If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Economist)   Both sides are bad, so read this Economist article about how the adults need to sit the fark down and talk about mitigating inequality without hurting economic growth   (economist.com) divider line 58
    More: Obvious, Ed Miliband, means tests, school reform, Gilded Age, Carlos Slim, radical centrist, world economy, labour law  
•       •       •

1032 clicks; posted to Politics » on 23 Oct 2012 at 1:05 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



58 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-23 10:50:17 AM
FTA School reform and introducing choice is crucial: no Wall Street financier has done as much damage to American social mobility as the teachers' unions have. No Chance of this being brought in this cycle.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-10-23 11:00:07 AM

eurotrader: FTA School reform and introducing choice is crucial: no Wall Street financier has done as much damage to American social mobility as the teachers' unions have. No Chance of this being brought in this cycle.


If you have to take something from both sides some idiotic partisan nonsense is going to have to be included.
 
2012-10-23 11:25:52 AM

vpb: eurotrader: FTA School reform and introducing choice is crucial: no Wall Street financier has done as much damage to American social mobility as the teachers' unions have. No Chance of this being brought in this cycle.

If you have to take something from both sides some idiotic partisan nonsense is going to have to be included.


An argument can be made.
The way teacher's unions vehemently attack the idea of allowing competition for students with the use of vouchers and school choice. The inability in some school districts to get rid of poor performing or outright unsuitable teachers is a problem as well by draining funds from teaching children. I think money should follow the child. It could result in some children attending a vocational or socialization school with a warden more than a teacher. It would allow the children that are on the border on what to do in school to learn instead of listening to troubled kids that makeup a small part of some classes but occupy a large portion of school resources. Education is still the best path to upward mobility. There are some very good public schools but there are some very bad ones as well and not allowing the children of the poor and middle class the opportunity to better themselves in a more effective manner with charter and private schools is wrong.

The biggest problem in the US would be the need for rigorous testing and vetting of material to insure history and science do not become infected with pseudoscience. If a child is told something as fact 3 times even when confronted with overwhelming evidence and visuals later a child will have a tendency to continue to hold the falsehood as a truth.
 
2012-10-23 11:37:02 AM

eurotrader: The biggest problem in the US would be the need for rigorous testing and vetting of material to insure history and science do not become infected with pseudoscience. If a child is told something as fact 3 times even when confronted with overwhelming evidence and visuals later a child will have a tendency to continue to hold the falsehood as a truth.


But, enough about the push to teach Creationism or Intelligent Design as science in schools...
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-10-23 11:53:17 AM

eurotrader: vpb: eurotrader: FTA School reform and introducing choice is crucial: no Wall Street financier has done as much damage to American social mobility as the teachers' unions have. No Chance of this being brought in this cycle.

If you have to take something from both sides some idiotic partisan nonsense is going to have to be included.

An argument can be made.
The way teacher's unions vehemently attack the idea of allowing competition for students with the use of vouchers and school choice. The inability in some school districts to get rid of poor performing or outright unsuitable teachers is a problem as well by draining funds from teaching children. I think money should follow the child. It could result in some children attending a vocational or socialization school with a warden more than a teacher. It would allow the children that are on the border on what to do in school to learn instead of listening to troubled kids that makeup a small part of some classes but occupy a large portion of school resources. Education is still the best path to upward mobility. There are some very good public schools but there are some very bad ones as well and not allowing the children of the poor and middle class the opportunity to better themselves in a more effective manner with charter and private schools is wrong.

The biggest problem in the US would be the need for rigorous testing and vetting of material to insure history and science do not become infected with pseudoscience. If a child is told something as fact 3 times even when confronted with overwhelming evidence and visuals later a child will have a tendency to continue to hold the falsehood as a truth.


Vouchers are an attempt to channel public education money to religious schools, and elite private schools.

Neither giving the wealthy discounts on elite private schools or funding Christian madrassas is going to help upward mobility and both will simply siphon money from public schools.
 
2012-10-23 11:59:04 AM
eliminating deductions that particularly benefit the wealthy (such as America's mortgage-interest deduction)

And bullshiat.
 
