Dumbing-Down of America

[Yukon Cornelius]

But... but.. what about the Socialists? They'd completely disagree with you. Stupid people will tell you that no matter what job you have everyone deserves, or are "entitled" to the same amount of income, education, etc.. They will offer the moronic opinion that the real incentive to work hard is to feel better about helping others. Doctors don't do it for the money, they do it because they enjoy helping people; however, a burger flipper should make the same amount of money as a doctor because they are entitled to it -- they work just as hard as a doctor, but in a different way. Right?

 

See... sooner or later maybe we all can become Socialist, then and only then will we all be happy!

 

 

I was being facetious again.

 

To put things more blunt though, Socialism sucks.

actually go google socialist countries and there education( some are better than the u.s.)..... then report back.... they track, send kids off in directions that will help them and society....

[TheGrunt]

actually go google socialist countries and there education( some are better than the u.s.)..... then report back.... they track, send kids off in directions that will help them and society....

No, no... I first want you to explain to me who "they" are. After you name the country I'll then explain to you the core reason that Socialism is able to go on for so long in that country. I'm pretty sure I already know where this is going, and I have no reason to believe that my comment was wrong: Socialism doesn't work.

[Chavez]

No, no... I first want you to explain to me who "they" are. After you name the country I'll then explain to you the core reason that Socialism is able to go on for so long in that country. I'm pretty sure I already know where this is going, and I have no reason to believe that my comment was wrong: Socialism doesn't work.

 

The Scandinavian countries and Finland have varying levels of a free-market economy but have a fairly large "safety net" which is what I'm taking you to mean by "socialist."

[TheGrunt]

The Scandinavian countries and Finland have varying levels of a free-market economy but have a fairly large "safety net" which is what I'm taking you to mean by "socialist."

 

You don't really think socialism would work in the U.S. do you?

[broncosn05]

You don't really think socialism would work in the U.S. do you?

 

My teachers have some theories

[Pope Flick]

Grunt - I'm curious. You say this:

 

No, no... I first want you to explain to me who "they" are. After you name the country I'll then explain to you the core reason that Socialism is able to go on for so long in that country. I'm pretty sure I already know where this is going, and I have no reason to believe that my comment was wrong: Socialism doesn't work.

 

 

Chavez responds, and you duck on your own claim, below. I'd like to hear this bit of genius from your first statement.

 

You don't really think socialism would work in the U.S. do you?

 

[Bier Meister]

something i have been scratching my head about since reading that is wth has the money gone?....... nearly double in 6 years and what do we have to show for it? i have heard/read about parents still bucking up for supplies and snacks. how many new schools do we have to try to decrease classroom size? what programs are there that develop current teachers? maybe move the special ed kids into special ed schools??? etc, etc, etc

[BeeR]

They will offer the moronic opinion that the real incentive to work hard is to feel better about helping others.

Thx for reminding me how much I hate hippies.

[BeeR]

Although, once again I still believe Socialists aren't just 'moranic'. It takes a special kind of stupid to believe Socialism actually works.

 

So you're not voting for Hillary or Obama then?

 

sexist. I mean racist.

[BeeR]

something i have been scratching my head about since reading that is wth has the money gone?....... nearly double in 6 years and what do we have to show for it? i have heard/read about parents still bucking up for supplies and snacks. how many new schools do we have to try to decrease classroom size? what programs are there that develop current teachers? maybe move the special ed kids into special ed schools??? etc, etc, etc

 

The whole "we have to shrink the teacher/student ratio" is such a huge pile of cow patties it's not even funny. If teachers were allowed to really discipline again, if parents/kids were held accountable again, that would again cease to be an issue.

[wiegie]

Grunt... you duck on your own claim

 

That pretty much happens every time that The Grunt posts about something.

[Perchoutofwater]

we have really good schools here... check out our scores you mean the scores that the original article that started this debate are saying are falsified to make the schools look better than they are?

well how many kids yah gunna let in the good schools??? As many as want to. Sure in the first couple of years demand might out pace supply, but give it 5 years, and everyone that wants in a good school, and by want I mean proves, not just gives it lip service will get in.

they have a choice here( open enrollment) you can also MOVE to a different school district or perhaps home school or private school.... You're lucky. Thanks to Willie Wayne Justice down here all the minorities have open enrollment, but if you are white, you have not choice other than going to the public school you are assigned, or pay for private school.

