Why are we all becoming socialists now?

benway

It's not even that I don't agree with you, it's more that I can't find anything of any substance to engage with in your posts.

Would you at least stop double posting? There is an edit button, you know.

af_thefragile

KyussBishop wrote: »

The money to pay our countries debts has to come from somewhere; currently our debt repayments are barely sustainable (if at all).

The primary ready source of money in the short term is through taxation, as unfair as that is and as destructive that is in the long term; as I said in a previous post, it's all about today (short term) rather than tomorrow (the future health of our economy).

That leads to the discussion of whether or not we are better off leaving the EU and defaulting, rather than going through with current austerity measures; whatever we do though, the pain of our debts will need to be doled out, and (I assume) will require increased taxes no matter what.

I guess Ireland is in a pretty **** situation here because a large portion of the revenue generated here ends up going to mainland Europe and one needs to wonder if the current debt can ever be repayed. And I don't think it can be under the certain system. Large multi-state economies with powerful central governments never really work. The EU is but a large country made up of small states governed from Brussels. It could be better off for Ireland to leave EU, take the hit and then rebuild the economy by looking to attract foreign investors and corporations.

I don't disagree that private education is likely of better quality than public, but the importance of public is for equal opportunity particularly for those that can't afford private education; it is also a critical societal infrastructure and directly affects our future economy, which adds to the reasons I think there needs to be a public service there.

Same arguments apply to university education; it needs to be free or low cost enough to provide equal opportunity for all. The situation in the US there is abysmal, as students are in debt through paying for college, and can not find work, so there is (if I recall correctly) a large market bubble there with debts that can't be repaid.
That kind of a situation, necessitating often serious debt in order to make your way through college, is a big deal and is unacceptable really, and it will hurt the poorest and disadvantaged the most.

Equal opportunity is again a bit of a myth. Sending the children to the same school and university as everyone else doesn't mean all the kids are getting to start off from the same starting line. There's a lot more such as social conditions, parental upbringing and responsibility that affects where the child ends up.

Again I don't say poor people shouldn't be allowed to go to school if they can't afford it. I'm not a total right wing social darwinist. I do believe there should be government grants available for people who cannot pay the school fees for their kids. But the large majority of the people (who are not living off scraps) can save up enough to pay for the education of their kids and if they do believe good education is the first step towards a successful future for their kids then they ought to save up enough money to be able to make sure their children get the best possible education they can afford even if it means they need to give up some of the luxuries from their lives.

Similarly for universities, the kids need to be more wise in choosing the right career paths for them which they will when they're paying large sums of money for their education. Getting an arts degree might not secure the person a job if they're not good enough at what they do. American universities are considered some of the best in the world and they are at the forefront of many technological innovations and achievements. Many times you get what you're paying for. And once again I don't say students who are too poor to pay for university shouldn't end up in universities. Most universities offer scholarships and if not again there should be a government welfare system to offer grants to students who cannot afford to pay the fees or get the loans.

I'm not against a social welfare system. What I'm suggesting here is the government needs to let go of the education system at least and allow it to be run privately. This way the government's resources are less stressed and it can make better use of the revenue it generates from its taxes. Also by allowing people to pay for their education, the government will limit the welfare grants to only those who are the most in need of it.

That is conflating two things there; "nanny state" stuff, such as censorship and an overarching police force, are a much more extreme variation of state intervention than having a social safety net. The former of which harms people, and the latter of which protects people in need.

Plus, you (intentionally or not) imply there that people who require social welfare are "incompetant idiots" that "screw up"; in the current economic crisis, where there are not enough jobs and people can not avoid being out of work, this is obviously not the case and I'm sure many would find that offensive (whether intended that way or not).

That was more aimed towards the bankers who got bailed out by the current system. In a free market capitalist economy that wouldn't happen. The banks would be allowed to collapse and dissolve. The bankers would be then tried and persecuted for fraud and even if they're not guilty enough to be imprisoned, they wouldn't continue to be living in luxuries even after their incompetence.

Again, the system should be about promoting personal responsibility, not about letting the state to dictate what one should and should not do. People need to be able to make the effort to figure out for themselves what good and bad for them (its not as difficult as it sounds).

The current economic crisis is the result of government meddling with the market. If the banks would simply be allowed to collapse, we wouldn't be in such a dire state. Sure there would be many people who would have had basically become bankrupt but its easier to deal with the few who have become bankrupt than the whole country to bear the burden of those who messed it up!

Back to the present situation, as I mentioned Ireland is in a pretty **** state with businesses closing down and people being made redundant and being forced to go on social welfare which entirely has nothing to do with them being incompetent or not, its just them being unlucky. But my point is all of this is the rest of the government meddling with the market. It could have been avoided if the government allowed the banks to collapse instead of bailing them out! And now increasing taxes and taxing everything is just hurting the economy further. What Ireland needs is more foreign investment and corporations to help create the jobs that are necessary to get the country out of this mess.

Eh, that's anecdotal and specious; try doing any of that on a regular basis with your income restricted to that of weekly dole payments. Again, I would say the majority of dole recipients would find that offensive, particularly those who are having a hard time of it.

As I mentioned previously, the majority of the population CAN afford to pay for schooling of their children and also pay for health insurance and university education if they only decide to give up some of the luxuries in their lives. This frees up money in the government so they can work towards helping those who are really in need. You can pay for a computer, internet, TV, car, partys, holidays etc. why can't you pay for health and education? You just need to be willing to give up some luxuries to afford the things that are necessary to life.

It is fallacious to presume that if a person is competent and acts wisely with his monetary, educational and career choices, that he is not at risk of falling victim to unforeseen circumstances (out of his control, through no fault of his own), and ending up broke and on the streets. It is even more fallacious to presume that everyone has equal opportunity in these regards, especially when you look at people growing up under privileged circumstances (e.g. a rich family; not to say there's anything wrong with that).

No, nothing can prepare you in life. But life is about taking risks. There's no guarantee that tomorrow when you walk out of the house or when you're driving along in your care you're not going to get involved in an accident which could possibly end your life. Yet you take the acceptable risk and get in your car to go to work everyday and almost every time you get to your work and back safely.

Its the same with life. Just because something could happen which could leave you on the streets doesn't mean you need to have a 100% fail-proof guarantee for everything you do. You need to take the acceptable risk and then hope it works out for you. And just like almost every time you get in your car, you arrive to your destination safely even when there is that risk that you could end up in a horrible crash which might not be your fault at all and end up even dead, it doesn't stop you from doing what you need to do! We don't ask for cars to be 100% crash-proof before we decide to get in one and go for a drive.

Also there is inequality in the world. Its a fact of life. Some people are born rich and some are born poor. Nothing can change that. Only thing that changes is the willingness of a person to change the situation they are in. Many people who were born in absolutely deprived conditions are now millionaires. How did that happen?
Many people are very content and happy in living what one might call a poor household. While many rich people are leading troubled lives with depression and drug addiction. Doesn't mean if you're born rich you're guaranteed to live in happiness and prosperity for the rest of your life while if you're born in a poor household, you will end up suffering for the rest of your life.

Do you seriously propose there be no social safety net? That people who are victim of unforeseen circumstances, beyond their control, deserve that and shouldn't be given any assistance? That is quite an extreme point of view.

Again I'm not a social darwinist. There should be a welfare system but it should be for only those who really need and deserve it. It shouldn't be for banks and corporations who screw up and then ask the government to bail them out. Also the dole shouldn't be an alternative to working hard in school/university and getting a job.

