Should education be completely privatized?

[Filiprish]

I don't know where I stand on this issue. I would never pay the price for private education, I'm not that stupid. But, if education was completely privatized the price might decrease to your average in-state tuition. Then again, the poor are basically funding public education. So, we'd probably see price slightly higher than your average in-state tuition but drastically lower than your average private ed tuition. This, of course, is bad for consumers, but fairer to the poor. What do you guys think? Should education be completely privatized?

[Emperor_Mike]

It would go a long way to reduce expenses. But it would also mean that low income families will be placed at a great disadvantage. In short, a fully privatised system would be disastrous in terms of molding the brilliant minds of tomorrow, regardless of social stature.

[AliBabaIncorporated]

But it would also mean that low income families will be placed at a great disadvantage. In short, a fully privatised system would be disastrous in terms of molding the brilliant minds of tomorrow, regardless of social stature.
just give tax credits for contributions to scholarship funds ... it's not as though there's not enough money out there, per-capita spending in the DC school districts, for example, exceeds most of the nation's private schools, and they produce utterly uneducated students.

[kitty]

i'm not good with economics, but my gut says no. i never really liked the idea of privitization, but it seems to me that to create common standards would be the best way of ensuring that everyone gets a chance at good education.

[SunWuKong]

if the government is going to mandate that all children go to school, i think it should also provide free (not counting taxes) public education. basically, whatever the government mandate you must actively do, i think the government should provide free access to enable citizens to do it. having citizens rely on private enterprises for these will make it so those industries are not entirely governed by market forces because citizens have no choice but to purchase those services.

whenever the government is involved, it defenestrates market forces. it's like government contracting. it's a completely ass-backwards business. if you don't use up all your budget, you'll get a smaller budget next year.

and at any rate, i don't see how complete privatisation solves the problems of poorly funded schools. like i've said before, the government mandates that all children go to school. this means there's going to be a guaranteed market for schools if they are all private. however, poor people can't afford expensive tuitions - but they must send their kids to school nonetheless. this will basically create thousands of "bargain" private schools that are poorly funded because their tuition costs will be low. competition won't eliminate worse schools either because most likely it'll be the cheaper schools that stay competitive - but that doesn't make them "better" schools. and what if these conglomerate private school businesses appear? like the Walmart of private schools. Walmart does not exactly use better service or products to drive out the competition. they set up shops somewhere within a certain radius, sell everything cheaper, and when the smaller businesses close because they can't compete, the Walmart closes those locations and builds a "super center" in the nexus of the perimeter where they opened their original stores. what's to keep private schools from doing the same thing?

EDIT: oh oops. is the topic only about higher education? i was talking about K-12 education.

[Yeahman]

I would say "yes, definately!" if it wasn't for the success of some public institutions such as the UCs.
But I guess even they can still function well in private hands.

I am actually for school vouchers. None of the financial aid crap. We'll give you $10,000/year for the tuition regardless of your financial status. School's will only receive the full $10,000 if the student can pass a variety of standardized exams. Home-schooled? We'll give you something like $500/year as long as you can pass the exams. Peg the tuition voucher to the price of a basket of educational goods and services for that particular grade (college would be more expensive than elementry school).

[>:^|]

My worry about privatizing education would be that there would still be a large split between the rich and the poor. Who's going to put expensive private schools in poor neighborhoods? It doesn't much happen. Maybe I'm jaded coming from the Shitty Education Capital of the World, but what I see here is that the magnet public schools are built in White areas. Why do I think private schools (which would have more financial incentive) would be any different?

just give tax credits for contributions to scholarship funds ... it's not as though there's not enough money out there, per-capita spending in the DC school districts, for example, exceeds most of the nation's private schools, and they produce utterly uneducated students.

Is this really true? Sorry to doubt you, AliBaba, but I find this really hard to believe just from city schools here. Would it make a difference if you broke out the districts? For example, would the per capita spending in poor areas in DC be more than private schools or is it just the per capita average of all the DC schools? Is DC school funding tied to property values and property tax like they are here, resulting in more money for the richer areas?

[Yeahman]

The case for privatization doesn't include lessening the gap between poor and rich. That gap exists and that's the way a free capitalistic society works. You can't force parents to spend less on their kids. But with standarized testing, we can make sure that there is at least a required base performance. To get their money, the schools would have to be able to demonstrate that the students are learning. The teachers have a financial interest in their pupils' education.
There would also be competition between schools. Better quality education becomes a competitive advantage.

Let's face it, with few exceptions public education is extremely inefficient. Is there a case against privatization?

[nola]

Privatization and vouchers would increase the disparity between the rich and the poor which leads to social ills such as crime. I also believe in free higher education (college) like they have in Europe. Here is the Free Higher Education website http://www.freehighered.org/index.html.

[Yeahman]

Privatization and vouchers would increase the disparity between the rich and the poor which leads to social ills such as crime. I also believe in free higher education (college) like they have in Europe. Here is the Free Higher Education website http://www.freehighered.org/index.html.
The internet boom also increased the disparity between the rich and the poor. Privatization advocates want to raise the standard for everyone including the wealthy. Commies, I mean opponents, want everyone to have an equally poor education.
Vouchers and the elimination of public education would result in many receiving free or low cost education.

Public Schools: Make Them Private by Milton Friedman
http://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp-023.html

[VV o n g B a]

just give tax credits for contributions to scholarship funds ... it's not as though there's not enough money out there, per-capita spending in the DC school districts, for example, exceeds most of the nation's private schools, and they produce utterly uneducated students.
wouldn't this just be public education under a different name? it's still using what would be tax money to pay for education. the only difference being that u could designate which school ur money went to and/or what qualifications a student needed to have to get ur money.

[kitty]

i think vouchers are a terrible idea, especially the way yell0man described them. definitely, we have a race-based class and economic disparity in this country and one of the ways to help alleviate the problem is through greater opportunities via higher education. not everyone in this country has equal access to adequate K-12 education, so how can they then be considered 'equal' once they reach higher education? I think the poor, less fortunate, or underprivileged citizens of the U.S. should get the SAME higher education opportunities as the rich and more fortunate. That means everyone shouldn't get $10,000/year, because it forces the less fortunate kids to go to the schools that cost $10,000/year and the richer kids to be afford the ivies and other places of higher education that cost more a year, regardless of these kids' abilities.

all that would do is enhance the disparity between the classes, and create even more of an education gap.

[nola]

We can make public education excellent for everyone by paying teachers more. The disparity isn't just in higher education. There are often huge disparities between poor and middle-class K-12 schools and suburban and well-off neighborhood K-12 schools.

[Yeahman]

i think vouchers are a terrible idea, especially the way yell0man described them. definitely, we have a race-based class and economic disparity in this country and one of the ways to help alleviate the problem is through greater opportunities via higher education. not everyone in this country has equal access to adequate K-12 education, so how can they then be considered 'equal' once they reach higher education? I think the poor, less fortunate, or underprivileged citizens of the U.S. should get the SAME higher education opportunities as the rich and more fortunate. That means everyone shouldn't get $10,000/year, because it forces the less fortunate kids to go to the schools that cost $10,000/year and the richer kids to be afford the ivies and other places of higher education that cost more a year, regardless of these kids' abilities.

all that would do is enhance the disparity between the classes, and create even more of an education gap.
In other words, make sure everyone gets an equally poor education.

What difference does it make to a poor kid who gets a $10,000 public education or a $10,000 private education? Well besides the fact that the private education will probably be a lot better.

[nola]

The poor can't afford the private schools and getting to the neighborhoods the private schools are in.

Savage Inequalities by educator Jonathan Kozol is a shocking, realistic look at the inequities I've mentionned.

[Yeahman]

We can make public education excellent for everyone by paying teachers more. The disparity isn't just in higher education. There are often huge disparities between poor and middle-class K-12 schools and suburban and well-off neighborhood K-12 schools.
Why are private school teachers getting paid more when private school costs about as much per student as public school?
Why throw more money at a clearly inefficient system instead of awarding it to the efficient?

[nola]

Private school teachers are paid more because students pay more. I don't know about the cost per student state governments give public versus private schools. Teachers should be paid more so teaching becomes a more respected, well-paid field that many more people would be willing to go into.

[Filiprish]

EDIT: oh oops. is the topic only about higher education? i was talking about K-12 education.
Oops.

I had higher education in mind. It's my fault, I should've been more specific. We can talk about education in general, everyone have made some very good points! We should just make sure we specify which kind of education, primary (?) or higher, we're talking, to avoid further confusion.

[Yeahman]

Private school teachers are paid more because students pay more. I don't know about the cost per student state governments give public versus private schools. Teachers should be paid more so teaching becomes a more respected, well-paid field that many more people would be willing to go into.
Yes teachers should be paid more. But who's fault is it when they're not? The state by virtue of its inefficiency does not pay the teachers well even though they have access to equal resources as private schools. Why the hell should we throw more money into a broken system when there's a better alternative? It's like spending money to fix up an old beat up car when you can sell it and buy a brand new car with better specs and fuel economy with that money.
Throw more money at it; the Democratic way.

[SunWuKong]

The case for privatization doesn't include lessening the gap between poor and rich. That gap exists and that's the way a free capitalistic society works. You can't force parents to spend less on their kids. But with standarized testing, we can make sure that there is at least a required base performance. To get their money, the schools would have to be able to demonstrate that the students are learning. The teachers have a financial interest in their pupils' education.
There would also be competition between schools. Better quality education becomes a competitive advantage.

Let's face it, with few exceptions public education is extremely inefficient. Is there a case against privatization?

are you talking about higher education or K-12 education?

and what did you think about what i wrote in my first post in this thread? basically i don't see how complete privatisation solves anything.

[nola]

I can understand you want to give your kids the best possible education which is probably private. But there should be a middle ground where liberals stop throwing money inefficiently at things and conservatives think more long term for everyone's welfare.