2012-10-23 11:59:37 AM
Vouchers are an attempt to channel public education money to religious schools, and elite private schools.

Means testing. The people of DC just want a chance for their children. No question the teacher's union is hurting kids in DC. Vouchers could be the way to channel public education funds to educating the public without propping up a bloated union system.
 
2012-10-23 12:02:32 PM
Further, how do we judge the effectiveness of a teacher? Standardized testing is nonsense, so a new format would need to be created. An effective teacher is not one that teaches rote memorization.
 
2012-10-23 12:05:38 PM
Start here: Link, .pdf
 
2012-10-23 12:06:24 PM

Elandriel: Further, how do we judge the effectiveness of a teacher? Standardized testing is nonsense, so a new format would need to be created. An effective teacher is not one that teaches rote memorization.


The point of setting standards for teachers has nothing to do with making education better, but by making a villain out of teachers.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-10-23 12:38:35 PM

eurotrader: Vouchers are an attempt to channel public education money to religious schools, and elite private schools.

Means testing. The people of DC just want a chance for their children. No question the teacher's union is hurting kids in DC. Vouchers could be the way to channel public education funds to educating the public without propping up a bloated union system.


Bullshiat. The whole anti-union thing is about getting even with groups that have traditionally opposed Republicans in the past, nothing else.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-10-23 12:41:17 PM

Elandriel: Further, how do we judge the effectiveness of a teacher? Standardized testing is nonsense, so a new format would need to be created. An effective teacher is not one that teaches rote memorization.


First of all you have to want to judge the effectiveness of a teacher. It's like voter ID laws. They aren't inherently bad, but the people who want them the most have a history of trying to prevent minorities from voting.
 
2012-10-23 12:47:30 PM
Messrs Obama, Miliband and Hollande need to come up with something that promises both fairness and progress.


orgtheory.files.wordpress.com

♫ One of these things is not like the others. One of these things is not the same! ♫
 
2012-10-23 12:58:56 PM

vpb: eurotrader: Vouchers are an attempt to channel public education money to religious schools, and elite private schools.

Means testing. The people of DC just want a chance for their children. No question the teacher's union is hurting kids in DC. Vouchers could be the way to channel public education funds to educating the public without propping up a bloated union system.

Bullshiat. The whole anti-union thing is about getting even with groups that have traditionally opposed Republicans in the past, nothing else.


So you think it is better to punish poor black children in DC and go against the will of the people of DC to protect a system that caused a big part of the problem in the first place. Status quo and only whining about spending more money without any result is counter to intelligent thought. DC already spends more than twice the national average per student for failing results. Not liking the reason for change does not make the change any less necessary.
 
2012-10-23 01:05:33 PM

eurotrader: If a child is told something as fact 3 times even when confronted with overwhelming evidence and visuals later a child will have a tendency to continue to hold the falsehood as a truth.


Can you cite an empirical study to back that?
 
2012-10-23 01:09:56 PM

eurotrader: If a child is told something as fact 3 times even when confronted with overwhelming evidence and visuals later a child will have a tendency to continue to hold the falsehood as a truth.


You must have been told a lot of things about teachers unions as a child.
 
2012-10-23 01:16:34 PM
It is also true that some measure of inequality is good for an economy. It sharpens incentives to work hard and take risks; it rewards the talented innovators who drive economic progress.

Sure, but what is some and how much should it be?
 
2012-10-23 01:18:43 PM
Stop adding to the labor force. Low wages is what keeps money in the hands of the capitalists. Many jobs simply can't be outsourced (like resdential home construction), and that is why progressive help on immigration liberalization was needed to reduce working class wages (which were growing at a nice clip from the 40's through70's) and keep the profits in the hands of the 1 percent.
 
2012-10-23 01:19:15 PM
Dude. What is with the hardon for eliminating the mortgage interest deduction all of a sudden? If you take that out, the only thing I have left to rely on to reduce my tax burden is the student loan interest deduction. There have GOT to be other subsidies that don't benefit the dwindling middle class as much you could eliminate first.
 
