|
| Thread: Should the EU be dissolved? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted October 05, 2013 12:03 PM |
|
Edited by xerox at 12:11, 05 Oct 2013.
|
JJ: Higher spending does not equal better results. The countries with the best educations systems are not necesarily those with the highest tax rates. Governments tend to do a lot of unnecesary spending that is likely to swell with higher tax revenue. What's important is how money is used. Cut the non-essentials and use taxes on government operations that actually work. One of the things that governments can do efficiently is making its professions attractive. This is especially important for teachers. More people wanting to become teachers leads to less bad people being admitted and hired.
I think you underestimate the value of competition, both in wages and school choice. One of the reasons behind lower wages in the public sector is that the number of employers is limited. There is usually a public monopoly. And as Markkur wrote, there is a tendency to avoid determinating wages based on individual achievements.
Does Germany have a school choice? Here there is competition within cities. We have public schools and free schools (tax-funded but privately run). Some of these free schools have much better results and working environments than public schools and my sister is actually changing to one right now. Problem is, a lot of people keep attending the bad public schools. I believe this is caused by parents not thinking twice before choosing the closest designated public school because of education being free of tution. I'm not sure how to fix that because as much as I think tution fees would fix a lot of problems (and they should be an alternative), I want primary education to be accessable. Maybe zero rate loans.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 05, 2013 12:51 PM |
|
|
It's not a question of "tax rates" but priorities. Scandinavian countries all have fairly high general tax rates PLUS massive sales taxes on stuff like alcohol and big cars. You shouldn't underestimate the effect of high sales taxes on luxury and "fun" items or items that are bad for health.
"Competition" in schooling is a supremely bad idea, because what does competetion actually mean? In the best case there is a run on those that offer REALLY better results, leaving the rest out to dry, and in the worst case results are doctored.
And OF COURSE equals more money better results: if you raise salaries for teachers, the job gets a lot more interesting, and consequently you will have a lot more people WANTING to become a teacher - and THERE the competition is where it should be.
Same is true for policing, of course.
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted October 05, 2013 01:57 PM |
|
|
Quote:
It's not THAT simple, is it?
 I didn't say simple; I just mentioned what I found to be human nature when I was responsible for as many as 15 men, and also from supervising in 5 different departments. Over-achievers don't tend to stay that way, usually they pull back to whatever is accepted in the environment.
<imo> Work-life can be very difficult for an over-the-top performer. i.e Before becoming a supervisor, I worked in many areas and in most departments I always went after production records. In English there's a phrase called "brown-nosing" the brown came from the boss and you can guess from where.
The thing was, although I have to admit I liked owning a record,the real need for me was to compete, even if that meant against myself. Otherwise, the work-hours moved like molasses in January.
Now I realize that was Production but I think people are people, no matter the collar and real incentive is needed for "sustained" excellence.
I agree that taxes are a problem, hmm, so maybe Education past grade/grammar schools, should be private-sector? Actually it's kind of funny, the U.S. claims a free-market but in the U.S. the School System is all one Government red-tape fiasco, wasted spending and unsatisfactory results.
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted October 05, 2013 02:31 PM |
|
|
Just one cold shower note: during the "communism" years here in Bulgaria, when there was no private sector to speak of and the state was everywhere, the education was MUCH better than it is now on all levels. Meaning 10 or more times better. That's even when you take into account all the ideological crap that was incorporated into the social sciences.
Now please do carry on with the free market discussion.