[Yeahman]

are you talking about higher education or K-12 education?

and what did you think about what i wrote in my first post in this thread? basically i don't see how complete privatisation solves anything.
I'm talking about both.
I think that my voucher proposal solved many of the problems you mentioned. The cheapest possible tuition for any school would be equal to the voucher value. School's aren't going to charge less than they get can get. So in effect there is exists a price floor. No Wal-Martization.

[kitty]

In other words, make sure everyone gets an equally poor education.

What difference does it make to a poor kid who gets a $10,000 public education or a $10,000 private education? Well besides the fact that the private education will probably be a lot better.

not if the standardized public education is made good. public education is relatively poor now, but it doesn't have to be. a $10,000 public education means that some people aren't disadvantaged over others based on where they live, and what access they have to higher education. in private education, standards are much more flexible, and there's no incentive to keep tuition at $10,000.

[SunWuKong]

I'm talking about both.
I think that my voucher proposal solved many of the problems you mentioned. The cheapest possible tuition for any school would be equal to the voucher value. School's aren't going to charge less than they get can get. So in effect there is exists a price floor. No Wal-Martization.


so complete privatisation with vouchers? isn't that basically just giving out government subsidies? it's still government funding. i mean what if there's a budget cut in education and the amount of vouchers given out is lowered? how's that different from free public schools? i don't see how it would create an environment of competition if these private schools would be dependent on government funding anyway. let's say a school sucks, but it's cheap and it survives because poor people are going there with their vouchers, and so the school is surviving by government funding. that's basically a public school.

[Yeahman]

not if the standardized public education is made good.
We've been hearing that promise for decades. Even if it was possible (which I believe it is theoretically, with massive reform), the fact that it hasn't happened only demonstrates the inefficiency of the public administration of schools.

public education is relatively poor now, but it doesn't have to be. a $10,000 public education means that some people aren't disadvantaged over others based on where they live, and what access they have to higher education.
No, it just means that everyone is equally disadvantaged. You remind me of the parents from low-income areas who used to protest in front of my high school calling for an elimination of ALL programs for the gifted because their children don't have them. It's domestic educational protectionism. "We can't compete so EVERYONE should suffer."

in private education, standards are much more flexible, and there's no incentive to keep tuition at $10,000.
Obviously there would need to be some standarization as I have stated before. Also, we don't know if tuition will stay at $10,000. Maybe competition will insure that it will. If not, there are ways around it like semi-privatization through private contracting. Set the tuition at $10,000 and let the community vote for the private company that will run the school for a specified period of time.

so complete privatisation with vouchers? isn't that basically just giving out government subsidies? it's still government funding. i mean what if there's a budget cut in education and the amount of vouchers given out is lowered? how's that different from free public schools? i don't see how it would create an environment of competition if these private schools would be dependent on government funding anyway. let's say a school sucks, but it's cheap and it survives because poor people are going there with their vouchers, and so the school is surviving by government funding. that's basically a public school.
There is a big difference. The administration would be done privately and for-profit. There is actually an incentive for schools to perform.
My proposed voucher is not guarenteed in full. It's contingent on the students demonstrating that they've learned something through standardized exams. I'm just making up these numbers as I go along but say for instance that a student passes none of the 4 exams he must pass. The school would only get $2000 (cost of lunch?) because that's all he got out of the school. If he passes just 2 of them the school would get $6000.

If a school sucks, the student can just switch schools. That's how the competition works.

[SunWuKong]

There is a big difference. The administration would be done privately and for-profit. There is actually an incentive for schools to perform.
My proposed voucher is not guarenteed in full. It's contingent on the students demonstrating that they've learned something through standardized exams. I'm just making up these numbers as I go along but say for instance that a student passes none of the 4 exams he must pass. The school would only get $2000 (cost of lunch?) because that's all he got out of the school. If he passes just 2 of them the school would get $6000.

If a school sucks, the student can just switch schools. That's how the competition works.

how does that eliminate the problem of kids going to poorly funded schools? a certain number of schools will always have students because kids must go to school. what if within a residential area, all the schools are underperforming and therefore not getting that much government voucher money? there won't be an incentive for schools to perform because kids still have to go to school anyway so they'll just make money from tuition. competition would depend on how cheap the schools are, and not necessarily the quality of the education provided, because many families won't be able to afford tuition. a business makes a profit by cutting costs while increasing revenue - and improving the quality of your service/products is not the only way to do this. even if a school doesn't get much voucher money, it can still turn a profit because it still gets revenue from tuition and it could cut costs where it actually negatively effects the quality of education. that'll just create a whole class of "bargain price" private schools that are poorly funded and producing students that perform poorly on standardised tests. and the only way that a school will have an incentive to improve its quality so to get more voucher money is if the costs of improving its quality is lower than the amount of voucher money it'll get for those improvements, otherwise it's not cost-effective to improve quality. that'll basically make the voucher program even more expensive than funding public schools.

and what about funding cut in education? voucher programs will still be affected by that, and even schools that are performing well will get funding cut when the government cuts funding in education like it often does. you'll still have the same problems that the current public school systems have.

another problem is standardised testing in and of itself. your idea would produce series of schools that only or mostly train its students to perform well on these tests. but there is a lot of educational value in things like writing papers, doing projects, etc etc. activities that require students to create ideas instead of react to problems that are posed to them. there's no way to test those kinds of things in standardised tests.

[Yeahman]

Of course the cost of improving the quality of education would be lower than the amount of additional voucher money they would receive. I picked hypothetical numbers but if implemented those numbers would have to be more thoroughly researched.
The public school system need not be completely privatized. I mentioned the semi-privatization of some schools through private contracting. That's another option.

Educational funding is cut because it can be. Vouchers would make it almost politically impossible to cut funding since it is done on a per student basis. But even if funding is cut, how is that any worse than what we already have?

As for standarized testing, I think it should be done, privatization or not. It's the only effective way to hold educators accountable. It wouldn't eliminate writing papers. Isn't there a writing section on the SATs now? And we still had projects in my AP Spanish class. Grades would still matter as a criterion for admissions.

[SunWuKong]

Of course the cost of improving the quality of education would be lower than the amount of additional voucher money they would receive. I picked hypothetical numbers but if implemented those numbers would have to be more thoroughly researched.

i just don't see how it would make things better, because essentially, you'd end up with Walmart-type private schools that make money from volume instead of quality. they would be very large and profitable schools that produce large amounts of students that only meet the minimum educational requirements. their profits will grow through the enrollment of more students.

The public school system need not be completely privatized. I mentioned the semi-privatization of some schools through private contracting. That's another option.

that's basically like subsidising a business though, and subsidies have never really improved quality in a business, it only keeps a business alive through government funding instead of beating the competition.

Educational funding is cut because it can be. Vouchers would make it almost politically impossible to cut funding since it is done on a per student basis.

actually i believe that education funding for public schools currently is broken down to per-student costs. but i'm not 100% sure.

But even if funding is cut, how is that any worse than what we already have?

the difference, of course, is that education would be free, except for taxes collected.

As for standarized testing, I think it should be done, privatization or not. It's the only effective way to hold educators accountable. It wouldn't eliminate writing papers. Isn't there a writing section on the SATs now? And we still had projects in my AP Spanish class. Grades would still matter as a criterion for admissions.

oh i agree that standardised testing should be done. but i think it would be problematic if all schools in the country depend on the results of standardised tests to ensure existence.

[Yeahman]

i just don't see how it would make things better, because essentially, you'd end up with Walmart-type private schools that make money from volume instead of quality. they would be very large and profitable schools that produce large amounts of students that only meet the minimum educational requirements. their profits will grow through the enrollment of more students..
And how is that worse than our public schools which don't even meet minimum educational requirements? Because of the tuition floor, schools can't undercut each other on price. They have to remain competitive in quality.

that's basically like subsidising a business though, and subsidies have never really improved quality in a business, it only keeps a business alive through government funding instead of beating the competition..
There is competition to win contracts.

the difference, of course, is that education would be free, except for taxes collected..
Same thing with vouchers.

oh i agree that standardised testing should be done. but i think it would be problematic if all schools in the country depend on the results of standardised tests to ensure existence.
I don't think we have a choice.

[SunWuKong]

And how is that worse than our public schools which don't even meet minimum educational requirements? Because of the tuition floor, schools can't undercut each other on price. They have to remain competitive in quality.

because with Walmart-style private schools, they beat out the competition and create a local monopoly. now they can even stop meeting minimum educational requirements because they are guaranteed profit because the government mandates that kids must go to school. the government has already defenestrated pure market forces for an all-private educational system. now if the government stops mandating that kids must get an education, i think an all-private educational system would work. of course, then you'd have kids that are not educated at all.


There is competition to win contracts.

oh man, don't even get me started on government contracting. i work in government contracts. trust me, it is not governed by quality of service. plus the contractors have a habit of trying to drain as much funding as possible without necessarily raising the quality. and if you don't use up all your funding, you'll get less of a budget next year. so in essence, private schools on government contracts will function like public schools.


Same thing with vouchers.

so your idea of all-private schools that run on vouchers actually legally bares schools from taking tuition money from students? in other words they're entirely funded by the government? how is that different from simply having a public school system? you can't start a school unless you can convince the government to give you money. why don't we just start closing down public schools that don't perform well enough?


I don't think we have a choice.

why not? making the existence of a school entirely dependent on standardised testing would make the quality of education worse than it currently is.

[Yeahman]

because with Walmart-style private schools, they beat out the competition and create a local monopoly. now they can even stop meeting minimum educational requirements because they are guaranteed profit because the government mandates that kids must go to school. the government has already defenestrated pure market forces for an all-private educational system. now if the government stops mandating that kids must get an education, i think an all-private educational system would work. of course, then you'd have kids that are not educated at all.
Which is why we hold back voucher money for schools who underperform. It is in their best interest to perform.