2012-10-23 01:19:20 PM
"Hey, maybe we could get us some of that reform!" 

stillfinditsohard.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-10-23 01:21:04 PM
meh.

promising premise in the headline, but the article seems to merely boil down to: "both sides are bad, so we need to do exactly what the Republicans want" in the US. The author then throws in some random references to the developing world to make it seem like this is a well thought out new take on politics... kind lame. Sometimes the Economist is actually pretty interesting btw.
 
2012-10-23 01:23:44 PM

GAT_00: eliminating deductions that particularly benefit the wealthy (such as America's mortgage-interest deduction)

And bullshiat.


To be fair, it was probably a bad idea to start with. But now that it's here and the price everybody paid to buy their homes reflects the mortgage interest deduction, we can get rid of it.
 
2012-10-23 01:26:51 PM
Public schools piss lots of different people off:

People who quit school in 9th grade for any number of reasons are mad that someone with a graduate degree makes substantially more than they do.

People who own businesses are mad that a lot of people (from janitors to teachers) actually make a decent wage and their employees occassionally point out that fact.

People who arent teachers are mad that THEY work all year long to make $60k/year while those teachers only work 8 months out of they year to make $60k/year.

Everyone who graduated from a public school and succeeded did it in spite of their education and everyone who's life has not measured up to what they want has failed because oftheir education.

Yeah we get it...
 
2012-10-23 01:27:02 PM

Elandriel: Further, how do we judge the effectiveness of a teacher? Standardized testing is nonsense, so a new format would need to be created. An effective teacher is not one that teaches rote memorization.


Standardized testing is fine. Just have the test sample a randomized section of the state curriculum each year, track yearly performance so that you can base performance data on student improvement rather than raw score, and provide a standard set of statistical tools post-test to allow comparison of this improvement to the national (well, state, given the source of 99% of education funding) average improvement.

Suddenly, teachers and schools don't have to compete with arbitrary targets, they have to compete against each other, and in a context that doesn't put low-income schools at a disadvantage. And the math is only slightly above the level of arithmetic.

Also, anyone whose done any teaching that is even remotely honest will tell you that teachers' unions are part of the problem of limited or nonexistent accountability. Which isn't the entire problem with primary/secondary education in the US, but it's part of the problem and needs to be addressed at some point. Preferably by giving districts some recourse in applying performance incentives without having to turn the state entirely right-to-hire first. Teachers do deserve the right to collective bargaining (you only get absurdly dedicated or outright stupid teachers where it's banned, resulting in manpower issues), but given that it's not exactly highly specialized labor, they don't deserve the equivalent of tenure or immunity if they're doing a shiat job, either, and that's literal reality in some districts (a lot of CA districts, for instance). There is a happy medium in there somewhere, possibly a system where it benefits the union itself to police its own guild-style.

A more fundamental problem is, and I know this is a dirty word to parents but I'm going to say it anyway because parents are universally farking morons where their children are concerned, too much local control and not enough standardization. There needs to be a way that school districts in a given state are distributed, managed, and funded, period, end of story. Every time you let a locally elected council hire a superintendent, or supervise a school, or handle school funding through municipal bonds, you put your children's education in the hands of drooling retards who thing they know what they're doing because they read a pop child care pamphlet back in 1992 and can now solve all the world's problems like an undergrad philosophy major campaigning for Ron Paul. The state departments of education need to stop being in charge of coordinating local school boards and in charge of appointing/hiring district superintendents and providing accountability. School boards should not be allowed the power to anything, ever. I cannot emphasize this enough, everything they do is actively bad for the students in some way, every single time.

//If all you've gathered from this post is that education reform is not a matter of "one weird tip to gain 15 IQ points" and has a number of connected but independent variables to consider, congratulations, you're now smarter than 95% of the elected officials that discuss education policy, including but not limited to Mitt Romney.
 
2012-10-23 01:27:21 PM
You know how you don't do it?

Cutting taxes for the wealthiest individuals even further.

I'm toying with this tax structure

5% for incomes up to 24,999
15% for 25,000 to 74,999
25% for 75,000 to 149,999
33% for 150,000 to 499,999
39% for 500,000 to 999,999
42% for 1,000,000 and above.