Also, what kind of regulation do you propose for banks? Should they be totally unregulated, to the point that they can take their customers money and use it for high-risk ventures, potentially losing their customers money?
Would this really be the fault of the customer for not being careful, as you imply? Is it the customers fault when the banks monetary/investment process is so opaque that they can not inform themselves on how their money is being used? (and when the entire banking market is like that)

In a free market capitalist economy, the governments does not interfere with the market. If a bank or corporation commits fraud or exploitation, it will be tried and persecuted. Most of the high risk ventures that the banks end up losing money in are comparable to committing fraud.

To prevent this there needs to be a change in the whole economic and banking system as well. The current banking system will never work because it works by exploiting the people it gives out loans to.

And it goes back to taking acceptable risks vs taking stupid risks. In a free market where there is no government intervention and safety net, the banks and corporations need to be aware that if they screw up or commit fraud/explotation then they will not be saved by the government and instead will be prosecuted for it. And the people need to be aware too that if something sounds too good to be true, it possibly is too good to be true!

Going back to my car metaphor, when you're buying a second hand car, would you just pick the cheapest/"best deal" car you find for sale on the internet and go buy it without doing some homework about the model of the car, its reliability, running costs and then giving it a thorough inspection and taking it for a test drive? What would you call someone who goes to a car dealer and buys the car the dealer tells him is the best deal without even inspecting the car and taking it for a test drive? When the person realises he bought a lemon, would you say it was completely the dealer's fault for giving him wrong info about the car and then would you get the government to pay both the dealer and the buyer for selling and buying the wrong car?! See how ridiculous it sounds. But that's exactly what the government has done in this case.

Eh, in all the situations you mention there, the rich families kids have the head start? I'm not saying it is wrong that they do or anything, but it does underscore the need for free public services such as education/health, in order to provide equal opportunity for the less well off.

A rich families kids will (generally) have the opportunity of privileged education, health services, job prospects, monetary security and more; if they waste that, then that's one thing, but they still started off privileged.

As i mentioned earlier there's no such thing as equal opportunity. Some are rich, some are poor, that's the way the world is.

Again, specious; try restricting the amount of income you allow yourself to spend to that of the dole, and see how comfortable a living situation that provides.

Generally, only people with very low personal standards (not including people with genuine problems) want to fraudulently stay on the dole; if jobs are available to you, it is not hard to earn more than you would on the dole.

Again just because some people were unfortunate to end up unemployed and on the dole doesn't mean the whole population needs to suffer their misery.

I don't say there should be no social welfare but again it shouldn't be an alternative to not working hard in school and university and finding a good job. Social welfare should only be reserved for those very unfortunate who have no other alternative than to go on state benefits to survive.

If you screwed up in your past where you didn't do well in school or university, then well go back and do your leaving cert again and this time try to put in some effort to try and do well and get some qualification that can get them a good job.

Problem with Ireland is there are no jobs as a result of all that I've mentioned earlier and the whole point of this thread is to point out that what Ireland needs is more investment and corporations to set up more jobs and not just go down the socialist route of taking the wages from the ones who have jobs and giving it to the ones who don't!

gozunda

benway wrote: »

It's not even that I don't agree with you, it's more that I can't find anything of any substance to engage with in your posts.

Perhaps because I have managed to defend the points I made despite what has been thrown at them. Thats not a crime btw...

benway wrote: »

Would you at least stop double posting? There is an edit button, you know.

I have gone back and I dont see any DPs . I indeed know of the Edit button fyi - If you would be kind an indicate the posts number and I will attempt to undertake same...).

benway

gozunda wrote: »

Perhaps because I have managed to defend the points I made despite what has been thrown at them. Thats not a crime btw...

I have gone back and I dont see any DPs . I indeed know of the Edit button fyi - If you would be kind an indicate the posts number and I will attempt to undertake same...).

#270 and #271 for one example, there are quite a few more - it clutters up the thread, makes it hard to follow. Tbh, I don't know what point you're making, besides parroting that nonsense copypasta, which I have dealt with simply - if "socialism" has so many obvious flaws, why set up a hypothetical scenario designed specifically to prove your point? Why not point to a real world example?

af_thefragile wrote: »

Equal opportunity is again a bit of a myth. Sending the children to the same school and university as everyone else doesn't mean all the kids are getting to start off from the same starting line. There's a lot more such as social conditions, parental upbringing and responsibility that affects where the child ends up.

If equal opportunity is a myth, then personal responsibility cannot hold any weight as a justification for selfishness - if we don't all have equal opportunities, then it follows that your achievements aren't all down to your own aptitude and hard work. But equal opportunity, true meritocracy and ultimately meaningful personal responsibility is something to aspire to, wouldn't you agree?

This is the thing - I'm for personal responsibility, it's just that I don't think the concept is meaningful in today's world - given the disparity in opportunity, it only operates as an apology for the status quo.

af_thefragile wrote: »

Again I don't say poor people shouldn't be allowed to go to school if they can't afford it. I'm not a total right wing social darwinist. I do believe there should be government grants available for people who cannot pay the school fees for their kids. But the large majority of the people (who are not living off scraps) can save up enough to pay for the education of their kids and if they do believe good education is the first step towards a successful future for their kids then they ought to save up enough money to be able to make sure their children get the best possible education they can afford even if it means they need to give up some of the luxuries from their lives.

I'm finding it hard to believe that you're still pushing for-profit education. Clearly, education is one of the keys, probably THE key, to social mobility. Yet, you think it's ok that access be limited by financial clout? You can say whatever you like about grants, the fact is that that this will be a barrier to access for the less financially well-off. We need less barriers and more incentives for people from families who don't have a tradition of higher education, not more.

af_thefragile wrote: »

Getting an arts degree might not secure the person a job if they're not good enough at what they do. American universities are considered some of the best in the world and they are at the forefront of many technological innovations and achievements. Many times you get what you're paying for. And once again I don't say students who are too poor to pay for university shouldn't end up in universities. Most universities offer scholarships and if not again there should be a government welfare system to offer grants to students who cannot afford to pay the fees or get the loans.

American researchers get massive government subsidies through the military, which has facilitated many of the advances in high tech industries. The internet is a good example.

But yes, you would get what you pay for - no doubt infinite repeats would be highly profitable, and doesn't it make more sense to admit some donkey to a PhD programme if they have the money, rather than a genius who can't access the funds.

It's well and good saying that people can work to pay for these things, but that's going to negatively impact on their studies, this is a fact. Yet another glass ceiling.

This reminds me of a joke my father told me about the bad old days when the gentry could buy degrees for their children - "Yerrah, my solicitor must be the best in town. Didn't it take him 15 years doing his degree?"

I know plenty of people who qualified in that era, and I think it's indisputable that the standards were higher for people who went to college after fees were abolished.

af_thefragile wrote: »

Also by allowing people to pay for their education, the government will limit the welfare grants to only those who are the most in need of it.

This makes no sense to me - can't see how the conclusion follows from the premise.

Unless "allowing" people to pay for their education means "allowing the wealthy to buy their way in to professions".

af_thefragile wrote: »

The banks would be allowed to collapse and dissolve.

Which is fine, but how would you propose to deal with the social consequences of this without massive state intervention?

af_thefragile wrote: »

Again, the system should be about promoting personal responsibility, not about letting the state to dictate what one should and should not do. People need to be able to make the effort to figure out for themselves what good and bad for them (its not as difficult as it sounds).