How are Walmart-style private schools going to beat out the competition? They have to do it by providing a superior education. After they create a local monopoly, say they decide to slack off. They now receive a fraction of what they used to as a result. Investors are not happy.

oh man, don't even get me started on government contracting. i work in government contracts. trust me, it is not governed by quality of service. plus the contractors have a habit of trying to drain as much funding as possible without necessarily raising the quality. and if you don't use up all your funding, you'll get less of a budget next year. so in essence, private schools on government contracts will function like public schools.
A pre-determined price ($10,000). Awarding of contracts voted on by the local community.

so your idea of all-private schools that run on vouchers actually legally bares schools from taking tuition money from students? in other words they're entirely funded by the government? how is that different from simply having a public school system? you can't start a school unless you can convince the government to give you money. why don't we just start closing down public schools that don't perform well enough?
No. There would be plenty of $10,000 tuition schools which would be fully funded by the government provided that they perform. There would be more expensive schools too. But if you aren't picky you can go to the $10,000 tuition schools. You have school choice.

[Mr.Lum]

And how is that worse than our public schools which don't even meet minimum educational requirements? Because of the tuition floor, schools can't undercut each other on price. They have to remain competitive in quality.



my schools meet the requirements. CT is one of 5 that do I just recently heard. maybe other states should take lessons from us.

Commies, I mean opponents, want everyone to have an equally poor education.



if the government would spend more time on trying to get effective methods of education there would be no problem with it, but the government is run by business men and so shitty schools are in their best interest.

The case for privatization doesn't include lessening the gap between poor and rich. That gap exists and that's the way a free capitalistic society works.
youre right here, it includes widening the gap. if you compare the US with Europe in terms of education, the US sucks, and both are mainly public. whats the problem? the government isnt fucking trying.
I can understand you want to give your kids the best possible education which is probably private. But there should be a middle ground where liberals stop throwing money inefficiently at things and conservatives think more long term for everyone's welfare.

private schools prices are outragous. I was going to go to Philips Exeter up in NH, I couldnt afford it, like 30,000 per year! the other option was my dad's high school the Hun School of Princeton, I got 10,000 in aid and I still couldnt afford it. my high school has been doing very good in recent years but now theyve begun to cut funding for where it really shines, the arts. we built the best autotourium in New England and produced the best theater programme in the state, region and one of the best in the country and now theyer talking about tearing it down and cutting tons of visual arts programmes and teachers. the teachers think it has to do with race (demographic changed drastically in the past 5 years from mostly white to mostly black/asian bare majority of whites but the rich lily white town just north and east of us gets more money and they might as well be fucking prep schools and we get less!) and our middle school which is a piece of shit (built on an old land fill) is going to be rebuilt on a golf coarse (gonna be nice) but the black end of town will be completly abandond because that was the only important thing in the area. the US government doesnt look out for its people's interests period. never has, only the opulent minority like Madison said. free college? that would mean people would advance. please.

[>:^|]

1. Where's the money coming from and how would it be allocated?

2. Who's going to guarantee there will be schools available for everybody? There's the simple problem of the school being within a walkable distance for people. People everywhere.

You don't have to worry about any of the more complex arguments if you can't address those two questions.

[SunWuKong]

Which is why we hold back voucher money for schools who underperform. It is in their best interest to perform.

How are Walmart-style private schools going to beat out the competition? They have to do it by providing a superior education. After they create a local monopoly, say they decide to slack off. They now receive a fraction of what they used to as a result. Investors are not happy.

holding back voucher money for schools that underperform isn't going to prevent them from being successful businesses. the schools will make money from tuition. voucher money is only an incentive if it's more than the costs a school must spend to increase its quality. plus, there is a point of diminishing returns. there are going to be costly improvements to these schools which will yield results in student performance that voucher money can't recover. it makes no sense for a private school to make those improvements unless it raises its tuition - but that only means poorer families can't afford these schools and their children will still be stuck at poorly-funded schools. it just doesn't solve what it's supposed to solve - which is to increase the quality of education for everybody.

a Walmart-style business beats out the competition by selling at low costs and makes its profits on volume. the basic flaw in your argument here is that increasing the quality of services/products in a business is the only way to beat out the competition and/or become successful. but the reality is that a business becomes successful by keeping costs low while increasing revenue, and increasing the quality of what you're selling is not the only way to accomplish that, especially when you're talking about an essential product or service. the fact that our government mandates that children must go to school makes education an essential service - it is something that a family must provide for its children, so there is a guaranteed market.

and one of the basic negative attribute about a monopoly is that even if the quality of their services or products is bad, the consumers have no choice but to buy from them, because there's no other businesses around to offer the same product or service.


A pre-determined price ($10,000). Awarding of contracts voted on by the local community.

now you're saying that voucher money should go to whatever schools the local community decides it should go? i thought you said it should be based on performance on standardised testing? and how would this be any different from public schools? the local community will basically give it to schools that need the money or the schools that are closest to the population epicenter of the community, not necessarily the schools that are performing well.


No. There would be plenty of $10,000 tuition schools which would be fully funded by the government provided that they perform. There would be more expensive schools too. But if you aren't picky you can go to the $10,000 tuition schools. You have school choice.

$10,000 tuition schools that are fully funded by the government? i don't understand. if they are fully funded by the government, why would they need to charge tuition? do you mean partially funded by the government and partially funded by tuition?

that still doesn't solve the problem of the existence of poorly-funded "bargain price" schools. so instead of going to poorly-funded schools that are free, poor children would be going to poorly-funded schools that costs their families large chunks of their pay checks.

[kitty]

1. Where's the money coming from and how would it be allocated?

2. Who's going to guarantee there will be schools available for everybody? There's the simple problem of the school being within a walkable distance for people. People everywhere.

You don't have to worry about any of the more complex arguments if you can't address those two questions.

also question 3. if education is privitized -- what's the guarantee that they will accept everybody equally?

[>:^|]

also question 3. if education is privitized -- what's the guarantee that they will accept everybody equally?

Yeah, that's a problem. People will find a way to creatively keep out certain populations in a way that won't look like racism. In Chicago, this happened when a group of White yuppies got a new neighborhood middle school built. (The area had been primarily Black but then became very desirable because of its location to wealthy Whites.) They put standards in place for entry, which pretty much eliminated the kids who had gone to sub-standard schools for lower grades.

[kitty]

Y?J<e110man]We've been hearing that promise for decades. Even if it was possible (which I believe it is theoretically, with massive reform), the fact that it hasn't happened only demonstrates the inefficiency of the public administration of schools.
[/quote]

Well, I wouldn't just give up on it. We have a constitution and we are endlessly trying to make our society reflect that constitution. Just because it still doesn't, doesn't mean we should toss it as so much a failure of a social experiment.


No, it just means that everyone is equally disadvantaged. You remind me of the parents from low-income areas who used to protest in front of my high school calling for an elimination of ALL programs for the gifted because their children don't have them. It's domestic educational protectionism. "We can't compete so EVERYONE should suffer."


No, I would be the parent protesting that all students should have equal access to the gifted program and therefore some students should have the standards set not at some universal level but to reflect their different backgrounds and educational opportunities.

Not everyone is equally disadvantaged, because you are therefore assuming that everyone starts at the same financial level. If Timmy is poor, and gets a $10,000 voucher to go to school, he only has $10,000 to spend a year. He won't be able to get into the top schools, say the Ivies, which, by the fact of its higher standards of education and preeminent position in the academic world, can charge MORE than $10,000 per year because it has no need to *entice* students to come -- it is actually turning students away, so pure capitalism dictates that it can make an extra buck or two by charging, say $30,000 a year.

Poor Timmy, who may be bright enough to go to school, can't afford the extra $20,000 a year, and so is stuck going to another school which is not as good but has set tuition at $10,000 in order to entice the poor. Look at Suzie. She's rich. She can easily afford a $70,000 a year education without any help, but now you've given her a $10,000 voucher. She may only be a mediocre student, but you've essentially made the Ivies $10,000 cheaper for her to go to... and since the Ivies would rather accept a mediocre student that can afford its tuition than lower tuition for a poor student (this being... y'know, your capitalistic model), you've got Suzie, representing the rich, eventually getting a much better education than the poor based solely upon their background and familial financial situation.



My proposed voucher is not guarenteed in full. It's contingent on the students demonstrating that they've learned something through standardized exams. I'm just making up these numbers as I go along but say for instance that a student passes none of the 4 exams he must pass. The school would only get $2000 (cost of lunch?) because that's all he got out of the school. If he passes just 2 of them the school would get $6000.


Ironically, standardized tests have proven to be unfair to disadvantaged students (despite their origin, as a form of trying to standardize education between the rich and the poor) because it assumes that everyone reaches a certain educational level and has access to similar educational opportunities.

Schools in poor areas do not educate nearly as well as schools in richer areas. Why? Because richer areas have more money to pour into their schools (public or private) than poor schools. And poor kids have to go to the poor schools because they can't get to the rich schools, nor can they pay for them. Then you test them all at the same level? Of course the richer kids will learn more than the poorer kids in the better schools.

In my school, graduation rate has and always has been roughly 100%. My friends of lower-income to middle-income areas had graduation rates at about 25 to 30%, and many of my friends were the first students in the history of their schools to make it to an Ivy. So yes, I strongly outperformed those friends of mine on the SATs -- but many were brighter and more intelligent than I am. Standardized tests don't indicate intelligence -- and shouldn't be used as the sole basis for entry into higher education, because the basic assumption of them -- that everyone has access to equal education -- is inherently false.


If a school sucks, the student can just switch schools. That's how the competition works.

Not if they don't have the money or are not in the right locality to switch. What if you can't afford dorm housing or an apartment? You are stuck in a local school. There are MANY reasons why you can't just switch.

[nola]

God so many good points. I'm tired at 2 in the am but all I can say is that standardized tests like the SAT have been proven to be biased in favor of white males. And for question no. 1, the money would come from the defense budget in other words our government having their priorities right with children first-war last instead of the other way around. And yes schools are vastly different depending on the neighborhood they are in. For example wealthy suburbs have tons more tax money to build their top public high schools as opposed to the inner city neighborhood taxes which can't even pay for cafeterias.