We give the people that have the most aggregate purchasing power more money in their pockets, and we tax the people that can afford it to fund programs that rebuild our crumbling infrastructure, fix our education system, and fund programs that improve life here at home.
 
2012-10-23 01:29:10 PM
Teachers are most of the problem with education.

But not all of it.

"We could make so much more money in the private sector!"

Then go do it, hop off that cross you keep nailing yourself to and go in to the private sector, but watch out... They expect you to actually be good at your job, get results, and they will fire you if you can't deliver.

And that's why you will stay right where you are, most of you anyway. There actually are a few, a very few, who see it as a calling and do their best. The rest of the article is sorta... meh. Nobody is going to leap and say 'How could I have been so wrong? This speaks to me!'
 
2012-10-23 01:29:53 PM

meat0918: You know how you don't do it?

Cutting taxes for the wealthiest individuals even further.

I'm toying with this tax structure

5% for incomes up to 24,999
15% for 25,000 to 74,999
25% for 75,000 to 149,999
33% for 150,000 to 499,999
39% for 500,000 to 999,999
42% for 1,000,000 and above.

We give the people that have the most aggregate purchasing power more money in their pockets, and we tax the people that can afford it to fund programs that rebuild our crumbling infrastructure, fix our education system, and fund programs that improve life here at home.


you're leaving out cost of living differentials in that case
 
2012-10-23 01:30:30 PM

eurotrader: Vouchers are an attempt to channel public education money to religious schools, and elite private schools.

Means testing. The people of DC just want a chance for their children. No question the teacher's union is hurting kids in DC. Vouchers could be the way to channel public education funds to educating the public without propping up a bloated union system.


DC's vouchers failed because to many parents appeared to have treated the voucher as a cure-all for their child's education problems, and used it rather than address the problems at home.

Didn't the DC program also have a bunch of cheating involved as well?
 
2012-10-23 01:30:45 PM

relcec: Stop adding to the labor force. Low wages is what keeps money in the hands of the capitalists. Many jobs simply can't be outsourced (like resdential home construction), and that is why progressive help on immigration liberalization was needed to reduce working class wages (which were growing at a nice clip from the 40's through70's) and keep the profits in the hands of the 1 percent.


True. Globalization and increased immigration are the two primary factors that have led to the stagnation of working class wages in this country relative to wealthier Americans.

But should we look at inequality on a global or national scale? On a global scale, all the developing world and migrant labor who have gotten jobs because of globalization and increased immigration are better off. The full article in the economist makes this point. Inequality has increased within nations, but globally it has been reduced as people previously stuck in subsistence farming now have jobs for much better wages.
 
2012-10-23 01:31:38 PM

skullkrusher: you're leaving out cost of living differentials in that case


Are you talking about how 60K in NYC is peanuts but 60K in Mid-Michigan is pretty nice?
 
2012-10-23 01:32:23 PM

eurotrader: Vouchers are an attempt to channel public education money to religious schools, and elite private schools.

Means testing. The people of DC just want a chance for their children. No question the teacher's union is hurting kids in DC. Vouchers could be the way to channel public education funds to educating the public without propping up a bloated union system.


Here in GA we've got Amendment #1 on the ballot, which would allow the state to approve the creation of charter schools over the objection of the local school boards (local boards can currently and will continue to be able to approve charter schools). Those charter schools would then have access to taxpayer funds but without the same oversight. Some would be managed by for-profit corporations. The amendment says that funds can't be taken from existing public schools to support charter schools, but that's rank bullshiat. There's only so much money and education budgets have been prime targets for cuts in the past. Here this isn't a union issue; as a right-to-fire state the teacher's union presence is almost nonexistent. It appears as a means for those with money and power in Atlanta to get approval for their own taxpayer-funded, nominally public schools where they have control over the curriculum, the teachers and the student body at the expense of the public school system.
 
