Anyway, your accusations of McCarthyism are peculiar. I don't see the similarity of accusing someone of being a communist with pointing out that a nobleman may have a disconnect with a commoner.

I am sure you are able to explain.

Cheers


----------