[kuilong]

I'm tired at 2 in the am but all I can say is that standardized tests like the SAT have been proven to be biased in favor of white males.

Could you tell us more about this?

[SunWuKong]

this thread has been split (http://forums.yellowworld.org/showthread.php?t=17610).

[John0101]

Privatization of schools is often an economic libertian arguement and often these libertians are supported by others in the conservative right-wing, like the Christian and Nationalist right.

It is believed that the free market will foster more efficient schools, more resources will go to better schools and less resources to worse schools, this in theory will make schools shape up. Students will go to the best schools possible and the strong schools will continuely get better and vice versa.

There are actually two main segments in the privitization of schools movement.
(1) Higher education - Because high education is not seen as a public good and does not have positive externaities (aka does not make everyone else better off if someone becomes more educationed, which is BS), higher education should be private and any government involvement makes the market for higher education less efficient. People argue that public colleges and universities should be sold off and public money should not be used to support higher education.
(2) K-12 - It is a widely held belief that k-12 schools are vital to the country, having a miminum amount of education makes everybody's life a lot easier. Nobody will argue that k-12 education is a bad thing. However vouchers are seen as a way inject free market accountablity into the k-12 market.

There are many sides and many more faces these arguements, so ill end it here.

[SunWuKong]

what's a libertian?

[nola]

libertarian

[SunWuKong]

libertarians gain support from Christian groups? but they advocate legalising drugs and prostitution...

[nola]

he said economic libertarian meaning economic, non-social libertarian

[SunWuKong]

he said economic libertarian meaning economic, non-social libertarian


err... i don't think such a beast exists, because that's basically a republican.

[kitty]

Which is why we hold back voucher money for schools who underperform. It is in their best interest to perform.


if you withold voucher money from schools that don't perform, how do they get the money to perform?

[SunWuKong]

if you withold voucher money from schools that don't perform, how do they get the money to perform?

well, in a private system, schools that can't improve their quality should just be shut down, and students go to another school.

[kuilong]

libertarians gain support from Christian groups? but they advocate legalising drugs and prostitution...

I've always wondered about this as well. If libertarians really believe in the "two-axis" political view model, why do they ally themselves so strongly with the mainstream right instead of liberals, with whom they share social views?

[kitty]

well, in a private system, schools that can't improve their quality should just be shut down, and students go to another school.

that seems like it would do nothing but promote a downward spiral in whcih schools are more about making their ends meet on paper then any real quality, since if they can't balance their budget, and their standards ever dip because of it, they will essentially be axed.

[Yeahman]

that seems like it would do nothing but promote a downward spiral in whcih schools are more about making their ends meet on paper then any real quality, since if they can't balance their budget, and their standards ever dip because of it, they will essentially be axed.
That's how private schools operate. I don't think private schools are on a downward spiral.

[John0101]

yeah, libertarians.

Economic libertarian are the ones that don't believe in free-markets and hates government involvement. One of the links on one of these pages have an article to Cato, one of the biggest conservative economic libertarian think-tanks out there. Not all libertarians are conservatives thou.

However, if vouchers can get a kid from the poor ghetto into a rich upper-class school with little or no costs for the poor kid im all for it. But if you think you can solve poverty, inequality and the school system with just vouchers your sadly mistaken.

I've always wondered about this as well. If libertarians really believe in the "two-axis" political view model, why do they ally themselves so strongly with the mainstream right instead of liberals, with whom they share social views?

Libertarians often call themselves neither left or right, they're just themselves. Not all libertarians are conservatives. There are social libertarians who are anarchist and have strongly allied with the left.

But most economic Libertarians support gay marriage, civil liberties, etc. Most of these economic libertarians argue that the government should take a colorblind approach in looking at race problems, ignoring race as a factor to stamp out racism. They agree that racism is a bad thing, so why not ignore it? Stop affirmative action, minority work quotas, etc. IMO thats not gonna work, and most economic Libertarians are middle-upper class white men who reaps the rewards of capitalism.

[SunWuKong]

that seems like it would do nothing but promote a downward spiral in whcih schools are more about making their ends meet on paper then any real quality, since if they can't balance their budget, and their standards ever dip because of it, they will essentially be axed.

well, that's business.

the basic flaw in thinking of a lot of pro-privatisation advocates (privatisation of not just education) is that only quality will bring success and competitive edge to a business. but that is not the case. a lot of businesses have shown, time and again, that they need not improve quality to gain a larger market share.

[kuilong]

Libertarians often call themselves neither left or right, they're just themselves. Not all libertarians are conservatives. There are social libertarians who are anarchist and have strongly allied with the left.

But most economic Libertarians support gay marriage, civil liberties, etc. Most of these economic libertarians argue that the government should take a colorblind approach in looking at race problems, ignoring race as a factor to stamp out racism. They agree that racism is a bad thing, so why not ignore it? Stop affirmative action, minority work quotas, etc. IMO thats not gonna work, and most economic Libertarians are middle-upper class white men who reaps the rewards of capitalism.

I'm aware as to what a libertarian is. In the US, however, "libertarian" usually refers to Milton Friedman-types who favor liberal social laws while adhering to Chicagoist economics. It's only over the pond where libertarian is also (more strongly, even?) associated with the likes of Proudhon, Bakunin, etc.

My point is that while American libertarians tend to paint themselves as accepting the mainstream left's social positions (with obv. exceptions like affirmative action) and the mainstream right's economic positions (again, with exceptions -- like free trade), and yet tend to associate themselves with mainstream conservatives. The Republican Party, after all, has a strong libertarian streak, which I find more disturbing than the rump Libertarian Party. I suppose it could be because the right has more actively courted them.

If you haven't been able to tell, I find libertarianism one of the more annoying and sophomoric political/philosophical positions out there.

the basic flaw in thinking of a lot of pro-privatisation advocates (privatisation of not just education) is that only quality will bring success and competitive edge to a business. but that is not the case. a lot of businesses have shown, time and again, that they need not improve quality to gain a larger market share.

頂

[SunWuKong]

頂

hahhahhah are you aware that in Cantonese, saying that is a curse? (although not a very potent one.)

[kitty]

well, that's business.

the basic flaw in thinking of a lot of pro-privatisation advocates (privatisation of not just education) is that only quality will bring success and competitive edge to a business. but that is not the case. a lot of businesses have shown, time and again, that they need not improve quality to gain a larger market share.

agreed. i'm in a monopoly-town -- we're so small that all the businesses have merged and there's essentially only one business that supplies each thing that we might need. one bus service. one taxi service. one italian restaurant. one video rental joint. etc.

they definitely don't need to provide quality services to stay in business. all they need to do is muscle out any fledgling competition.

[>:^|]

The Chicago Tribune has been running a series of articles featuring one little girl who changed schools under the No Child Left Behind policy.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-0407200200jul20,1,2052028.story?coll=chi-news-hed

[Yeahman]

agreed. i'm in a monopoly-town -- we're so small that all the businesses have merged and there's essentially only one business that supplies each thing that we might need. one bus service. one taxi service. one italian restaurant. one video rental joint. etc.

they definitely don't need to provide quality services to stay in business. all they need to do is muscle out any fledgling competition.
And how do they muscle out any fledgling competition? By providing better service. In my area mom and pop video rental joints have been muscled out by Blockbuster. The result? More movies at lower prices. The same thing has happened to electronics stores, pharmacies, photocopy stores...
The one monopoly which really gets on my nerves is my cable service provider, Time Warner. Because of the huge barrier to entry, I think cable, phonelines, powerlines, and gas lines should either be nationalized or required to be leased out. Even Adam Smith advocated government intervention in transportation and communication (snail mail in his day).

Socialism does not provide better service and almost always increases costs.

[SunWuKong]

And how do they muscle out any fledgling competition? By providing better service. In my area mom and pop video rental joints have been muscled out by Blockbuster. The result? More movies at lower prices. The same thing has happened to electronics stores, pharmacies, photocopy stores...
The one monopoly which really gets on my nerves is my cable service provider, Time Warner. Because of the huge barrier to entry, I think cable, phonelines, powerlines, and gas lines should either be nationalized or required to be leased out. Even Adam Smith advocated government intervention in transportation and communication (snail mail in his day).

Socialism does not provide better service and almost always increases costs.

no, you're not listening. providing better service is not the only way to gain a bigger market share. in an area like education, it would be detrimental if a school gains a bigger market share by means other than improving quality. and you are dismissing the negative aspects of a local monopoly. that Blockbuster at your area can sell movies at lower prices, but they can also lower quality of service now, because people have to rent there instead of the competition they've edged out. most pro-privatisation advocates, in fact, are staunchly against any kind of monopoly because it inherently destroys market forces that they think would improve quality of life overall.

[Yeahman]

If quality decreases to a point where people would prefer an alternative, the market is ripe for the entrance of another competitor. It has happened with a local movie theater. This old movie theater was a monopoly for as long as I remember. I had no complaints but I didn't know any better. Then a new movie theater opened. In a better area with bigger screens and reclining seats. I'm the rush to the new theater even exceeded the owners' expectations. Movies are sold out on a regular basis there. The old theater is struggling to stay alive.

Educational demands are even more sensative to changes in quality. And with a voucher system they cannot undercut each other on price. And the existence of countless private schools proves that the barrier to entry isn't so high as to prevent new competitors from entering. Crappy schools will still exist but whereas in the past public schools remained crappy indefinately, private schools risk going out of business, if they don't improve.