2012-10-23 01:32:37 PM

meat0918: skullkrusher: you're leaving out cost of living differentials in that case

Are you talking about how 60K in NYC is peanuts but 60K in Mid-Michigan is pretty nice?


well you directly referenced aggregate purchasing power. Absolute dollars is only 1/2 of that equation
 
2012-10-23 01:33:03 PM

count chocula: meh.

promising premise in the headline, but the article seems to merely boil down to: "both sides are bad, so we need to do exactly what the Republicans want" in the US. The author then throws in some random references to the developing world to make it seem like this is a well thought out new take on politics... kind lame. Sometimes the Economist is actually pretty interesting btw.


Well, at least the Economist accepts that there is a growing wealth gap, and that it is an issue that needs tending to. I think Republicans have outright said that a wealth gap is a good thing for a capitalist society.
 
2012-10-23 01:33:56 PM

mahuika: count chocula: meh.

promising premise in the headline, but the article seems to merely boil down to: "both sides are bad, so we need to do exactly what the Republicans want" in the US. The author then throws in some random references to the developing world to make it seem like this is a well thought out new take on politics... kind lame. Sometimes the Economist is actually pretty interesting btw.

Well, at least the Economist accepts that there is a growing wealth gap, and that it is an issue that needs tending to. I think Republicans have outright said that a wealth gap is a good thing for a capitalist society.


so does TFA
 
2012-10-23 01:37:24 PM

Jim_Callahan: Also, anyone whose done any teaching that is even remotely honest will tell you that teachers' unions are part of the problem of limited or nonexistent accountability.


Then why do all of the same problems people blame on teacher unions seem to exist in states that effectively don't have any teacher unions?
 
2012-10-23 01:38:36 PM

skullkrusher: meat0918: skullkrusher: you're leaving out cost of living differentials in that case

Are you talking about how 60K in NYC is peanuts but 60K in Mid-Michigan is pretty nice?

well you directly referenced aggregate purchasing power. Absolute dollars is only 1/2 of that equation


No matter what we do, the federal rate is not going to be able to account for cost of living differences between different parts of America. Now we could leave it all alone and let the states shoulder more of the burden, but then we have our status quo of "race to the bottom". It's much easier to move between states than it is to move between countries after all.

My point was that the wealthiest among us are not the drivers of the economy, and we could change the tax rates to get more cash to more people while simultaneously raising an equivalent or better amount of revenue.
 
2012-10-23 01:41:40 PM

skullkrusher: mahuika: count chocula: meh.

promising premise in the headline, but the article seems to merely boil down to: "both sides are bad, so we need to do exactly what the Republicans want" in the US. The author then throws in some random references to the developing world to make it seem like this is a well thought out new take on politics... kind lame. Sometimes the Economist is actually pretty interesting btw.

Well, at least the Economist accepts that there is a growing wealth gap, and that it is an issue that needs tending to. I think Republicans have outright said that a wealth gap is a good thing for a capitalist society.

so does TFA


The Republicans are talking about the wealth gap we have right now. The article largely talks about how that's way too big.
 
2012-10-23 01:42:36 PM

randomjsa: Teachers are most of the problem with education.

But not all of it.

"We could make so much more money in the private sector!"

Then go do it, hop off that cross you keep nailing yourself to and go in to the private sector, but watch out... They expect you to actually be good at your job, get results, and they will fire you if you can't deliver.

And that's why you will stay right where you are, most of you anyway. There actually are a few, a very few, who see it as a calling and do their best. The rest of the article is sorta... meh. Nobody is going to leap and say 'How could I have been so wrong? This speaks to me!'


Then pay teachers enough to be competitive with private sector jobs. You'll get a lot more applicants, and you can be choosier about hiring. More, better teachers.

This also requires university degrees for teaching to actually mean something instead of being so much paper.
 
2012-10-23 01:43:12 PM
I am all for at least one party adopting a Rooseveltian progressive platform, especially if it involved spending more money on the very young and giving them a better start in life. We could begin by looking at what Finland does with their education system and duplicating much of it.
 
2012-10-23 01:44:09 PM

blahpers: Jim_Callahan: Also, anyone whose done any teaching that is even remotely honest will tell you that teachers' unions are part of the problem of limited or nonexistent accountability.