You're talking about letting the market dictate instead. There wouldn't be much room for politics or philosophy graduates, but you can't deny that these trainings help people make meaningful contributions to the world, albeit ones that can't easily be quantified monetarily. These are the disciplines that would fall by the wayside, and I think this would be a profound loss to our societies.

af_thefragile wrote: »

The current economic crisis is the result of government meddling with the market.

Cognitive dissonance right here. The crisis is the result of the state stepping back and kow towing to the "magic of the markets" - free movement of capital, light touch regulation, etc. It's the markets that failed here, not the state. Because it's intrinsically flawed as a model.

af_thefragile wrote: »

Back to the present situation, as I mentioned Ireland is in a pretty **** state with businesses closing down and people being made redundant and being forced to go on social welfare which entirely has nothing to do with them being incompetent or not, its just them being unlucky.

Which is why, among many other reasons, a safety net is necessary.

af_thefragile wrote: »

What Ireland needs is more foreign investment and corporations to help create the jobs that are necessary to get the country out of this mess.

No, what Ireland needs is an indigenous industrial base. But free marketeering says that tarriffs and protectionism are Bad Things, so how are we going to create this?

af_thefragile wrote: »

As I mentioned previously, the majority of the population CAN afford to pay for schooling of their children and also pay for health insurance and university education if they only decide to give up some of the luxuries in their lives. This frees up money in the government so they can work towards helping those who are really in need. You can pay for a computer, internet, TV, car, partys, holidays etc. why can't you pay for health and education? You just need to be willing to give up some luxuries to afford the things that are necessary to life.

This is such bull$hit. 10% of the population enjoy 25% of the disposable income in this country. If this was spread a bit more evenly, everyone could have a high standard living, instead of just the privileged few, jetting off with their senses of entitlement unchallenged. It's like when Charlie asked us to tighten our belts.

af_thefragile wrote: »

We don't ask for cars to be 100% crash-proof before we decide to get in one and go for a drive.

We do ask for seatbelts, airbags, ABS and stringent crash-testing, though. Kinda like a social welfare system.

af_thefragile wrote: »

Also there is inequality in the world. Its a fact of life. Some people are born rich and some are born poor. Nothing can change that. Only thing that changes is the willingness of a person to change the situation they are in. Many people who were born in absolutely deprived conditions are now millionaires. How did that happen?

Very few people were born in absolutely deprived conditions and are now millionaires. A statically insignificant proportion - can you even name one?

And yes, of course something can be done about it, that's a ridiculous attitude. Material inequality isn't an immutable law of nature, it's a choice we make in our model of social organisation. I'm not insisting on absolute equality, but I am suggesting redistribution to ameliorate the absurdities of the markets.

af_thefragile wrote: »

Many people are very content and happy in living what one might call a poor household. While many rich people are leading troubled lives with depression and drug addiction. Doesn't mean if you're born rich you're guaranteed to live in happiness and prosperity for the rest of your life while if you're born in a poor household, you will end up suffering for the rest of your life.

It's not wealth per se that's at issue here - it's equality of opportunity and social inclusion.

af_thefragile wrote: »

Again I'm not a social darwinist. There should be a welfare system but it should be for only those who really need and deserve it.

The deserving poor now, is it?

af_thefragile wrote: »

In a free market capitalist economy, the governments does not interfere with the market.

Do you not accept that the markets, left unchecked, following their current growth and selfishness-based model, will inevitably overheat and implode? Requiring state intervention to prevent a complete collapse? It's only happened every time in history it's been tried.

af_thefragile wrote: »

To prevent this there needs to be a change in the whole economic and banking system as well. The current banking system will never work because it works by exploiting the people it gives out loans to.

+1

af_thefragile wrote: »

And it goes back to taking acceptable risks vs taking stupid risks. In a free market where there is no government intervention and safety net, the banks and corporations need to be aware that if they screw up or commit fraud/explotation then they will not be saved by the government and instead will be prosecuted for it. And the people need to be aware too that if something sounds too good to be true, it possibly is too good to be true!

Be that as it may, the banks are fundamental to the provision of a social good and fundamental human right - decent housing. What's your alternative?

af_thefragile wrote: »

Going back to my car metaphor, when you're buying a second hand car, would you just pick the cheapest/"best deal" car you find for sale on the internet and go buy it without doing some homework about the model of the car, its reliability, running costs and then giving it a thorough inspection and taking it for a test drive? What would you call someone who goes to a car dealer and buys the car the dealer tells him is the best deal without even inspecting the car and taking it for a test drive? When the person realises he bought a lemon, would you say it was completely the dealer's fault for giving him wrong info about the car and then would you get the government to pay both the dealer and the buyer for selling and buying the wrong car?! See how ridiculous it sounds. But that's exactly what the government has done in this case.

The law would say that the dealer has an obligation to the consumer to provide goods of merchantable quality, and the consumer would have a cause of action against the seller. Not sure this metaphor really holds, tbh.

af_thefragile wrote: »

As i mentioned earlier there's no such thing as equal opportunity. Some are rich, some are poor, that's the way the world is.

No, that's a choice we make in our form of social organisation. There will always be inequality, but the extent to which it is allowed to ruin society can be greatly ameliorated by prudent state action.

af_thefragile wrote: »

Again just because some people were unfortunate to end up unemployed and on the dole doesn't mean the whole population needs to suffer their misery.

Some people have plenty of spare disposable income, and only a very small dent in their weekly spend could make a huge difference to the quality of life for everyone in this country, themselves included.

af_thefragile wrote: »

If you screwed up in your past where you didn't do well in school or university, then well go back and do your leaving cert again and this time try to put in some effort to try and do well and get some qualification that can get them a good job.

How realistic is that, number one. Number two, when there aren't enough good jobs to go around, and there isn't a sufficient safety net to justify the risk of entrepreneurship, and people have families to support, what are they to do? Stagnate on the dole or dead-end jobs, it seems.

af_thefragile wrote: »

the socialist route of taking the wages from the ones who have jobs and giving it to the ones who don't!

I think we have different understandings of socialism, and in any event this is a gross, gross simplification. The social benefits of increased equality far outweigh the limitation it places on individual freedom.

mloc

benway wrote: »

...

Tl;dr.

benway

tl;dr

Equality of opportunity and social inclusion are good things, and state intervention to promote them would be A Good Thing. Socialism is about more than "paying people not to work".

"Personal responsibility" is meaningless in a world lacking meaningful equality of opportunity, it only serves as an apologia for the status quo.

The markets have their limits - the free market has failed any time that the state has taken too much of a hands-off approach.

The current crisis is an example of this. Yes, the state could have let the banks fail after the markets failed, but how would we have picked up the pieces? Banking and housing are inextricably linked, what's the free market alternative?

Education is a good example of a sector in which a market-based, for-profit approach would have disastrous consequences.

yawha

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Their parents worked hard, why can't they do what they want with their money. Who decides what people "deserve"? Why can't you mind your own business and not worry about other people being better off. What's your problem with other people having a good life, it seems childish. No one is entitled to privilege but no one is obliged not to be privileged.

Well, the whole premise of the argument for minimizing the state, reducing welfare and reducing taxes is usually built on the idea that if people work hard they should be entitled to what they earn, because of that hard work.

Kids getting to live hugely privileged lives on the basis of their parents wealth doesn't really fit into that model, does it?

And with that privileged life, they'll likely have had a better education, more world experience, better contacts and more of a safety net to be able to take financial risks.

Therefore, the amount of work required by these kids to be successful in life, is obviously drastically less than poorer kids. Which basically means that it's not an even playing field, and the idea that everyone has worked hard for their wealth sort of evaporates.