[SunWuKong]

If quality decreases to a point where people would prefer an alternative, the market is ripe for the entrance of another competitor. It has happened with a local movie theater. This old movie theater was a monopoly for as long as I remember. I had no complaints but I didn't know any better. Then a new movie theater opened. In a better area with bigger screens and reclining seats. I'm the rush to the new theater even exceeded the owners' expectations. Movies are sold out on a regular basis there. The old theater is struggling to stay alive.

totally different here because with the government mandate on kids going to school, education becomes an essential item that families must spend on, which means there's a guaranteed market. even if the quality of a movie theater decreases dismally and there's no other theater, they can simply choose to not go to the movies. it is not the case with education. plus, there will bound to be people that cannot afford the newer and better quality school.


Educational demands are even more sensative to changes in quality. And with a voucher system they cannot undercut each other on price. And the existence of countless private schools proves that the barrier to entry isn't so high as to prevent new competitors from entering. Crappy schools will still exist but whereas in the past public schools remained crappy indefinately, private schools risk going out of business, if they don't improve.

why can't private schools undercut each other on price with the existence of a voucher system? it'll only prevent undercutting if the voucher money bridges any gap in tuition prices that undercutting may cause. at this point you are assuming that the government would put as much money as necessary into education, that scenario would make public schools work in the first place, nevermind the fact that the government has never spent as much money as necessary into education. besides, what difference does privatisation make if you are going to subsidise private schools? the government could easily simply close down the public schools which are not underperforming.

it's really already been shown that privatisation won't improve upon public education for those that can't afford private education. the simple fact that private schools have not already broken into the market of poor and lower middle-class people is evidence that those markets cannot afford tuition that'll provide a private school with the necessary funding to maintain and even improve quality of education.

[kitty]

If quality decreases to a point where people would prefer an alternative, the market is ripe for the entrance of another competitor. It has happened with a local movie theater. This old movie theater was a monopoly for as long as I remember. I had no complaints but I didn't know any better. Then a new movie theater opened. In a better area with bigger screens and reclining seats. I'm the rush to the new theater even exceeded the owners' expectations. Movies are sold out on a regular basis there. The old theater is struggling to stay alive.


but then there is a situation in which a monopoly is being created. most likely, the new theatre will completely destroy the old theatre, and then there will be no alternatives. unfortunately, pure capitalism leads more often than not to monopolies.

look at microsoft. could we argue that microsoft offers the highest quality operating system? not really, no, windows is highly susceptible to crashes and virus/worm attacks. however, bill gates has created the perfect monopoly over operating systems (since macs supply to a different kind of computer that cannot run windows, they don't really count as a direct competitor) -- he has made it difficult if not impossible for an alternative company to offer a real competition to windows. most software run only on a windows operating system (or require significant work/hacks to work with a different system, such as with Mac OS), microsoft patents any innovations so that competitors have to find new novel, usually less efficient ways of doing things, microsoft copies anything that its competitors innovate, tie them up in legal battles to decrease the efficiency of their operation, and buys out any company that looks like it actually might pose a threat.

basically, microsoft can make tons of money without actually offering a quality product because it has placed itself at the top of the operating system chain and completely muscled out competition.

similarly, the taxi cab company in my area are the result of a merger that meant that together, they could charge whatever they wanted to the local students who had no alternative means of after-hours transportation, and didn't have to compete with one another to provide quality service. they are now a relatively large conglomerate of taxis with extremely poor service and ridiculously high prices (as well as poor treatment of drivers and other employees) but there isn't an ability for an alternative to really move in. you'd need really high capital to start your company, and you'd need to fight the years of tradition that has been created by having a one-company service. even if a small company were to start with lower prices and better service, it would be hard pressed to wrestle away enough competition from a larger company with simply better name recognition and resources. and even when it starts to do okay, it would probably end up being able to make more money by merging with the larger company than continuing to exercise on its own, so there's a high likelihood that the monopoly would be reestablished should an alternative come about.

i'm not saying that privitization would lead to a fast monopolization of the educational system, but it's no surprise that we're starting to see one or two big businesses dominating sects of the economy. it's simply an effective way to run business - eliminate competition by absorbing them into your own company and thus expanding.

as swk said, while providing better quality goods IS one way to establish yourself in a capitalistic market, it's by no means the only way, and usually better quality goods isn't as business-smart as manipulating the market and the competition to increase profit margins rather than pouring more money into your product (thereby decreasing your profit). if there's a way to get around improving your quality, you can businesses will do it.


Educational demands are even more sensative to changes in quality. And with a voucher system they cannot undercut each other on price. And the existence of countless private schools proves that the barrier to entry isn't so high as to prevent new competitors from entering. Crappy schools will still exist but whereas in the past public schools remained crappy indefinately, private schools risk going out of business, if they don't improve.

a voucher system CAN undercut each other in price in the sense that you can charge MORE for better quality. It doesn't fix the price, it simply sets a certain minimum, which simply increases the divide between those who can afford expensive better schools and those who can't.

[kuilong]

If quality decreases to a point where people would prefer an alternative, the market is ripe for the entrance of another competitor.

This ignores the costs of entering the market.

hahhahhah are you aware that in Cantonese, saying that is a curse? (although not a very potent one.)

Hahah, really? I just knew they use it in Chinese message boards to show that you agree with a point. It's custom to reply to good posts even if you have nothing to say.

[nola]

If you haven't been able to tell, I find libertarianism one of the more annoying and sophomoric political/philosophical positions out there.
頂


To me libertarians tend to be annoying, immature, whiny white men.

[Mr.Lum]

they are those crazy white people out west who want to secced from the union and want the government out of their business so they can stock pile guns.

[nola]

yeah! and ted kaczynski is their hero

Privatization of schools is often an economic libertian arguement and often these libertians are supported by others in the conservative right-wing, like the Christian and Nationalist right.

It is believed that the free market will foster more efficient schools, more resources will go to better schools and less resources to worse schools, this in theory will make schools shape up. Students will go to the best schools possible and the strong schools will continuely get better and vice versa.


Privatization of schools falls into the same camp of libertarians who want to stockpile guns and live in the woods away from all those possibly-gay (male) liberals and people who vow to homeschool their children so they are Bible-thumping, god-fearing non-gay (male)s, etc.

Think Ted Nugent and the Olympic Bomber/pro-life activist who lived in the woods of W. Virginia shooting and eating rodents for two years.

How do you like these visuals? :)

[SunWuKong]

bill gates has created the perfect monopoly over operating systems (since macs supply to a different kind of computer that cannot run windows, they don't really count as a direct competitor) -- he has made it difficult if not impossible for an alternative company to offer a real competition to windows.

off-topic, but Mac's OS now have a Windows emulator that can run Windows. and really, the reason why Microsoft was able to beat out Apple in PCs is because Microsoft sold their licenses to computer makers. Microsoft itself does not make computers, companies like Dell and Hewlett-Packard do. on the other hand, Apple dictated that MacOS must only be allowed on Apple-made computers.

Microsoft's "shady" practices are really in its sales of business software, and that's also where it makes most of its profits.

[kitty]

off-topic, but Mac's OS now have a Windows emulator that can run Windows. and really, the reason why Microsoft was able to beat out Apple in PCs is because Microsoft sold their licenses to computer makers. Microsoft itself does not make computers, companies like Dell and Hewlett-Packard do. on the other hand, Apple dictated that MacOS must only be allowed on Apple-made computers.

Microsoft's "shady" practices are really in its sales of business software, and that's also where it makes most of its profits.

mmm... you'd probably know better than i. the example was an illustration of how monopolies can be formed and better quality product doesn't necessarily break them.

[John0101]

yeah! and ted kaczynski is their hero




Privatization of schools falls into the same camp of libertarians who want to stockpile guns and live in the woods away from all those possibly-gay (male) liberals and people who vow to homeschool their children so they are Bible-thumping, god-fearing non-gay (male)s, etc.

Think Ted Nugent and the Olympic Bomber/pro-life activist who lived in the woods of W. Virginia shooting and eating rodents for two years.

How do you like these visuals? :)

naw, those people are nationalist, an off shoot of paleoconservatives who are basically one step away from being neo-nazis.

But anyways, I totally agree with kittygirl analysis above. If the gov. privitized schools one big company is buy schools, cut costs to the bone, buy up other schools and cut costs again. The only way that privization of schools will work if there is enough competition and have accountability which I seriously doubt there will be.

[Yeahman]

but then there is a situation in which a monopoly is being created. most likely, the new theatre will completely destroy the old theatre, and then there will be no alternatives. unfortunately, pure capitalism leads more often than not to monopolies.
The old theater should go out of business. It is inferior. Or they can renovate and attempt to compete. If there is demand for better quality a new competitor will emerge. A series of monopolies isn't so bad.

look at microsoft. could we argue that microsoft offers the highest quality operating system? not really, no, windows is highly susceptible to crashes and virus/worm attacks. however, bill gates has created the perfect monopoly over operating systems (since macs supply to a different kind of computer that cannot run windows, they don't really count as a direct competitor) -- he has made it difficult if not impossible for an alternative company to offer a real competition to windows. most software run only on a windows operating system (or require significant work/hacks to work with a different system, such as with Mac OS), microsoft patents any innovations so that competitors have to find new novel, usually less efficient ways of doing things, microsoft copies anything that its competitors innovate, tie them up in legal battles to decrease the efficiency of their operation, and buys out any company that looks like it actually might pose a threat.

basically, microsoft can make tons of money without actually offering a quality product because it has placed itself at the top of the operating system chain and completely muscled out competition.
Monopolies are not necessarily bad. They only prove that the competitive process have produced a winner.
Let's look at Microsoft. Windows offers the best combination of easy of use and price. Macs are too expensive and Linux is too hard to use for your average Joe.
Microsoft is constantly innovating. They have put a serious hole in the anti-free-marketeer's theories.