 

[Azazello1313]

something i have been scratching my head about since reading that is wth has the money gone?....... nearly double in 6 years and what do we have to show for it? i have heard/read about parents still bucking up for supplies and snacks. how many new schools do we have to try to decrease classroom size? what programs are there that develop current teachers? maybe move the special ed kids into special ed schools??? etc, etc, etc

 

 

i'm not sure where you'e getting double in 6 years, but yeah....more and more money gets thrown into the pot, and yet more and more schools are dumping stuff like arts and music programs. performance isn't getting any better. "new programs to develop teachers" sounds like more of the same to me, what is needed is a fundamental change in how we educate our kids.

[Yukon Cornelius]

something i have been scratching my head about since reading that is wth has the money gone?....... nearly double in 6 years and what do we have to show for it? i have heard/read about parents still bucking up for supplies and snacks. how many new schools do we have to try to decrease classroom size? what programs are there that develop current teachers? maybe move the special ed kids into special ed schools??? etc, etc, etc

 

it used to be that way till 1982

 

here they arent building new schools and were the money is going it is very hard to find an answer...

 

speculation is :

 

administration( clearical for all the paper work)

special ed

more vp and principals than ever.

[wiegie]

it used to be that way till 1982

 

here they arent building new schools and were the money is going it is very hard to find an answer...

 

speculation is :

 

administration( clearical for all the paper work)

special ed

more vp and principals than ever.

 

What about stuff like computers, etc.?

[Yukon Cornelius]

What about stuff like computers, etc.?

 

all depends on school and school district

 

ive gone into new schools were there are new computers everywhere

 

and ive gone into schools with a couple of old labs with old macs and pc's.... no rime or reason that i can see

[spain]

"new programs to develop teachers" sounds like more of the same to me, what is needed is a fundamental change in how we educate our kids.

 

+1

But the teachers unions and idiots like Skins will fight change to preserve the broken status quo.

Edited March 8, 2007 by spain

[Bier Meister]

The whole "we have to shrink the teacher/student ratio" is such a huge pile of cow patties it's not even funny.

 

i don't believe we are going to have classrooms full of "super students" in public schools around the country. so, when you bring a class size down from 45 to 30 or less, i think it makes life a lot easier on teachers running classrooms.... maybe yuk can address that.

 

If teachers were allowed to really discipline again, if parents/kids were held accountable again, that would again cease to be an issue.

 

i would agree that that would help as well

 

 

 

 

i'm not sure where you'e getting double in 6 years.

 

i thought that i read that fund went from 35 bil to 68 bil

 

[Yukon Cornelius]

yah larger classes is bad bad...

 

and in those uber good schools they don't have more than 25 in a class... at least around here..

[BeeR]

i don't believe we are going to have classrooms full of "super students" in public schools around the country.

? who says we need to?

 

so, when you bring a class size down from 45 to 30 or less, i think it makes life a lot easier on teachers running classrooms....

Well obviously smaller is better. But you have to take into account other factors (enough teachers, enough money, enough time, etc etc) re. the feasibility of more and smaller classes - and I don't have any precise # in mind. My point is this is a "band aid" mentality which doesn't address the real problem(s). Edited March 8, 2007 by BeeR

[TimC]

Random Bea Arthur pic

[TheGrunt]

Grunt - I'm curious. You say this:

Chavez responds, and you duck on your own claim, below. I'd like to hear this bit of genius from your first statement.

 

Here is an excellent answer that will pretty much sum up several of my beliefs for why Socialism doesn't work:

Why Socialism Failed

Mark J. Perry

 

Socialism is the Big Lie of the twentieth century. While it promised prosperity, equality, and security, it delivered poverty, misery, and tyranny. Equality was achieved only in the sense that everyone was equal in his or her misery.

In the same way that a Ponzi scheme or chain letter initially succeeds but eventually collapses, socialism may show early signs of success. But any accomplishments quickly fade as the fundamental deficiencies of central planning emerge. It is the initial illusion of success that gives government intervention its pernicious, seductive appeal. In the long run, socialism has always proven to be a formula for tyranny and misery.