Not to say that anyone who is wealthy necessarily doesn't deserve it (I am not a fan of idiotic "all rich people are evil" rhetoric), but it's just not as simple as "work hard, receive money" when you consider one's parents' wealth and the privilege, inheritance and nepotism that go along with it.

gozunda

benway wrote: »

#270 and #271 for one example, there are quite a few more - it clutters up the thread, makes it hard to follow. Tbh, I don't know what point you're making, besides parroting that nonsense copypasta, which I have dealt with simply - if "socialism" has so many obvious flaws, why set up a hypothetical scenario designed specifically to prove your point? Why not point to a real world example?

Check your glasses bw - 270 & 271 are not duplicate or double posts - they are two separate replies to two different posters. Maybe you should take a look again. Do you mean that they occur one after another - well I cant be here full time so I reply as I read the posts - is there a problem with that? You appear to be extremely offensive tbh.

I do not put all my replies in a single post. I find the overtly long posts with multiple replies nearly impossible to read - they are way too long and wander all over the place and also nearly impossible to quote and reply to without deleting a phonebook worth of irrelevant posts. I prefer to keep my posts separate and in logical sequence, If you dont like this well its tough but...

Please read back on my original post and follow from there - I have been more than clear on the points made - and I have clarified points when asked. See my posts in reply to hooradiation concerning same. I dont expect any agreement but I have explained my thoughts on the issues raised.

The hypothetical scenario is what is called an analogy and I have explained the benefits of this in a discussion in previous posts - all you have to do is read them. As far as I am aware it is perfectly acceptable to give existing examples in this forum. If you are saying that this is not then maybe you should take this complaints to a mod ok?

Yes just like most theoretical ideologies, socialism contains many inherent flaws. The analogy singles out a number of these. There is no great skill required to see how these inherent flaws apply to what the OP posted. As for a full discussion on the flaws of socialism well maybe you may wish to start a thread on that as I believe this is outside the scope of the present thread...

KyussBishop

af_thefragile wrote: »

...

Will reply to this tomorrow; too late for me today

af_thefragile

I'll reply to the big post sometime later but for now lets just stick with the schooling issue.

yawha wrote: »

Well, the whole premise of the argument for minimizing the state, reducing welfare and reducing taxes is usually built on the idea that if people work hard they should be entitled to what they earn, because of that hard work.

Kids getting to live hugely privileged lives on the basis of their parents wealth doesn't really fit into that model, does it?

And with that privileged life, they'll likely have had a better education, more world experience, better contacts and more of a safety net to be able to take financial risks.

Therefore, the amount of work required by these kids to be successful in life, is obviously drastically less than poorer kids. Which basically means that it's not an even playing field, and the idea that everyone has worked hard for their wealth sort of evaporates.

Not to say that anyone who is wealthy necessarily doesn't deserve it (I am not a fan of idiotic "all rich people are evil" rhetoric), but it's just not as simple as "work hard, receive money" when you consider one's parents' wealth and the privilege, inheritance and nepotism that go along with it.

I'll have to once again stress there is no such thing as equal opportunity.

Now as I have stated many times earlier the level of education in private schools is generally much better than in public schools. Private schools need to justify their fees and this is done by achieving better results. Private schools don't suffer from staff shortages and they usually have a more efficient way of teaching the students. They also generally employ better qualified and better skilled teachers. Result is private schools provide better education and better development of the kids's thinking skills than in public schools.

- Now if you want equal opportunity for all then you want all kids to be attending public schools regardless of their background. Now this firstly puts a lot of strain on the government's resources because it needs to fund the education of the whole population. Then when the economy isn't doing well, there are going to be spending cuts and staff cuts. Then there are going to be unions. There's also going to be quite a lot of nepotism. Then there are going to be inefficient and strained teachers working in understaffed schools trying to teach large groups of students in each class. And then finally there will be populations of children who do not take school seriously and do everything apart from studying and then simply drop out. Their parents don't really care the children getting poor grades because they're not paying for any of it, well not directly at least. And hence the whole population ends up suffering. What has been done here is instead of having one starting line for all the kids, you have moved all the kids several meters behind the starting line to start from! But its not that severe here in Ireland.

- In Ireland you have both private and public schools. The rich people are going to send their kids to the best private schools regardless. The rest will either work a bit harder to send their kids to the best private schools so they can get the better education or send them to public schools depending on how much they value their children's education. So in reality there is no equal opportunity. Yes every child gets and education but there's still a significant disparity between the level of education a child born in a rich family gets compared to that a child born in a poor deprived family gets. So what exactly has been achieved here? Just more taxes so more of the population can get a lower quality education.

- Now if the schooling sector was privatised, firstly it takes away the burden from the government to pay for the whole population's education. So the government doesn't need to raise taxes and people have more money, money they can save up and spend in sending their children to the best private schools they can afford. And the vast majority of the population can save up enough to send their children to good private schools.
Now the few poor deprived population who cannot afford to pay for the schools can be provided with grants from the government so that they can pay for the schooling of their children. This way the government is only paying for the education of those who cannot afford it while at the same time ensuring the children get good quality education alongside other more fortunate people whose parents can afford to pay for their education. And there's an equal starting line for all the children!

And I'm a supporter of private educational institutions because they are firstly run more efficiently because at the end of the day it is a business and they need to make profit, which is not a bad thing because they do this by keeping the customer happy. Secondly private educational institutions are more likely to try new innovative methods of education which can produce better results developing not just the children's knowledge of certain subjects but also their creativity.

K-9

af_thefragile wrote: »

- Now if the schooling sector was privatised, firstly it takes away the burden from the government to pay for the whole population's education. So the government doesn't need to raise taxes and people have more money, money they can save up and spend in sending their children to the best private schools they can afford. And the vast majority of the population can save up enough to send their children to good private schools.
Now the few poor deprived population who cannot afford to pay for the schools can be provided with grants from the government so that they can pay for the schooling of their children. This way the government is only paying for the education of those who cannot afford it while at the same time ensuring the children get good quality education alongside other more fortunate people whose parents can afford to pay for their education. And there's an equal starting line for all the children!

How are Government going to fund the grants? I presume taxes on profits private schools make?

What level of annual fees would you expect?

I assume the money Government are saving on subventions would be given back to parents in tax cuts.

yawha

I'm not sure how that really relates to much in my post.

I will say that there are much, much, much more factors involved in a child's chances of success in life than the school they go to. Personally, I would actually consider choice of school to be a fairly small aspect of this that's given undue weight. I myself am doing a lot better in terms of my financial and employment position than anyone I know who went to a private school, and I went to exclusively public schools my whole life.

I also think there are a lot of unsupported assertions and conjecture in what you've written. You seem to take the simplistic view that money spent on education is directly proportional to quality of education, for example.

af_thefragile

K-9 wrote: »

How are Government going to fund the grants? I presume taxes on profits private schools make?

What level of annual fees would you expect?

I assume the money Government are saving on subventions would be given back to parents in tax cuts.

The government doesn't need as much tax because it is paying for the education of the few deprived rather than paying for the education of the whole nation.

I don't know how much annual fees one would pay. But privatisation will lead to competition which will lead to innovation and a better quality of "product" if I may use that word.

I think the fees in the Institute of Education was around 4-5 grand around 7 or so years ago. Although that isn't a proper school but it is still a good example of a private institution providing very good quality education.

yawha wrote: »

I'm not sure how that really relates to much in my post.