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 05, 2013 04:33 PM |
|
Edited by Fauch at 17:12, 05 Oct 2013.
|
in France, everyone says (or at least people in the private sector) that it's much better to work in the public sector. (well, they also all say that they don't actually work but get paid doing nothing  )
Quote:
but the simple bottom line here is, that our society wastes too much money in the fun sector: vices, games, TV, holidays, good food, big cars, you name it ...
yes. or maybe it's the consequence and not the cause. try to spend money to improve things and you see no changes at all. or sometimes it even gets worse. so the money is just wasted, better to spend it on having fun.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 05, 2013 07:08 PM |
|
|
Quote:
In some cases it's a quality problem, in others a quantity problem, but the simple bottom line here is, that our society wastes too much money in the fun sector: vices, games, TV
How do you know it's "too much"? By what measure? Your own personal preferences?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 05, 2013 08:07 PM |
|
|
|
By the measure of STATISTICS: crime rate, education levels, general nhealth, quality of public servants, level of corruption, level of intellectual and individual freedom. You know - the level of general nihilistic decadence in combination with the actual percentage the national economies have to pay for INTEREST RATES...
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 05, 2013 08:28 PM |
|
|
To a certain extent, those things are inevitable. How do you know that the current trade-off isn't what people prefer?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 05, 2013 09:45 PM |
|
|
If you save someone who's seeningly dying, how do you know that's what they want. Dying, I mean.
So why would that be important?
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 05, 2013 10:15 PM |
|
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 05, 2013 10:31 PM |
|
Edited by xerox at 22:38, 05 Oct 2013.
|
JollyJoker said:
It's not a question of "tax rates" but priorities. Scandinavian countries all have fairly high general tax rates PLUS massive sales taxes on stuff like alcohol and big cars. You shouldn't underestimate the effect of high sales taxes on luxury and "fun" items or items that are bad for health.
Yes, the tax systems in the Scandinavian countries are inefficient. They tax income, capital and savings higher than consumtion, carbon and property. I'm against having a specific consumtion tax on luxury goods and such though. Those are inconsistent taxes, which I don't like (if we tax X type of consumtion, why not tax Y and Z too etc), and I find that property and perhaps land tax is enough to reach the objective (a tax system that is more beneficial for low income than high income).
More money does not equal better results. If that was the case, a country with a 100% percentage tax would have the best education system. However, a successful way for governments to get better employees is spending money on raising salaries.
Fauch said:
in France, everyone says (or at least people in the private sector) that it's much better to work in the public sector. (well, they also all say that they don't actually work but get paid doing nothing )
France is... special. They have a lot of benefits for public employees. The consequence is inefficiency and a huge government debt. There are reasons why Germany is doing much better than France. Actually the French situation reminds me a bit of what I hear about the UN. Employees having massive wages and benefits without actually doing much of a good job. And these benefits become larger the longer you stay in the system. Problem is you don't stay in the system if you criticise it.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted October 06, 2013 12:42 AM |
|
|
Zenofex said:
Just one cold shower note: during the "communism" years here in Bulgaria, when there was no private sector to speak of and the state was everywhere, the education was MUCH better than it is now on all levels.
That's not apples to apples. Here's what I mean; for decades now the U.S. kids have been falling behind the rest of the developed world. (If I can trust the media) While our colleges (some at least) are sought by students from all over the world.
As in your stated case, there's no reason why we should not have excellent public schools yet we haven't. I think some progress has been made but with all the politics...its hard to know the truth.
Probably the best thing about Education being in the hands of the State is ensuring all kids get an education.
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 07, 2013 09:57 AM |
|
|
Imo, public education is the worst idea ever.
People take education for granted nowadays. I'm listening to my grandparents talking about how their parents and grandparents were educated, and it sounds to me like they were from another planet. Education used to be so intense that no one took it for granted. It was time consuming, emotionaly wasting and it ate alot of money.
With public education you just put the ones that really wanna be educated in the same pot with literally ALL the rest. And they're being dragged down by them and techers teach them mediocre stuff, because they gotta have a certain "graduation percentage" if they wanna keep their jobs.
So how do you pass a pupil that doesn't give a damn about education? You lower the difficulty of the classes of course. Untill you get maybe half of them to know the multiplication tables in high school.
You know what I'm doing now? Skipping uni a whole week, and the year just started.. you know why? Cuz last year I did the same and it worked, I read all the material 1 day prior to the exam and I passed, each exam, except 1 (1 from about 30). So if this is the education level, then they should expect the same level of results.