A pyramid scheme is ultimately unsustainable because it is based on faulty principles. Likewise, collectivism is unsustainable in the long run because it is a flawed theory. Socialism does not work because it is not consistent with fundamental principles of human behavior. The failure of socialism in countries around the world can be traced to one critical defect: it is a system that ignores incentives.

In a capitalist economy, incentives are of the utmost importance. Market prices, the profit-and-loss system of accounting, and private property rights provide an efficient, interrelated system of incentives to guide and direct economic behavior. Capitalism is based on the theory that incentives matter!

Under socialism, incentives either play a minimal role or are ignored totally. A centrally planned economy without market prices or profits, where property is owned by the state, is a system without an effective incentive mechanism to direct economic activity. By failing to emphasize incentives, socialism is a theory inconsistent with human nature and is therefore doomed to fail. Socialism is based on the theory that incentives don't matter!

In a radio debate several months ago with a Marxist professor from the University of Minnesota, I pointed out the obvious failures of socialism around the world in Cuba, Eastern Europe, and China. At the time of our debate, Haitian refugees were risking their lives trying to get to Florida in homemade boats. Why was it, I asked him, that people were fleeing Haiti and traveling almost 500 miles by ocean to get to the "evil capitalist empire" when they were only 50 miles from the "workers' paradise" of Cuba?

The Marxist admitted that many "socialist" countries around the world were failing. However, according to him, the reason for failure is not that socialism is deficient, but that the socialist economies are not practicing "pure" socialism. The perfect version of socialism would work; it is just the imperfect socialism that doesn't work. Marxists like to compare a theoretically perfect version of socialism with practical, imperfect capitalism which allows them to claim that socialism is superior to capitalism.

If perfection really were an available option, the choice of economic and political systems would be irrelevant. In a world with perfect beings and infinite abundance, any economic or political system-socialism, capitalism, fascism, or communism-would work perfectly.

However, the choice of economic and political institutions is crucial in an imperfect universe with imperfect beings and limited resources. In a world of scarcity it is essential for an economic system to be based on a clear incentive structure to pro-mote economic efficiency. The real choice we face is between imperfect capitalism and imperfect socialism. Given that choice, the evidence of history overwhelmingly favors capitalism as the greatest wealth-producing economic system available.

The strength of capitalism can be attributed to an incentive structure based upon the three Ps: (1) prices determined by market forces, (2) a profit--and-loss system of accounting and (3) private property rights. The failure of socialism can be traced to its neglect of these three incentive--enhancing components.

Prices

The price system in a market economy guides economic activity so flawlessly that most people don't appreciate its importance. Market prices transmit information about relative scarcity and then efficiently coordinate economic activity. The economic content of prices provides incentives that promote economic efficiency.

For example, when the OPEC cartel restricted the supply of oil in the 1970s, oil prices rose dramatically. The higher prices for oil and gasoline transmitted valuable information to both buyers and sellers. Consumers received a strong, clear message about the scarcity of oil by the higher prices at the pump and were forced to change their behavior dramatically. People reacted to the scarcity by driving less, carpooling more, taking public transportation, and buying smaller cars. Producers reacted to the higher price by increasing their efforts at exploration for more oil. In addition, higher oil prices gave producers an incentive to explore and develop alternative fuel and energy sources.

The information transmitted by higher oil prices provided the appropriate incentive structure to both buyers and sellers. Buyers increased their effort to conserve a now more precious resource and sellers increased their effort to find more of this now scarcer resource.

The only alternative to a market price is a controlled or fixed price which always transmits misleading information about relative scarcity. Inappropriate behavior results from a controlled price because false information has been transmitted by an artificial, non-market price.

Look at what happened during the 1970s when U.S. gas prices were controlled. Long lines developed at service stations all over the country because the price for gasoline was kept artificially low by government fiat. The full impact of scarcity was not accurately conveyed. As Milton Friedman pointed out at the time, we could have eliminated the lines at the pump in one day by allowing the price to rise to clear the market.

From our experience with price controls on gasoline and the long lines at the pump and general inconvenience, we get an insight into what happens under socialism where every price in the economy is controlled. The collapse of socialism is due in part to the chaos and inefficiency that result from artificial prices. The information content of a controlled price is always distorted. This in turn distorts the incentives mechanism of prices under socialism. Administered prices are always either too high or too low, which then creates constant shortages and surpluses. Market prices are the only way to transmit information that will create the incentives to ensure economic efficiency.