I will say that there are much, much, much more factors involved in a child's chances of success in life than the school they go to. Personally, I would actually consider choice of school to be a fairly small aspect of this that's given undue weight. I myself am doing a lot better in terms of my financial and employment position than anyone I know who went to a private school, and I went to exclusively public schools my whole life.

I also think there are a lot of unsupported assertions and conjecture in what you've written. You seem to take the simplistic view that money spent on education is directly proportional to quality of education, for example.

I agree there are many more factors that influence a child's chances of success. The child's inherent potential is one of them along with the social situation and parenting the child gets and the choice of peers the kid hangs around with.

My whole point is currently the public schooling system is pretty poor with understaffed schools and inefficient teachers. Private schools generally don't suffer with these problems.

Again there is no guarantee if you send a child to a private school that he'll get all As in his leaving cert and get into law or med school or something. Neither is it that a child in public school will get all Cs and Ds and will have to settle for an arts degree.

Although a good private school can help explore and discover the child's inherent potential and what the child is actually good at which can very positively influence the child's future success but I'll agree most private schools are just slightly posher and snobbier variants of public schools. Like I once read the difference between private schools and public school in america was that the drugs were of better quality in private schools.

And that brings to the point that if there really is not that much of a difference in education between a rich kid who goes to a private school and a poor kid who goes to a public school, then how does the rich kid have any advantage over the poor kid??

So then what's wrong with privatising the education system which will save the government tons of money (and in turn less taxes on the people) and the government can then only pay for the education of the ones who cannot afford to pay for it themselves!

And I'll still say I support a private education system because as I mentioned private schools are more likely to try innovative new methods of education which help develop the child's knowledge and creativity. In Ireland there isn't much of a different between private and public education but in other countries the difference is much more profound. We seem to lack quality here.

gozunda

yawha wrote: »

Well, the whole premise of the argument for minimizing the state, reducing welfare and reducing taxes is usually built on the idea that if people work hard they should be entitled to what they earn, because of that hard work.
Kids getting to live hugely privileged lives on the basis of their parents wealth doesn't really fit into that model, does it?
And with that privileged life, they'll likely have had a better education, more world experience, better contacts and more of a safety net to be able to take financial risks.
Therefore, the amount of work required by these kids to be successful in life, is obviously drastically less than poorer kids. Which basically means that it's not an even playing field, and the idea that everyone has worked hard for their wealth sort of evaporates.
Not to say that anyone who is wealthy necessarily doesn't deserve it (I am not a fan of idiotic "all rich people are evil" rhetoric), but it's just not as simple as "work hard, receive money" when you consider one's parents' wealth and the privilege, inheritance and nepotism that go along with it.

Tell me in all seriousness you are joking right?
From above...

Kids getting to live hugely privileged lives on the basis of their parents wealth doesn't really fit into that model, does it?

What? How about we just pack them all down the mines so that they too can work hard (and I paraphrase) so that they will be entitled to what they earn, because of that hard work...cheeky little begggars expecting to be given anything :eek:

No one is born equal - some people will be born more intelligent, faster, taller, better looking etc that others - what should we do where this unfair advantage presents itself - get everyone dumbed down chemically, operated on so that all start the same?? Does that fit the model?

So You are saying that any advantage conferred upon a child (and I remind you this is a child we are talking about) because that parent works hard so as give their child every opportunity should be negated so that everyone is put at the same level??? What is the advantage for any parent to work harder or to try and achieve anything if what he/she earns is stripped away for some socialist model based on some impossible utopian ideal...

What would you do with 'poor parents' who work hard to achieve this for their child? Should they be analysed for preceived 'wealth and privilege, inheritance and nepotism' so as to guard against this being unfair to other children too?

If someone truely wishes to achieive this model I suggest that we will have to revert to the idea of Aldous Huxleys Brave New World where children are decanted from bottles and brought up by the state who makes the decision what they will do

There really are some straaaaaange ideas out there......wow...

yawha

af_thefragile wrote: »

And that brings to the point that if there really is not that much of a difference in education between a rich kid who goes to a private school and a poor kid who goes to a public school, then how does the rich kid have any advantage over the poor kid??

You answered that yourself:

af_thefragile wrote: »

I agree there are many more factors that influence a child's chances of success.

af_thefragile wrote: »

And I'll still say I support a private education system because as I mentioned private schools are more likely to try innovative new methods of education which help develop the child's knowledge and creativity. In Ireland there isn't much of a different between private and public education but in other countries the difference is much more profound. We seem to lack quality here.

Why would they be more likely to innovate? Looking at the likes of the Institute, from what I can see, they completely distort education and teach exams not subjects. Drilling notes into students and encouraging them to regurgitate them in exams will almost certainly increase the average grades of a bunch of kids, but it strips away any kind of education in critical thinking.

Schools run like businesses run the risk of striving to increase that which is measurable at all costs, in order to raise their profile and gain more students. However, while great sports teams and grades might make a school seem fantastic, education can't be so easily quantified.

The thing is, none of these are indicative of a good educational experience. A kid who gets a B on his English paper, having read all the required texts several times, and writing entirely their own opinions based on their own interpretations is much, much better educated than if they were to get an A by regurgitating notes and essays they've learned off by heard and having barely read the texts even once.

yawha

gozunda wrote: »

Tell me in all seriousness you are joking right?
From above...


What? How about we just pack them all down the mines so that they too can work hard (and I paraphrase) so that they are be entitled to what they earn, because of that hard work...cheeky little begggars expecting to be given anything :eek:

No one is born equal - some people will be born more intelligent, faster, taller, better looking etc that others - what should we do where this unfair advantage presents itself - get everyone dumbed down chemically, operated on so that all start the same?? Does that fit the model?

So You are saying that any advantage conferred upon a child (and I remind you this is a child we are talking about) because that parent works hard so as give their child every opportunity should be negated so that everyone is put at the same level??? What is the advantage for any parent to work harder or to try and achieve anything if what he/she earns is stripped away for some socialist model based on some impossible utopian ideal...

What would you do with 'poor parents' who work hard to achieve this for their child? Should they be analysed for preceived 'wealth and privilege, inheritance and nepotism' so as to guard against this being unfair to other children too?

If someone truely wishes to achieive this model I suggest that we will have to revert to the idea of Aldous Huxleys Brave New World where children are decanted from bottles and brought up by the state who makes the decision what they will do

There really are some straaaaaange ideas out there......wow...

I'm not sure how you extrapolated all that from what I wrote.

All I was doing was debunking the argument that taxes and social welfare are unjustified because we shouldn't be robbing hard earned money from the rich, and that poor people could just work harder if they wanted better lives.

K-9

af_thefragile wrote: »

The government doesn't need as much tax because it is paying for the education of the few deprived rather than paying for the education of the whole nation.

The subvention grants are about a Euro a child, per day. National schools are increasingly reliant on private funding anyway. So we're chatting about a saving of €365 a year per child. Not going to stretch too far on private schools. Parents could well be out of pocket under your idea.

I don't know how much annual fees one would pay. But privatisation will lead to competition which will lead to innovation and a better quality of "product" if I may use that word.

I think the fees in the Institute of Education was around 4-5 grand around 7 or so years ago. Although that isn't a proper school but it is still a good example of a private institution providing very good quality education.

Do we have private national schools to get a real world example?

gozunda

yawha wrote: »

I'm not sure how you extrapolated all that from what I wrote.