similarly, the taxi cab company in my area are the result of a merger that meant that together, they could charge whatever they wanted to the local students who had no alternative means of after-hours transportation, and didn't have to compete with one another to provide quality service. they are now a relatively large conglomerate of taxis with extremely poor service and ridiculously high prices (as well as poor treatment of drivers and other employees) but there isn't an ability for an alternative to really move in. you'd need really high capital to start your company, and you'd need to fight the years of tradition that has been created by having a one-company service. even if a small company were to start with lower prices and better service, it would be hard pressed to wrestle away enough competition from a larger company with simply better name recognition and resources. and even when it starts to do okay, it would probably end up being able to make more money by merging with the larger company than continuing to exercise on its own, so there's a high likelihood that the monopoly would be reestablished should an alternative come about.
High likelihood? That's pure unsubstantiated speculation.
You have very little faith in the system that has catapolted mankind to levels of prosperity unimaginable 200 years ago.

i'm not saying that privitization would lead to a fast monopolization of the educational system, but it's no surprise that we're starting to see one or two big businesses dominating sects of the economy. it's simply an effective way to run business - eliminate competition by absorbing them into your own company and thus expanding.

as swk said, while providing better quality goods IS one way to establish yourself in a capitalistic market, it's by no means the only way, and usually better quality goods isn't as business-smart as manipulating the market and the competition to increase profit margins rather than pouring more money into your product (thereby decreasing your profit). if there's a way to get around improving your quality, you can businesses will do it.
Wrong. If there is no demand for improved quality, there will be no improvement in quality. If there is sufficient demand, there will be improvements in quality. The success of Starbucks, Applebees, and bottled water prove these. Pouring more money into your product very often increases profits. A recent example is Dell. In an effort to reduce costs they outsourced their tech support at the expense of quality. Customer's complained. So Dell moved a thrid of their tech support back to the US. This sort of stuff happens all the time.

a voucher system CAN undercut each other in price in the sense that you can charge MORE for better quality. It doesn't fix the price, it simply sets a certain minimum, which simply increases the divide between those who can afford expensive better schools and those who can't.
The alternative is to put everyone in crappy schools.

This ignores the costs of entering the market.
In the next paragraph I said that the existence of private schools today proves that the barrier to entry isn't too high as to prevent new competitors from entering the market.

totally different here because with the government mandate on kids going to school, education becomes an essential item that families must spend on, which means there's a guaranteed market. even if the quality of a movie theater decreases dismally and there's no other theater, they can simply choose to not go to the movies. it is not the case with education. plus, there will bound to be people that cannot afford the newer and better quality school.
Families must also spend on housing, food, and clothing. That doesn't guarentee that your line of clothing will succeed. You must be competitive.

why can't private schools undercut each other on price with the existence of a voucher system? it'll only prevent undercutting if the voucher money bridges any gap in tuition prices that undercutting may cause. at this point you are assuming that the government would put as much money as necessary into education, that scenario would make public schools work in the first place, nevermind the fact that the government has never spent as much money as necessary into education. besides, what difference does privatisation make if you are going to subsidise private schools? the government could easily simply close down the public schools which are not underperforming.
Government has spend more than enough money on education. They just aren't efficient. In NYC we spend over $11,000 per student per year. For $11,000/year you can get a far superior private education.

it's really already been shown that privatisation won't improve upon public education for those that can't afford private education. the simple fact that private schools have not already broken into the market of poor and lower middle-class people is evidence that those markets cannot afford tuition that'll provide a private school with the necessary funding to maintain and even improve quality of education.
I don't understand why you're ignoring vouchers. Private schools would break into the market of poor and lower middle-class people if they were given $10,000 each to spend on them.

Privatization of schools falls into the same camp of libertarians who want to stockpile guns and live in the woods away from all those possibly-gay (male) liberals and people who vow to homeschool their children so they are Bible-thumping, god-fearing non-gay (male)s, etc.

Think Ted Nugent and the Olympic Bomber/pro-life activist who lived in the woods of W. Virginia shooting and eating rodents for two years.

How do you like these visuals? :)
No they favor home-schooling.
Nationalization of schools falls into the same camp of communists who want to keep everyone uneducated and poor for the sake of equality.
Think Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Fidel Castro, Ho Chi Min, and Kim Il Sung.

More blacks favor vouchers than whites. Want to revise your visual again?

[kitty]

once a monopoly takes hold, quality of product can drop and it can be very difficult for competition to be reestablished.

[Yeahman]

Quality of Microsoft products have been getting a lot better. My cable service has gotten a lot better (though it's still damn expensive). I can think of lots of monopolies which have improved the quality of their products or services. They want to stay a monopoly. They don't want to go the way of Cisco or AOL or Intel.
Besides this is all assuming that a private school will become a monopoly. It hasn't happened in higher education, there's no reason to believe it will at any other grade.

[kitty]

so basically, your opinions on the 'success' of capitalism and monopolies are based entirely on anecdotal evidence?

[Yeahman]

No, your's are! Taxi cabs?

A monopoly won't stay a monopoly for long if they cannot provide what a potential competitor can. Of course this is assuming that the barrier to entry isn't impossible to overcome and we know that for private schools, competitors can enter fairly easily.

If your monopoly paranoia were right, then our entire economy would be controled by a few monopolies. 1 movie theater, 1 pizzaria, 1 Chinese restuarant...

[SunWuKong]

The old theater should go out of business. It is inferior. Or they can renovate and attempt to compete. If there is demand for better quality a new competitor will emerge. A series of monopolies isn't so bad.

actually a series of monopolies is bad. demand for better quality will not necessarily produce a new competitor. and a business does not get built instantly. while a monopoly exists, the population will have to deal with a source of products or services that can increase and decrease quality, increase and decrease prices as they please without repercussions. besides, smart business people do not try to compete with a local monopoly because that monopoly already has 100% market share. my parents and his peers used to specialise in opening Chinese restaurants in small town America. as a general rule, they do not open a Chinese restaurant in a small town that already has one - which incidently is the same rule that McDonald's use, because they basically only opened restaurants in towns that have McDonalds'.


Monopolies are not necessarily bad. They only prove that the competitive process have produced a winner.

actually monopolies are necessarily bad. when a monopoly is established, market forces are completely nulled because competition has been eliminated. even the staunchiest privatisation advocates will agree with this because they rely on the concept of competition to argue that service/product quality will continually increase because of competition.


Let's look at Microsoft. Windows offers the best combination of easy of use and price. Macs are too expensive and Linux is too hard to use for your average Joe.
Microsoft is constantly innovating. They have put a serious hole in the anti-free-marketeer's theories.

actually Linux OSs are just as easy to use as Windows, because many of them based their GUI designs on Windows. plus they are much more robust and almost never crash or freeze. Microsoft's idea of innovation is taking other people's ideas and its idea of improvement is to put hundreds of patches (bandaids) on code that was badly written.


High likelihood? That's pure unsubstantiated speculation.
You have very little faith in the system that has catapolted mankind to levels of prosperity unimaginable 200 years ago.

a system, might i add, that depended on there not being any monopolies. during Rockefeller's hayday, a lot of people suffered precisely because there were no measures against monopolies.


Wrong. If there is no demand for improved quality, there will be no improvement in quality. If there is sufficient demand, there will be improvements in quality. The success of Starbucks, Applebees, and bottled water prove these. Pouring more money into your product very often increases profits. A recent example is Dell. In an effort to reduce costs they outsourced their tech support at the expense of quality. Customer's complained. So Dell moved a thrid of their tech support back to the US. This sort of stuff happens all the time.

you are mistaking items and services that people spend their expendable income on with items and services that are essential. education is an essential service because the government mandates that children must go to school. therefore there is a guaranteed market for it. if people do not like Starbuck's quality, they can just simply refrain from drinking coffee altogether. that is not the case for education. you are also ignoring the fact that there are people who cannot afford Starbucks coffee and are stuck with Duncan Donuts coffee - just like poor families that will inevitably have to send their kids to "Duncan Donuts" type private schools instead of the "Starbucks" type. it doesn't solve the problem that privatisation is supposed to solve - which, again, is to increase the quality of education for everybody.

and that wasn't even the point that kitty was addressing - even if people are unhappy with the quality of Starbuck's coffee, it can still increase revenue and profits without improving its quality. it can buy out other coffee shops. it can cut costs. it can implement other ways of attracting customers that doesn't have anything to do with the quality of coffee - like for example, free wireless. if Starbucks can do it, private schools can do it, too.

The alternative is to put everyone in crappy schools.

how is that true at all? rich and upper middle class families can already send their kids to great private schools with the current system, and there's nothing stopping more private schools to spring up as it is. like i said before, if private schools can work for poor people, it would be working already. but just the fact that it doesn't, hasn't prevented rich people from sending their kids to great private schools.

Families must also spend on housing, food, and clothing. That doesn't guarentee that your line of clothing will succeed. You must be competitive.

the point is that there are people that cannot afford J.Crew and Gap. they can only afford generic brand, which is crappy, but they have no choice because they can only afford the poorest quality products and services - products and services which they must spend on because they're essential. this would be the same with education.


Government has spend more than enough money on education. They just aren't efficient. In NYC we spend over $11,000 per student per year. For $11,000/year you can get a far superior private education.


I don't understand why you're ignoring vouchers. Private schools would break into the market of poor and lower middle-class people if they were given $10,000 each to spend on them.

no, i'm not ignoring vouchers, and i've already explained in several posts why they won't work. giving these huge amounts of voucher money to private schools would basically make them public schools. they would depend on government funding instead of consumer funding. it's pointless.

so what if a new private school wants to open in a poor area that already has a private school that depends on voucher money? so the school gets 5% of the market share, how is that school going to survive on that little amount of voucher money? not all the costs that a school pays varies with the student population. no matter if a teacher teaches 10 kids or 50 kids, she still has to get her salary. now you've taken 5% voucher money from the original school. what happens if another school wants to open in that poor area? the basic problem here is that these schools aren't dependent on consumer spending, but government spending.



you are really ignoring two very basic and main points here:

1) it is not necessary for a school to improve its quality in order to be successful and increase its market share.

2) poor kids can only pay for "bargain price" schools. so privatisation wouldn't have solved the problem of increasing the quality of their education. (once again, the existence of public education doesn't stop rich kids from going to great private schools.)