Then why do all of the same problems people blame on teacher unions seem to exist in states that effectively don't have any teacher unions?


Because.... that doesnt fit my preconcieved notions that its all the unions fault.

Actually if you do an overlay of states with teachers unions and academic performance its pretty much a near direct correlation between better performance and unionized teachers.
 
2012-10-23 01:44:40 PM

meat0918: No matter what we do, the federal rate is not going to be able to account for cost of living differences between different parts of America. Now we could leave it all alone and let the states shoulder more of the burden, but then we have our status quo of "race to the bottom". It's much easier to move between states than it is to move between countries after all.


I think indexing the standard deduction to COL would be rather easy to do. It wouldn't be perfect but it would be something

meat0918: My point was that the wealthiest among us are not the drivers of the economy, and we could change the tax rates to get more cash to more people while simultaneously raising an equivalent or better amount of revenue.


by this point it should go without saying that an economy is demand driven and taking more from the upper income ranks does less to detract from consumption than a proportional tax on the lower classes. Not only would taxes which consider COL be more equitable given our belief that taxing those who a higher level of buying power is moral, it would allow people who do spend the bulk of their income to keep more of that money to spend relative to someone paying a lower effective rate but possessing equal buying power
 
2012-10-23 01:45:17 PM

mahuika: skullkrusher: mahuika: count chocula: meh.

promising premise in the headline, but the article seems to merely boil down to: "both sides are bad, so we need to do exactly what the Republicans want" in the US. The author then throws in some random references to the developing world to make it seem like this is a well thought out new take on politics... kind lame. Sometimes the Economist is actually pretty interesting btw.

Well, at least the Economist accepts that there is a growing wealth gap, and that it is an issue that needs tending to. I think Republicans have outright said that a wealth gap is a good thing for a capitalist society.

so does TFA

The Republicans are talking about the wealth gap we have right now. The article largely talks about how that's way too big.


this is true
 
2012-10-23 01:47:22 PM

count chocula: meh.

promising premise in the headline, but the article seems to merely boil down to: "both sides are bad, so we need to do exactly what the Republicans want" in the US. The author then throws in some random references to the developing world to make it seem like this is a well thought out new take on politics... kind lame. Sometimes the Economist is actually pretty interesting btw.


The economist is intreresting and even informative on global topics, but at heart they are pure neoliberals. The best thing you could do for middle and working class wages would be to introduce labor supply control (immigration) and capital controls that would make using profits made in the US to create factories in foreign countries to continue serve the US marketplace more unnattractive than continuig operationd here. But these ideas are of course heresy to the neoliberal politicians that have controlled tje country for 40 years.
 
2012-10-23 01:48:49 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: relcec: Stop adding to the labor force. Low wages is what keeps money in the hands of the capitalists. Many jobs simply can't be outsourced (like resdential home construction), and that is why progressive help on immigration liberalization was needed to reduce working class wages (which were growing at a nice clip from the 40's through70's) and keep the profits in the hands of the 1 percent.

True. Globalization and increased immigration are the two primary factors that have led to the stagnation of working class wages in this country relative to wealthier Americans.

But should we look at inequality on a global or national scale? On a global scale, all the developing world and migrant labor who have gotten jobs because of globalization and increased immigration are better off. The full article in the economist makes this point. Inequality has increased within nations, but globally it has been reduced as people previously stuck in subsistence farming now have jobs for much better wages.


Globally speaking, free trade is wonderful for reducing inequality. But you've pointed out that the article agrees that free trade has farked a lot of innocent Americans, and we've let them get ass-raped because it's supposedly better for them to be out of a job but be able to buy lower-cost crap from Wal-Mart. Guess what? It's not better for them. It's better for the people who got the outsourced jobs, and it's better for the corporate fat cats who benefit from lower wages, and that's it. We need to do more to make free trade fair to the Americans who have been getting jacked in the face ever since NAFTA was ratified, and we can do that without completely screwing over either group of beneficiaries.
 