All I was doing was debunking the argument that taxes and social welfare are unjustified because we shouldn't be robbing hard earned money from the rich, and that poor people could just work harder if they wanted better lives.

Errrh Ok - I took it from what you posted regarding educating children - I take it you are saying that this was is an example of what shouldn't be done then?

af_thefragile

yawha wrote: »

You answered that yourself:





Why would they be more likely to innovate? Looking at the likes of the Institute, from what I can see, they completely distort education and teach exams not subjects. Drilling notes into students and encouraging them to regurgitate them in exams will almost certainly increase the average grades of a bunch of kids, but it strips away any kind of education in critical thinking.

Schools run like businesses run the risk of striving to increase that which is measurable at all costs, in order to raise their profile and gain more students. However, while great sports teams and grades might make a school seem fantastic, education can't be so easily quantified.

The thing is, none of these are indicative of a good educational experience. A kid who gets a B on his English paper, having read all the required texts several times, and writing entirely their own opinions based on their own interpretations is much, much better educated than if they were to get an A by regurgitating notes and essays they've learned off by heard and having barely read the texts even once.

The way the current system of education is, no one care's how good your creative writing skills are or how good you're at drawing or painting. All that matters is how many points you get in your leaving cert to be able to get into the university course of your choice. And I'll agree there is an inherent flaw in this form of a system of education. Many agree the current system of education is a broken system which needs a revolution rather than evolution to be improved into a better system which develops the child to succeed in the future rather than just teaching the child enough to make sure he makes it through the leaving cert and into university.

The Institute, as I mentioned is not a proper school, but an institute that caters for just one specific purpose which is to make students get the points they need in the Leaving Cert to get into the course of their choice in uni. Its the only reason one goes to the Institute. Although I will say the quality of teachers in the Institute is very high and they do manage to teach students very well the subjects for them to be able to achieve the points they need.


I will agree private schools here aren't great either. But they're still better than some of the public schools which are understaffed with inefficient teachers. Again its about personal responsibility. When you are paying for your child's education, you have to make sure its worth it! No one likes to spend a few grand every year paying for their child's education while their child is a slacker and spends his time skipping school smoking in alleyways with his mates and eventually dropping out. Yes not everyone does this but these are the ones who are left out and everyone is so hung up on who need the "equal opportunity". Its not going to happen without the parents taking the responsibility for their kids. The state cannot babysit the children, its the parent's job to do that.


And on innovation, if there's a need to produce better results they will innovate. Private institutions are more likely to innovate than public schools. Its because again if there's enough private schools, there will be competition and where there is competition, there will be innovation.

K-9 wrote: »

The subvention grants are about a Euro a child, per day. National schools are increasingly reliant on private funding anyway. So we're chatting about a saving of €365 a year per child. Not going to stretch too far on private schools. Parents could well be out of pocket under your idea.

Do we have private national schools to get a real world example?

So you can't save up a few grand every year to pay for your child's education?
I don't think that's beyond the means of most people in this country.

Also I don't know what the fees of private schools is. You'll have to look it up yourself. I went to the institute so I had an idea how much the fees there was.

paddyandy

Poor people are always socialists 'til the get Money then suddenly they are capitalists if they survive the partying that ensues .There are exceptions .

hooradiation

gozunda wrote: »

No afraid not dh. That was not what was said...I have gone indepth into the issue raised (See your own post to which I replied on same)

Your entire reply was a massive farce where you frequently forgot what your analogy was trying to represent. For future reference it's only relevant to income tax.

gozunda wrote: »

which was preceded by a single analogy to illustrate how this quasi capitalist economy has benefited from previous economic directions and how the suggested direction of a number of posters on this thread of further taxing all the "rich b*st*rds" would make everything all right - it wont funnily enough!

Ahh, this explains why you're adamant you've been doing so well, the positions you are arguing against are the ones that exist only in your head.

And if you can cast your mind back far enough, the origin of this was your original banal email forward being posted in all seriousness.
Since I pointed out it was horribly simplistic you've ascribed every imagined facet of socialism to me as and when it suits.

Which is depressingly awful.

gozunda wrote: »

Is there a reason why I have to enter into tedious economic descriptions at your insistence when a direct analogy helps illustrate the matter in an umambiguous manner?

Because those analogies don't do what you say, as you're bar-stool economics missive shows.

gozunda wrote: »

Perhaps you wish to permantly confuse the issue for some unstated socialist benefit? I really dont know.

Yeah, it's all a big conspiracy.
Actually talking about things in detail is just a socialist scheme to confuse people into.... something.
Though if you're trying to trick people I would have thought that it'd be better to keep things vague and general.. But what do I know of the machinations of your imagined socialist agents?

gozunda wrote: »

As for the "good company" reference I knew you just couldn't resist that bait hd..;). No I do not place myself in the league of great thinkers but I can hold an argument without being deflected into devisive behaviour.

Listen, the handle is "hooradiation" - not dh or hd or whatever letters you happen to type. If you find typing it tedious, may I suggest that you use the copy and paste feature to copy it from within the quoted text you're replying to, and paste it as appropriate.
It's not difficult and it's a simple concept. This should appeal to you.

benway

gozunda wrote: »

No one is born equal - some people will be born more intelligent, faster, taller, better looking etc that others - what should we do where this unfair advantage presents itself - get everyone dumbed down chemically, operated on so that all start the same?? Does that fit the model?

What would you do with 'poor parents' who work hard to achieve this for their child? Should they be analysed for preceived 'wealth and privilege, inheritance and nepotism' so as to guard against this being unfair to other children too

The point is that the "I did it all for myself, I don't owe the rest of ye anything" argument is completely fraudulent.

What I'm talking about is evening out the playing field so that meaningful, socially useful differences - intelligence, hard work - are rewarded, wherever they occur in society, rather than bestowing arbitrary advantage on certain sectors of society. I fully accept that perfect equality of opportunity is impossible, but that's not to say that the situation couldn't be improved. What I want is a true meritocracy, albeit one that recognises the responsibilities we all owe to the wider society.

For-profit education would be a woefully retrograde step, it could only operate to bestow further arbitrary advantages to those who already have the deck stacked in their favours.

Are you trying to say that a society where any child has a reasonable opportunity of going as far as their abilities will take them isn't something to aspire to?

af_thefragile wrote: »

I will agree private schools here aren't great either. But they're still better than some of the public schools which are understaffed with inefficient teachers. Again its about personal responsibility.

And on innovation, if there's a need to produce better results they will innovate. Private institutions are more likely to innovate than public schools. Its because again if there's enough private schools, there will be competition and where there is competition, there will be innovation.

So you can't save up a few grand every year to pay for your child's education?
I don't think that's beyond the means of most people in this country.

Also I don't know what the fees of private schools is. You'll have to look it up yourself. I went to the institute so I had an idea how much the fees there was.

So you would say that, wouldn't you? I went to the local tech, but I still got the points I needed, first time out - no grinds, no messing.

But, since then, I've seen that my more affluent friends and acquaintances have had a much easier ride - private colleges with much lower points requirements, the luxury if not having to work as well as study, the possibility of taking further courses that I simply can't afford, taking a year off to study for professional exams, walking into jobs ahead of better qualified applicants owing to family connections - I'm not whinging, I'm fortunate compared to most, but this is the reality. But I don't kid myself that it was all down to my God-given talent, my folks sacrificed plenty.

Seems that you'd like, in effect, to make this worse. College was a financial struggle without having to pay fees. I don't believe for a second that the reduced tax burden would be sufficient to compensate, not for one second.