[nola]

No they favor home-schooling.
Nationalization of schools falls into the same camp of communists who want to keep everyone uneducated and poor for the sake of equality.
Think Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Fidel Castro, Ho Chi Min, and Kim Il Sung.

More blacks favor vouchers than whites. Want to revise your visual again?
I said libertarians fall into the same camp as conservatives who prefer homeschooling and Bible-thumping.

We're not communists who want everyone uneducated.

We're liberals who want everyone educated so that change can happen for the common good, so that people will be educated and aware enough to overthrow the the conservative yayhoos who run this country so we can live in a much more humane and progressive world.


Great points, kittygirl and SunWuKong.

[Mr.Lum]

No they favor home-schooling.
Nationalization of schools falls into the same camp of communists who want to keep everyone uneducated and poor for the sake of equality.
Think Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Fidel Castro, Ho Chi Min, and Kim Il Sung.



Castro educated more people than any previous Cuban government. Cuba has one of the best education systems in the Hemesphire, the best health care in Latin America and one of the best standards of living in the developing world. the US when it ran Cuba kept most of the people poor and uneducated for the purposes of profits and fun for American tourists/business men. nationalization of schools falls in the same camp as sucessful social democracies like Sweden, Finland, Denmark and so on. privitizing schools falls into the same camp as pigs who want to keep everyone uneducated/undereducated so they can get rich as everyone else gets poorer as they work for them. its also in the same camp as those right wing asswipes who want America white.

[kitty]

No, your's are! Taxi cabs?


your video store? your movie theatre? your previous post basically was like -- "it's so much more convenient for me now that blockbuster moved in... so monopolies are good!"


A monopoly won't stay a monopoly for long if they cannot provide what a potential competitor can. Of course this is assuming that the barrier to entry isn't impossible to overcome and we know that for private schools, competitors can enter fairly easily.


you are completely ignoring the startup capital it would take to break into a market controlled by a monopoly. if a monopoly is created, it is getting a huge amount of money because it is the only supplier for a certain demand, which means it has a huge amount of power to work with even if its product is crappy.

as a competitor, you need to be bill gates to even have the startup capital to compete. most people aren't like that. any small business owner will tell you that for the first few years, you will be losing money as you establish yourself. a monopoly with powerful resources can easily combat anything you throw at them, regardless of the quality of your product vs. their product because consumers don't just flock tot he best product, but are influenced by accessibility, marketing, tradition (i.e., the person i'm *used* to buying from), and the monopoly having extra money has tons of power to maintain that monopoly, should they choose.

i'm not saying it's impossible to break a monopoly, but it's very very difficult. that's why there's only a few businesses that dominate a sector of the population -- i.e., only a few cellphone places. lockheed martin is one of the only businesses that does defense stuff for the govt, etc.


If your monopoly paranoia were right, then our entire economy would be controled by a few monopolies. 1 movie theater, 1 pizzaria, 1 Chinese restuarant...

that's the situation in my town. seriously. so while my experience with monopolies is anecdotal, it isn't too difficult to see where monopolies can go wrong -- because i'm experiencing it as we speak. i've also been the one to encourage rival taxi companies to start, but unfortunately, the startup capital just wasn't available, since you need to buy cars, radios, etc, and then find a way to break the tradition mindset of the people in the town, who are used to calling one number and getting a cab.

[nola]

Castro educated more people than any previous Cuban government. Cuba has one of the best education systems in the Hemesphire, the best health care in Latin America and one of the best standards of living in the developing world. the US when it ran Cuba kept most of the people poor and uneducated for the purposes of profits and fun for American tourists/business men. nationalization of schools falls in the same camp as sucessful social democracies like Sweden, Finland, Denmark and so on. privitizing schools falls into the same camp as pigs who want to keep everyone uneducated/undereducated so they can get rich as everyone else gets poorer as they work for them. its also in the same camp as those right wing asswipes who want America white.


yeeha! go, lum.

[kitty]

isn't privitisation of the medical system and pharmaceutical companies part of the reason why drugs in america cost so damn much?

[SunWuKong]

privitizing schools falls into the same camp as pigs who want to keep everyone uneducated/undereducated so they can get rich as everyone else gets poorer as they work for them. its also in the same camp as those right wing asswipes who want America white.

that's correct. too many laissez-faire economic policies in a society invariably creates greater economic gaps between the rich and the poor, where the poor will continually become poorer and serve as a source of cheap labour for the rich to become even richer. it's a vicious cycle that needs government intervention.

isn't privitisation of the medical system and pharmaceutical companies part of the reason why drugs in america cost so damn much?

for certain drugs, it's because of the intellectual rights some drug companies hold. that basically gives those companies a monopoly on the specific drugs they produce. they claim they must charge more because of research, but studies have found that many drug companies actually spend more on advertising than research.

for other more common types of drugs, actually many drug companies rely on their brand names to make money. it's yet another way a company does not necessarily need to improve quality to compete - brand loyalty. if you're going to buy an off-the-counter drug, check its contents. there may be a generic brand with the same chemical composition that costs a lot less.

[Mr.Lum]

yeeha! go, lum.
a lot of people are blinded by propaganda, and do not realize that Cuba is acctually a center of learning in the developing world with many international students going there because its affordable and better that at home or in the US or other countries. hes not in the same league with Stalin or Mao or Kim by any means other than that hes a dictator, and in fact a more benevolant dictator when you compare him with other like Batista, Noriega, Stalin, Mao and others. theres a similar image of Col.Qadaffi in relation to his people as well. please. stop listening to the exiles who want to overthrow him so they can go back to owning the whole island and exploiting the rest of the island. :eek:

[nola]

isn't privitisation of the medical system and pharmaceutical companies part of the reason why drugs in america cost so damn much?


YES. Private health insurance companies are so invested in stealing our money and cheating us out of the services we need we will never have universal health care in this country! And yes, private pharmaceuticals make many medicines cost-prohibitive so people are looking to buy cheap from Canada now.

a lot of people are blinded by propaganda, and do not realize that Cuba is acctually a center of learning in the developing world with many international students going there because its affordable and better that at home or in the US or other countries. hes not in the same league with Stalin or Mao or Kim by any means other than that hes a dictator, and in fact a more benevolant dictator when you compare him with other like Batista, Noriega, Stalin, Mao and others. theres a similar image of Col.Qadaffi in relation to his people as well. please. stop listening to the exiles who want to overthrow him so they can go back to owning the whole island and exploiting the rest of the island. :eek:


Castro REALLY cared/s about his people but the US made/make things hard for them.

[Mr.Lum]

Castro REALLY cared/s about his people but the US made/make things hard for them.


seriously. I dont agree with all of his actions, but I think he deserves at least a little credit for what he has done, and most of it is positive. I mean, look at how Cuban pharmicudicals are used all over the world, that would never have been the case before, or just even the quality of life. and the way he delt with racism was pretty ganster. basically if Soandso wont hire whom ever because hes black, shoot him. and there isnt that problem anymore. not all of the text book monsters/menaces are actually so.

[SunWuKong]

Castro REALLY cared/s about his people but the US made/make things hard for them.

that's basically what the US government does to any governments they don't agree with. and then they turn around and claims that their systems don't work because they've had bad results - when the US government had a very big hand in making it bad in the first place. hell, if the US suddenly become sanctioned by most of the developed world, it wouldn't be the most powerful country that much longer despite all its capitalism and "freedom".

[Yeahman]

isn't privitisation of the medical system and pharmaceutical companies part of the reason why drugs in america cost so damn much?
Great example. Privatization of the medical system and the pharmaceutical companies is why we have the best medical professionals, facilities, and drugs in the world.
You can argue that nationalizing sectors will make them more affordable. But at least concede that they'll ensure that the entire sector sucks equally.

Also privatization of healthcare isn't the biggest reason why everything's so expensive. There's our patent protects which other nations do not provide. There's the malpractice suits which drives up costs.

Castro educated more people than any previous Cuban government. Cuba has one of the best education systems in the Hemesphire, the best health care in Latin America and one of the best standards of living in the developing world. the US when it ran Cuba kept most of the people poor and uneducated for the purposes of profits and fun for American tourists/business men. nationalization of schools falls in the same camp as sucessful social democracies like Sweden, Finland, Denmark and so on. privitizing schools falls into the same camp as pigs who want to keep everyone uneducated/undereducated so they can get rich as everyone else gets poorer as they work for them. its also in the same camp as those right wing asswipes who want America white.
Oh I didn't know that Cuba's institutions of higher education surpass Harvard, Yale, Stanford, MIT...
It really helps your position knowing that the case for nationalization ultimately rests on name calling.

This thread has turned into a Castro lovefest propelled by liberal propoganda.

[Mr.Lum]

Oh I didn't know that Cuba's institutions of higher education surpass Harvard, Yale, Stanford, MIT...
It really helps your position knowing that the case for nationalization ultimately rests on name calling.

This thread has turned into a Castro lovefest propelled by liberal propoganda.
hmmm, whos name calling? and Cubas institutions are more preferble/affordable by most 3rd world people from Latin America, Africa etc. and are actually quite good. my case for nationalization (which I didnt make) does not rest on name calling. I just stated a fact, that you dont know what youre talking about in regaurds to communist countries, or "communist" ideas. youre the one who started name calling. your case rests as much on "name calling" as any other. grow up. the cold wars over, the "communists" arent trying to take over.

[kitty]

oh, lum, we're pinko commie bastards, dincha know? we can't help it.

having grown up in canada, i can honestly say that healthcare there is equally good if not better than american healthcare. the doctors are as professional and skillful as they are here, and the prices aren't ridiculously exorbitant.

in fact, because they aren't forced to compete with one another as far as profit margins from the patients, we are treated quite well and respectfully, rather than as a means towards a very green end.

my experiences in america dealing with the healthcare system involve lot's more paperwork and redtape, and meaningless tests that i don't have to go through in canada.

of course, this is all just one girl's opinion.