Profits and Losses

Socialism also collapsed because of its failure to operate under a competitive, profit-and-loss system of accounting. A profit system is an effective monitoring mechanism which continually evaluates the economic performance of every business enterprise. The firms that are the most efficient and most successful at serving the public interest are rewarded with profits. Firms that operate inefficiently and fail to serve the public interest are penalized with losses.

By rewarding success and penalizing failure, the profit system provides a strong disciplinary mechanism which continually redirects resources away from weak, failing, and inefficient firms toward those firms which are the most efficient and successful at serving the public. A competitive profit system ensures a constant re-optimization of resources and moves the economy toward greater levels of efficiency. Unsuccessful firms cannot escape the strong discipline of the marketplace under a profit/loss system. Competition forces companies to serve the public interest or suffer the consequences.

Under central planning, there is no profit-and-loss system of accounting to accurately measure the success or failure of various programs. Without profits, there is no way to discipline firms that fail to serve the public interest and no way to reward firms that do. There is no efficient way to determine which programs should be expanded and which ones should be contracted or terminated.

Without competition, centrally planned economies do not have an effective incentive structure to coordinate economic activity. Without incentives the results are a spiraling cycle of poverty and misery. Instead of continually reallocating resources towards greater efficiency, socialism falls into a vortex of inefficiency and failure.

Private Property Rights

A third fatal defect of socialism is its blatant disregard for the role of private property rights in creating incentives that foster economic growth and development. The failure of socialism around the world is a "tragedy of commons" on a global scale.

The "tragedy of the commons" refers to the British experience of the sixteenth century when certain grazing lands were communally owned by villages and were made available for public use. The land was quickly overgrazed and eventually became worthless as villagers exploited the communally owned resource.

When assets are publicly owned, there are no incentives in place to encourage wise stewardship. While private property creates incentives for conservation and the responsible use of property, public property encourages irresponsibility and waste. If everyone owns an asset, people act as if no one owns it. And when no one owns it, no one really takes care of it. Public ownership encourages neglect and mismanagement.

Since socialism, by definition, is a system marked by the "common ownership of the means of production," the failure of socialism is a "tragedy of the commons" on a national scale. Much of the economic stagnation of socialism can be traced to the failure to establish and promote private property rights.

As Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto remarked, you can travel in rural communities around the world and you will hear dogs barking, because even dogs understand property rights. It is only statist governments that have failed to understand property rights. Socialist countries are just now starting to recognize the importance of private property as they privatize assets and property in Eastern Europe.

Incentives Matter

Without the incentives of market prices, profit--and-loss accounting, and well-defined property rights, socialist economies stagnate and wither. The economic atrophy that occurs under socialism is a direct consequence of its neglect of economic incentives.

No bounty of natural resources can ever compensate a country for its lack of an efficient system of incentives. Russia, for example, is one of the world's wealthiest countries in terms of natural resources; it has some of the world's largest reserves of oil, natural gas, diamonds, and gold. Its valuable farm land, lakes, rivers, and streams stretch across a land area that encompasses 11 time zones. Yet Russia remains poor. Natural resources are helpful, but the ultimate resources of any country are the unlimited resources of its people-human resources.

By their failure to foster, promote, and nurture the potential of their people through incentive-enhancing institutions, centrally planned economies deprive the human spirit of full development. Socialism fails because it kills and destroys the human spirit-just ask the people leaving Cuba in homemade rafts and boats.

As the former centrally planned economies move toward free markets, capitalism, and democracy, they look to the United States for guidance and support during the transition. With an unparalleled 250-year tradition of open markets and limited government, the United States is uniquely qualified to be the guiding light in the worldwide transition to freedom and liberty.

We have an obligation to continue to provide a framework of free markets and democracy for the global transition to freedom. Our responsibility to the rest of the world is to continue to fight the seductiveness of statism around the world and here at home. The seductive nature of statism continues to tempt and lure us into the Barmecidal illusion that the government can create wealth.

The temptress of socialism is constantly luring us with the offer: "give up a little of your freedom and I will give you a little more security." As the experience of this century has demonstrated, the bargain is tempting but never pays off. We end up losing both our freedom and our security.