Do you have any evidence on that innovation point, or is that just more supposition? And what does "inefficient teachers" even mean in practice? More ideological bilge? Private sector is always more efficient, right?

KyussBishop

af_thefragile wrote:

Equal opportunity is again a bit of a myth. Sending the children to the same school and university as everyone else doesn't mean all the kids are getting to start off from the same starting line. There's a lot more such as social conditions, parental upbringing and responsibility that affects where the child ends up.

Again I don't say poor people shouldn't be allowed to go to school if they can't afford it. I'm not a total right wing social darwinist. I do believe there should be government grants available for people who cannot pay the school fees for their kids. But the large majority of the people (who are not living off scraps) can save up enough to pay for the education of their kids and if they do believe good education is the first step towards a successful future for their kids then they ought to save up enough money to be able to make sure their children get the best possible education they can afford even if it means they need to give up some of the luxuries from their lives.

While there are a lot of factors in whether or not a child can make the most of his upbringing inc. education, there should (imo) at least be the baseline support of a public school system for the kid to take advantage of, even if some may not be able to take full advantage due to personal conditions.

The issues with a private system which require public grants for those less well off, is that it still is a significant economic burden on many poor families that don't meet the baseline for grants, and privatized schools run for profit can provide a market that is disproportionately costly.
Inevitably, this will lead to some less well off families needing to enter a period of debt in order to fund their kids education, which puts them in greater danger monetarily if one or both parents lose a job etc..

Also, the cost of tuition does not scale for families of different earnings, so it will be extremely costly for e.g. a single parent trying to pay for their kids education vs two parents both working; this makes it automatically unfair on the less well off.

af_thefragile wrote:

Similarly for universities, the kids need to be more wise in choosing the right career paths for them which they will when they're paying large sums of money for their education. Getting an arts degree might not secure the person a job if they're not good enough at what they do. American universities are considered some of the best in the world and they are at the forefront of many technological innovations and achievements. Many times you get what you're paying for. And once again I don't say students who are too poor to pay for university shouldn't end up in universities. Most universities offer scholarships and if not again there should be a government welfare system to offer grants to students who cannot afford to pay the fees or get the loans.

I'm not against a social welfare system. What I'm suggesting here is the government needs to let go of the education system at least and allow it to be run privately. This way the government's resources are less stressed and it can make better use of the revenue it generates from its taxes. Also by allowing people to pay for their education, the government will limit the welfare grants to only those who are the most in need of it.

The reality with college/university is that many people will not end up taking a career based on the course they choose, and that is not down to poor selection of course etc. as with many of these people can not know how well it will suit them until they have already committed.
I think it's fair for the first time around in college to be a publically funded one-shot deal, and further applications to college being paid by the student (I think it's like that now, but am not 100% certain).

The way things are in the US now is madness really, with many students leaving college in crippling debt and unable to get a job even if they tried; not only that, but it is (I think) threatening to further damage the US economy due to the massive bubble of student debt which can't be repaid.

Again, this will disproportionately affect the less well off, as fees will not scale based on the monetary background of a student and their family; welfare or grants don't fix this.

Also, part of what is implied in what you say (maybe not intentionally), is making education private without reducing taxes to reflect that; that itself is simply a straight out tax increase.

af_thefragile wrote:

The current economic crisis is the result of government meddling with the market. If the banks would simply be allowed to collapse, we wouldn't be in such a dire state. Sure there would be many people who would have had basically become bankrupt but its easier to deal with the few who have become bankrupt than the whole country to bear the burden of those who messed it up!

Back to the present situation, as I mentioned Ireland is in a pretty **** state with businesses closing down and people being made redundant and being forced to go on social welfare which entirely has nothing to do with them being incompetent or not, its just them being unlucky. But my point is all of this is the rest of the government meddling with the market. It could have been avoided if the government allowed the banks to collapse instead of bailing them out! And now increasing taxes and taxing everything is just hurting the economy further. What Ireland needs is more foreign investment and corporations to help create the jobs that are necessary to get the country out of this mess.

Ah?? Where does this idea come from? The root crisis was not the governments fault (even if the bailouts are); if banks were simply allowed to collapse as you say, there is a high chance that banks customers (who had no way to inform themselves on risky bank practies) would have lost quite a lot of money.

That is unacceptable, and (through greed) it is guaranteed to happen eventually without proper oversight and regulation (nothing stopping people perpetrating the fraud from leaving the country if it looks like they face jail time).
I'm surprised you don't fully see that, or even think it's ok? (not ok for the bank owners to do that, but ok to even have the possibility of it happening in the first place)

af_thefragile wrote:

You can pay for a computer, internet, TV, car, partys, holidays etc. why can't you pay for health and education? You just need to be willing to give up some luxuries to afford the things that are necessary to life.

You talk of 'luxuries' as if everyone is leading an obscenely extravagent lifestyle. People having disposable income is not a bad thing (life would be very boring without), it's good for the economy, and in Ireland it's nowhere near excessive, so I don't understand the judgmental attitude regarding peoples lifestyles.

af_thefragile wrote:

No, nothing can prepare you in life. But life is about taking risks. There's no guarantee that tomorrow when you walk out of the house or when you're driving along in your care you're not going to get involved in an accident which could possibly end your life. Yet you take the acceptable risk and get in your car to go to work everyday and almost every time you get to your work and back safely.

Its the same with life. Just because something could happen which could leave you on the streets doesn't mean you need to have a 100% fail-proof guarantee for everything you do. You need to take the acceptable risk and then hope it works out for you. And just like almost every time you get in your car, you arrive to your destination safely even when there is that risk that you could end up in a horrible crash which might not be your fault at all and end up even dead, it doesn't stop you from doing what you need to do! We don't ask for cars to be 100% crash-proof before we decide to get in one and go for a drive.

Whilst I don't like speaking in analogies here, cars do have seat belts and airbags; there are measures in place to deal with events when things go wrong, society should have that for people in need too.

(Ah, benway beat me to the punch here )

af_thefragile wrote:

Also there is inequality in the world. Its a fact of life. Some people are born rich and some are born poor. Nothing can change that. Only thing that changes is the willingness of a person to change the situation they are in. Many people who were born in absolutely deprived conditions are now millionaires. How did that happen?
Many people are very content and happy in living what one might call a poor household. While many rich people are leading troubled lives with depression and drug addiction. Doesn't mean if you're born rich you're guaranteed to live in happiness and prosperity for the rest of your life while if you're born in a poor household, you will end up suffering for the rest of your life.

You're ignoring that people born in poor circumstances have less opportunities for success than those in rich families, and suggest that if they just work hard enough, they can be equally successful; that's not the case.

You even seem to (indirectly, through your other arguments) advocate conditions that make the poor poorer, and the rich more privileged.

Some poor people make it rich, some rich people become poor; that doesn't change the above fact that the rich start off with better opportunities. Why do you deliberately ignore that in your arguments?

af_thefragile wrote:

In a free market capitalist economy, the governments does not interfere with the market. If a bank or corporation commits fraud or exploitation, it will be tried and persecuted. Most of the high risk ventures that the banks end up losing money in are comparable to committing fraud.

To prevent this there needs to be a change in the whole economic and banking system as well. The current banking system will never work because it works by exploiting the people it gives out loans to.

And it goes back to taking acceptable risks vs taking stupid risks. In a free market where there is no government intervention and safety net, the banks and corporations need to be aware that if they screw up or commit fraud/explotation then they will not be saved by the government and instead will be prosecuted for it. And the people need to be aware too that if something sounds too good to be true, it possibly is too good to be true!