[Yeahman]

hmmm, whos name calling? and Cubas institutions are more preferble/affordable by most 3rd world people from Latin America, Africa etc. and are actually quite good. my case for nationalization (which I didnt make) does not rest on name calling. I just stated a fact, that you dont know what youre talking about in regaurds to communist countries, or "communist" ideas. youre the one who started name calling. your case rests as much on "name calling" as any other. grow up. the cold wars over, the "communists" arent trying to take over.
Yes Saddam established a pretty good educational system too. Mao was a better alternative to Chiang Kai-Shek. Castro was a better alternative to Batista. Stalin helped to bring down Hitler. Kim Il-Sung was a true nationalist who wanted what was best for the Korean people.

Being a post-liberal, I've had share of communism-loving. Looking at my bookself you'd probably think I was a militant communist.

Liberals have not yet reached the stage of ideological development where they realize that they've traded McCarthyism for communist propoganda. They throw the capitalist baby out with the anti-communist bath water.

Why do you think that Cuban-Americans are so anti-Castro? According to liberals they were stupid for leaving their utopian society to live in near-poverty and racism in the US. Despite the large gap between rich and poor in the US, they're still better off in the US! You concentrate on the gap too much and you lose sight of the fact that everyone is suffering.

[kitty]

wow... apparently the idea of a communist society being good at something is a little too much for you to handle. personally, i'm not surprised that cuba has a decent educational system.

y'know, in the states, we really only hear one side of cuba -- we're on the receiving end of the refugees/immigrants. i'm not saying cuba is utopia because frankly i've never researched cuba's political system, but for all the people who leave cuba, there're a bunch of people who also call it home.

[SunWuKong]

Also privatization of healthcare isn't the biggest reason why everything's so expensive. There's our patent protects which other nations do not provide. There's the malpractice suits which drives up costs.

don't forget marketting costs for drug companies, which exceeds research costs.

[Yeahman]

oh, lum, we're pinko commie bastards, dincha know? we can't help it.

having grown up in canada, i can honestly say that healthcare there is equally good if not better than american healthcare. the doctors are as professional and skillful as they are here, and the prices aren't ridiculously exorbitant.

in fact, because they aren't forced to compete with one another as far as profit margins from the patients, we are treated quite well and respectfully, rather than as a means towards a very green end.

my experiences in america dealing with the healthcare system involve lot's more paperwork and redtape, and meaningless tests that i don't have to go through in canada.

of course, this is all just one girl's opinion.
Yes, I like to work with facts instead.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2001977834_cihak13.html
Fifty percent of the Canadian hospital administrators said the average waiting time for a 65-year-old man who requires a routine hip replacement was more than six months; in contrast, not one American hospital administrator reported waiting periods that long. Eighty-six percent of American hospital administrators said the average waiting time was shorter than three weeks; only 3 percent of Canadian hospital administrators said their patients have this brief a wait.
Most Canadians come to the US for elective surgery.

And you think the paperwork, redtape, and meaningless tests are a problem in the US now, you don't want to know what it would be like in a nationalized healthcare system. Anybody ever try to file a Medicaid claim?

[SunWuKong]

oh, lum, we're pinko commie bastards, dincha know? we can't help it.

having grown up in canada, i can honestly say that healthcare there is equally good if not better than american healthcare. the doctors are as professional and skillful as they are here, and the prices aren't ridiculously exorbitant.

in fact, because they aren't forced to compete with one another as far as profit margins from the patients, we are treated quite well and respectfully, rather than as a means towards a very green end.

my experiences in america dealing with the healthcare system involve lot's more paperwork and redtape, and meaningless tests that i don't have to go through in canada.

of course, this is all just one girl's opinion.

yeah, how about cases where medical supply and drug companies give free samples to doctors or even pay the doctors to tell patients about their products?

[Yeahman]

wow... apparently the idea of a communist society being good at something is a little too much for you to handle. personally, i'm not surprised that cuba has a decent educational system.
Did you think I was being sarcastic?

Yes Saddam established a pretty good educational system too. Mao was a better alternative to Chiang Kai-Shek. Castro was a better alternative to Batista. Stalin helped to bring down Hitler. Kim Il-Sung was a true nationalist who wanted what was best for the Korean people.
I was serious.

[kitty]

Yes, I like to work with facts instead.

HAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAA -- and you link to an editorial piece!!!! Oh god, that's hilarious!!


http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2001977834_cihak13.html


I don't believe the article mentions where the american system ranks. Your editorial also lists such things as organ donor waiting lists and physician access -- I find the first suspect since organ donor waiting lists are a problem around the world. And the second peculiar since it's much easier to go to any doctor in Canada since all you need is your OHIP card.

Rather than rely on this editorial as fact, I'd examine the actual study it cites -- and find out exactly what it says.


Most Canadians come to the US for elective surgery.


Rich Canadians might -- because yes you will get what you pay for -- if healthcare is standardized and you have money to toss around, you might want to pay great doctors to coddle you.

But as a system? I think if everyone is getting good healthcare, it's better than in the States where a select few are getting great healthcare and most are getting none.

In the U.S., if you have no insurance, you essentially have no healthcare. Do you know how many people in the States are uninsured?

according to the census bureau (http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/2003/cb03-154.html), roughly 15% of americans are uninsured, or roughly 10 million people. 30% of poor people are uninsured, so 70% of the people who are uninsured are living above the poverty line.

10 million people who, if they get sick, might as well just die 'cuz they can't afford to see a doctor.

In Canada, roughly everyone is covered.


And you think the paperwork, redtape, and meaningless tests are a problem in the US now, you don't want to know what it would be like in a nationalized healthcare system. Anybody ever try to file a Medicaid claim?

In Canada you pay your taxes. You go to a doctor and give them your OHIP card. And you're done. You are never given a bill. You never even see how much it cost to go to the doctor. This goes for any ailment.

I fail to see how you could have less red tape.

[Mr.Lum]

Why do you think that Cuban-Americans are so anti-Castro? According to liberals they were stupid for leaving their utopian society to live in near-poverty and racism in the US. Despite the large gap between rich and poor in the US, they're still better off in the US! You concentrate on the gap too much and you lose sight of the fact that everyone is suffering

the Cuban Americans? you mean the white ones? the ones who got their land taken away? by Castro? you mean Cubas former upperclass? I know why, because he stands for what they hate. not to mention more recent ones who were basically kicked out. theyer better off in the US because the US has favoured them since they got off the boat. they are a sybol of anti-communism. theyer not everyday Cubans. most Venezuaelan Americans I know hate Chávez, but theyer for the most part not your everyday Venezuelans. ie, theyer an economic minority. and people like CAstro are a threat to economic interests of US businessmen and Cuban land owners/businesspeople. those Cuban Americans that are "better off" in the US are that way because for the most part, they came with money, and they were white. and they assimilated. its easy if youre white. its harder for Puerto Ricans and Mexicans who are not white. and theyer also "better of" because guess what? Cuba is still a developing country, thanks to US/Cuban American influence. my guitar teacher is from South Africa, hes better off economically in the US than there. my grandma is from Fiji, shes better off economically here than there. thats true in most parts of the world. and you know how that is? because the US and other developed nations keep it that way. we control 60+% of the worlds capital and we keep it that. no matter how hard those countries work, unless the US wants it to be so, they will never become better off there than here. ask Argentina how they like the Marshal Plan, it ruined that nation by making a US monopoly in countries where Argentina was a former major exporter. the US does things like that all the time. we play dirty.

Liberals have not yet reached the stage of ideological development where they realize that they've traded McCarthyism for communist propoganda. They throw the capitalist baby out with the anti-communist bath water.

the capitalist baby is a materialistic, overweight, whiney, brat. should have had an abortion anyway.

. Kim Il-Sung was a true nationalist who wanted what was best for the Korean people.
nobody ever said Kim was good. dont hurt yourself jumping to conclusions.

[kitty]

yeah, how about cases where medical supply and drug companies give free samples to doctors or even pay the doctors to tell patients about their products?

yeah, or drug companies that market the same thing under a different name. like contact lenses companies that sold disposables and permanents which are essentially the same contact, but one costs much more than the other.

[Yeahman]

But as a system? I think if everyone is getting good healthcare, it's better than in the States where a select few are getting great healthcare and most are getting none.
Or everyone can have good healthcare and a few can get great healthcare.
I am for universal healthcare. But not for nationalized healthcare.

In Canada you pay your taxes. You go to a doctor and give them your OHIP card. And you're done. You are never given a bill. You never even see how much it cost to go to the doctor. This goes for any ailment.

I fail to see how you could have less red tape.
The US government likes to complicate things as much as possible. There is endless paperwork and redtape. Ask any contractor, healthcare professional... In the private sector less paperwork is a competitive advantage.

[kitty]

Or everyone can have good healthcare and a few can get great healthcare.
I am for universal healthcare. But not for nationalized healthcare.


But that's not what is the case in America. In America, few are getting passable healthcare, a tiny minority are getting great healthcare, and a large minority are getting no healthcare.


The US government likes to complicate things as much as possible. There is endless paperwork and redtape. Ask any contractor, healthcare professional... In the private sector less paperwork is a competitive advantage.

True, but we're talking about the Canadian government.

[kuilong]

But as a system? I think if everyone is getting good healthcare, it's better than in the States where a select few are getting great healthcare and most are getting none.

Well, this raises the question as to which is better: Four people each making $75,000 a year or three people making $100,000 a year and one making $50,000. Is your measure of how fair the system is... how well-off the worst person is? The average well-being? How well-off the very richest and happiest people are?

[Yeahman]

nobody ever said Kim was good. dont hurt yourself jumping to conclusions.
The point is that none of those dictators were good even if they had a few admirable qualities. Kim Il Sung fostered national pride like no other. Read his biography "With the Century."

But that's not what is the case in America. In America, few are getting passable healthcare, a tiny minority are getting gr