2012-10-23 01:51:54 PM

Fizpez: Actually if you do an overlay of states with teachers unions and academic performance its pretty much a near direct correlation between better performance and unionized teachers.


While this is true, both are more an indicator of state wealth rather than a causal relationship. Poorer states have greater poverty, the single biggest determinant of student success, and lower unionization. Altering the unionization percentage of teachers in poorer states will have little effect achievement.

Incidentally, the hew and cry about teachers' unions is nothing more than attempts to suppress a Democratic voting bloc.
 
2012-10-23 01:57:27 PM

relcec: The economist is intreresting and even informative on global topics, but at heart they are pure neoliberals. The best thing you could do for middle and working class wages would be to introduce labor supply control (immigration) and capital controls that would make using profits made in the US to create factories in foreign countries to continue serve the US marketplace more unnattractive than continuig operationd here. But these ideas are of course heresy to the neoliberal politicians that have controlled tje country for 40 years.


I dunno what "neoliberal" is supposed to mean, but I think the Economist makes their bent pretty clear. They represent the interests of big business pure and simple. I don't usually agree with them, but I like the fact that they are typically upfront about what they are advocating and they don't buy into the B.S. hysteria/madness of the Fox News vein of conservatives.

They are the people that actually should be voting Republican (i.e. wealthy capitalists). But, it's a simple fact that there aren't enough such people to make the Republican party viable in elections. Hence the reprehensible positions and distortions the Republican political party and it's propaganda arm espouse.
 
2012-10-23 02:02:06 PM

TofuTheAlmighty: Fizpez: Actually if you do an overlay of states with teachers unions and academic performance its pretty much a near direct correlation between better performance and unionized teachers.

While this is true, both are more an indicator of state wealth rather than a causal relationship. Poorer states have greater poverty, the single biggest determinant of student success, and lower unionization. Altering the unionization percentage of teachers in poorer states will have little effect achievement.

Incidentally, the hew and cry about teachers' unions is nothing more than attempts to suppress a Democratic voting bloc.


Oh, I know that's true - it just flies in the face of "It's all the teachers unions fault" - it's not like we even have to wonder "gosh, what kind of eutopia could we have if it wasn't for those evil teacher's unions" - there are plenty of districts with non-unionized teachers. The "hope" that getting rid of the unions will solve educational issues is clearly not supported by reality.
 
2012-10-23 02:03:03 PM

count chocula: relcec: The economist is intreresting and even informative on global topics, but at heart they are pure neoliberals. The best thing you could do for middle and working class wages would be to introduce labor supply control (immigration) and capital controls that would make using profits made in the US to create factories in foreign countries to continue serve the US marketplace more unnattractive than continuig operationd here. But these ideas are of course heresy to the neoliberal politicians that have controlled tje country for 40 years.

I dunno what "neoliberal" is supposed to mean, but I think the Economist makes their bent pretty clear. They represent the interests of big business pure and simple. I don't usually agree with them, but I like the fact that they are typically upfront about what they are advocating and they don't buy into the B.S. hysteria/madness of the Fox News vein of conservatives.

They are the people that actually should be voting Republican (i.e. wealthy capitalists). But, it's a simple fact that there aren't enough such people to make the Republican party viable in elections. Hence the reprehensible positions and distortions the Republican political party and it's propaganda arm espouse.


It means fee trade, open immigration, capital mobility. It is the mantra of entire US political establishment save a few minor exveptions. We've bern sold out, by everyone.
 
2012-10-23 02:05:47 PM

relcec: It means fee trade, open immigration, capital mobility. It is the mantra of entire US political establishment save a few minor exveptions. We've bern sold out, by everyone.


pretty much what I meant by the interests of big business. thanks
 
2012-10-23 02:10:59 PM

count chocula: relcec: It means fee trade, open immigration, capital mobility. It is the mantra of entire US political establishment save a few minor exveptions. We've bern sold out, by everyone.

pretty much what I meant by the interests of big business. thanks


The only thing is these people don't need the republicans to win to grt yheir policies implemented. They caputured the ENTIRE establishment, and it happened decades ago.
 
Displayed 50 of 58 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report