Going back to my car metaphor, when you're buying a second hand car, would you just pick the cheapest/"best deal" car you find for sale on the internet and go buy it without doing some homework about the model of the car, its reliability, running costs and then giving it a thorough inspection and taking it for a test drive? What would you call someone who goes to a car dealer and buys the car the dealer tells him is the best deal without even inspecting the car and taking it for a test drive? When the person realises he bought a lemon, would you say it was completely the dealer's fault for giving him wrong info about the car and then would you get the government to pay both the dealer and the buyer for selling and buying the wrong car?! See how ridiculous it sounds. But that's exactly what the government has done in this case.

This only works if there is enough regulation to prevent banks from engaging in risky ventures in the first place; what you imply is a reactive measure to deter criminal activity in banks, not preventative regulatory measures.

The primary fault of reactive measures, is that it assumes banks customers are able to find out how risky their banks practices are; this is not the case, because how banks function is too opaque.

af_thefragile wrote:

As i mentioned earlier there's no such thing as equal opportunity. Some are rich, some are poor, that's the way the world is.

Ok well while I don't fully agree with that, at least we agree that rich peoples kids have greater opportunities.

The mistake you seem to be making there is thinking that 'equal opportunity' is an absolute, that it means "everyone inherently has the same opportunity" or "nobody must be allowed to have greater opportunity"; that's clearly false.

What equal opportunity is about, is creating conditions where people are not unfairly discriminated against, and in the case of education, that people can be guaranteed a minimum level of education without being unfairly indebted or undergoing monetary hardship in the process. That would clearly be unfair towards the poor and less well off, and tuition clearly creates a situation where the less you earn, the higher a % of money you pay for education.

It's like the statement "all humans are equal"; that's clearly not true, none of us are equal, some of us are a benefit to society, some are not etc.. The point is, we should all be treated the same and viewed as equals under the law.

af_thefragile wrote:

Again just because some people were unfortunate to end up unemployed and on the dole doesn't mean the whole population needs to suffer their misery.

I don't say there should be no social welfare but again it shouldn't be an alternative to not working hard in school and university and finding a good job. Social welfare should only be reserved for those very unfortunate who have no other alternative than to go on state benefits to survive.

If you screwed up in your past where you didn't do well in school or university, then well go back and do your leaving cert again and this time try to put in some effort to try and do well and get some qualification that can get them a good job.

Problem with Ireland is there are no jobs as a result of all that I've mentioned earlier and the whole point of this thread is to point out that what Ireland needs is more investment and corporations to set up more jobs and not just go down the socialist route of taking the wages from the ones who have jobs and giving it to the ones who don't!

You are ignoring what I was replying to there; your post was implying that people in general would rather stay on the dole rather than bother with work:
"Why would anyone want to work hard when they'll eventually end up living at the same means as someone who does no work and lives off state benefits!"

I said:
"Generally, only people with very low personal standards (not including people with genuine problems) want to fraudulently stay on the dole; if jobs are available to you, it is not hard to earn more than you would on the dole."


On private education:
Private education likely does provide a higher quality of education, but that provided by public schools now is good enough; the higher cost of private education is not proportional to the educational gains it provides.

This also makes private education less efficient, because it costs a hell of a lot more with nowhere near a proportional gain in quality of education.

af_thefragile wrote:

And that brings to the point that if there really is not that much of a difference in education between a rich kid who goes to a private school and a poor kid who goes to a public school, then how does the rich kid have any advantage over the poor kid??

What advantage does the rich kid with bags of money, vs the poor kid have? Does that need an answer?

gozunda

hooradiation wrote: »

your entire reply was a massive farce where you frequently forgot what your analogy was trying to represent. For future reference it's only relevant to income tax...Ahh, this explains why you're adamant you've been doing so well, the positions you are arguing against are the ones that exist only in your head....And if you can cast your mind back far enough, the origin of this was your original banal email forward being posted in all seriousness. Since I pointed out it was horribly simplistic you've ascribed every imagined facet of socialism to me as and when it suits....Because those analogies don't do what you say, as you're bar-stool economics missive ...Yeah, it's all a big conspiracy....Actually talking about things in detail is just a socialist scheme to confuse people into.... something. ..Though if you're trying to trick people I would have thought that it'd be better to keep things vague and general.. But what do I know of the machinations of your ...Listen, the handle is "hooradiation" - not dh or hd or whatever letters you happen to type. If you find typing it tedious, may I suggest that you use the copy and paste feature to copy it from within the quoted text you're replying to, and paste it as appropriate.
It's not difficult and it's a simple concept. This should appeal to you.

Are you quite finished ranting and flinging insults hd?

And no I couldn't be bothered typing or copying your full handle every time - it way to much long to for typing / copying out each time imo - have you something against initials as well as analogies?

Since the analogy was first posted you have engaged in a one way slagging match as you obviously did not like that the use of a straightforward example that explained more succinctly the issues relative to the principles of negative returns in a couple of paragraphs than your pages and pages of socialist rhetoric.

You continue to behave in this way even when the issues relative to the analogy were further detailed. So rather than bothering to try and be nice anymore HERE is my own diatribe....

Your replies show a complete lack of understanding of what was posted tbh.

You started by aggressively attacking everything and anything but the substance of the matter raised and continue to do so including low flying insults directly aimed at posters. This is neither discussion or debate - it is a stupid attempt to discredit posters who's opinions you do not like.

Your appear to be unaware that your socialist ideals are exactly as you have claimed - exist only in theory or as you said 'in your head'

Your replies to posts by giving essays on matters completely unrelated and having no basis on fact to that which had been discussed and then pretend to be annoyed when this was pointed out.

I do of course apologise if the use of such a straightforward analogy has annoyed you do much. But as demonstrated - taxing the 'rich b*st*rds' into oblivion will not result in a magic cure of the countries societal and economic ills.

gozunda

benway wrote: »

gozunda wrote: »

No one is born equal - some people will be born more intelligent, faster, taller, better looking etc that others - what should we do where this unfair advantage presents itself - get everyone dumbed down chemically, operated on so that all start the same?? Does that fit the model?

What would you do with 'poor parents' who work hard to achieve this for their child? Should they be analysed for preceived 'wealth and privilege, inheritance and nepotism' so as to guard against this being unfair to other children too

...,

Are you trying to say that a society where any child has a reasonable opportunity of going as far as their abilities will take them isn't something to aspire to?

No I'm not....

DuPLeX

isms and schisms .

DuPLeX

gozunda wrote: »

You started by aggressively attacking everything and anything but the substance of the matter raised and continue to do so including low flying insults directly aimed at posters. This is neither discussion or debate - it is a stupid attempt to discredit posters who's opinions you do not like.

This is a technique called Critical Theory first perfected by the Frankfurt school in the 1930s . Look it up.

gozunda

DuPLeX wrote: »

This is a technique called Critical Theory first perfected by the Frankfurt school in the 1930s . Look it up.

Thanks fot that DuPLeX.....I am aware of Critical Theory. (This is a rather old post btw) TBH I somehow dont believe that any coherent thought pattern has been actually followed here and whatever title you assign to the application of ignorance it remains just that ....

DuPLeX

It's a form of weaponised ignorance.
think of it this way ....
With the most basic of training even a complete cretin can shoot a gun .

gozunda

DuPLeX wrote: »

It's a form of weaponised ignorance.
think of it this way ....
With the most basic of training even a complete cretin can shoot a gun .

ok 'nuff said...