Programs like socialized medicine, welfare, social security, and minimum wage laws will continue to entice us because on the surface they appear to be expedient and beneficial. Those programs, like all socialist programs, will fail in the long run regardless of initial appearances. These programs are part of the Big Lie of socialism because they ignore the important role of incentives. Socialism will remain a constant temptation. We must be vigilant in our fight against socialism not only around the globe but also here in the United States.

The failure of socialism inspired a worldwide renaissance of freedom and liberty. For the first time in the history of the world, the day is coming very soon when a majority of the people in the world will live in free societies or societies rapidly moving towards freedom.

Capitalism will play a major role in the global revival of liberty and prosperity because it nurtures the human spirit, inspires human creativity, and promotes the spirit of enterprise. By providing a powerful system of incentives that promote thrift, hard work, and efficiency, capitalism creates wealth.

The main difference between capitalism and socialism is this: Capitalism works.

[Bier Meister]

The whole "we have to shrink the teacher/student ratio" is such a huge pile of cow patties it's not even funny. If teachers were allowed to really discipline again, if parents/kids were held accountable again, that would again cease to be an issue.

 

 

 

? who says we need to?

 

my point was it's not realistic to expect every classroom in America to sit at attention 7-9 hours a day.... it's not all about discipline. parent, and kids.... you make it sound like a magic pill that would correct everything. i think it is much deeper......

 

Well obviously smaller is better. But you have to take into account other factors (enough teachers, enough money, enough time, etc etc) re. the feasibility of more and smaller classes - and I don't have any precise # in mind. My point is this is a "band aid" mentality which doesn't address the real problem(s).

 

 

....... placing kids in appropriate classes would help (in turn reducing class size). i would have hope that with all of the new money, that you could prob build and fill new schools specifically tagreted to teach s.ed kids..... taking those kids out of the mainstream classrooms/schools (with attempts to get them back in once they maintain acceptable criteria) would be less disruptive to teachers... and possibly allow for more honor based special programs in those mainstream school. i would have also though that the system could have acquired more teachers accross the board with the influx of cash

 

is soley reducing class size the answer? heck no.... but doing so accross the board will certainly help teachers here and now and i see it as one thing that needs to be done.

 

[Pope Flick]

Here is an excellent answer that will pretty much sum up several of my beliefs for why Socialism doesn't work:

 

 

 

N offense, but when you said this:

 

No, no... I first want you to explain to me who "they" are. After you name the country I'll then explain to you the core reason that Socialism is able to go on for so long in that country. I'm pretty sure I already know where this is going, and I have no reason to believe that my comment was wrong: Socialism doesn't work.

 

 

 

That statement doesn't jib with posting an article in general. You said you knew where it was gong, and seemed to imply you had an answer that was your own, not a cut and paste job.

 

What is your answer for scandanavian success with parts of the system? Or were you expecting a different country to be mentioned which is why you fell back on the article?

 

Yes, semantics plays a large part here, and this article doesn't want to admit that 'communism' and even 'socialism' weren't practiced by the Soviet Union, Cuba or China. Techinically speaking, to say so is to be just as wrong as saying our government is a Democracy, which it is not - it is a Republic.

Edited March 8, 2007 by Pope Flick

[Kid Cid]

Well, part of unqualified is not knowing how to handle kids in a way that might be able to get some to pay attention in a better manner than they do. And let's face it, from my understanding of kids in schools these days a BIG problem is that punishment doesn't happen anymore. Corporal punishment? Never should have been banned. Not able to flunk kids as easily in the past gives parents less of a reason to stay involved, because I'd bet dollars to donuts that those parents who you say (and I believe btw) don't care about the kids' education would be at the school in a new york minute when their kid got flunked.

I, and nobody else, have solutions for bad parenting by others. Well, except for eugenics but we wn't go there.

I asked this question before, but got no response. Anyone have experience with democratic schools?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_school

 

http://www.sudval.org/

 

They're ignoring you Pope because they would rather run around pointing fingers at each and every little part they think is broken than to take a step back an truly consider alternatives. That and they really do come here just to argue with each other.

 

The Democratic schools are an excellent alternative to a standard education, or at least they seem that way from what little I know about them. IMO anything that is out of the ordinary as far as education is concerned can't be that bad. Most likely better than what we have now.