@ Zenofex - I fully agree with you, education in the communist period was much better than the one we have now.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted October 07, 2013 10:53 AM |
|
|
|
So you are against public education AND you agree it was much better during communism?! Are you sure you passed those exams
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 07, 2013 11:30 AM |
|
|
artu said:
So you are against public education AND you agree it was much better during communism?! Are you sure you passed those exams
In terms of public education, the communist period was way above this post-communism period that I live in today. You could rely on a degree to get a good job. Now, you are dieing with your diploma in your hand. No one gives a rat's ass about you because everyone can get a degree. And in the communist period doctors and teachers were the cream of the society, just as it should be. Now, here, they get an average salary of 300 euros a month. Tell me how in the world are we to survive with that salary? So we either emigrate or start stealing so the crime rate goes crazy..
In terms of all time education, the period before communism was the best, if you had a degree on something you were someone, an aristocrat. Job was not an issue. Money? My dad told me that his grandfather had so much money that he could literally wipe his ass every day with greenbacks for 100 lives, and still get richer.
So don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating for any system, because the system is not the main problem here, the main problem is Man. So as long as this Earth is ruled by man, there's no end to our problems. No matter how perfect or imperfect a system might be, the human factor remains the most important.
And yea, I got my exams, except that one.. learning absolutely nothing. Perfect system indeed.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted October 07, 2013 12:19 PM |
|
|
Stevie said:
In terms of all time education, the period before communism was the best, if you had a degree on something you were someone, an aristocrat. Job was not an issue. Money? My dad told me that his grandfather had so much money that he could literally wipe his ass every day with greenbacks for 100 lives, and still get richer.
You realize that was like 2 percent of the society and the rest were farmers who ate bread all year. And before industrialism, there wasn't much public education because there was no demand. You can be an illiterate farmer and live in peace in your village, life will go on pretty much the same without any education. In modern times though, even to be able to drive (and read the road signs), you'll need to at least have literacy, and basic math like adding and abstracting is also required. So some level of public education is a necessity. There are still special schools for the gifted or the elite, who'll turn into specialists if that's your concern. So yes, as education spreads around, a loss of quality may be inevitable to a certain degree, you can not have 4000 Harvards or Eton Collages, yet with proper politics, public funding may result in adequate education for everybody.
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 07, 2013 12:51 PM |
|
Edited by Stevie at 12:52, 07 Oct 2013.
|
I agree with what you've said. To live a modern life you have to have at least some basic education level. But I wasn't talking about that, I was talking about having a profession, that requires a high level of education. You cannot force that upon someone that doesn't want it. If a peasant wants to stay a peasant and live a life of a peasant then that's what he should do. If he wants to be educated and live another kind of life then he should be free to do that. Our system now simply forces peasants to get educated against their will. All children need to do 12 years of school, no one asks them if they want it or not, they just get forcibly educated. That's plain stupid and has consequences on society. You'll get to have peasants that have degrees but no knowledge in their profession.
artu said:
yet with proper politics, public funding may result in adequate education for everybody.
Keep relying on the human factor, you'll just get disappointed.
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted October 07, 2013 02:20 PM |
|
|
Zenofex said:
Just one cold shower note: during the "communism" years here in Bulgaria, when there was no private sector to speak of and the state was everywhere, the education was MUCH better than it is now on all levels. Meaning 10 or more times better. That's even when you take into account all the ideological crap that was incorporated into the social sciences.
Now please do carry on with the free market discussion.
Well, I only know about your northern and western neighbours and I'm reasonably sure it doesn't ring true for at least a couple of those countries. Every country differs, but I doubt Moscow's learning plans were THAT good. Or was Bulgaria relatively free from Moscow's influence?
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted October 10, 2013 06:35 PM |
|
Edited by baklava at 18:41, 10 Oct 2013.
|
@Xerox, on the Standard Oil issue
There is no such thing as a safely beneficial monopoly, in a similar manner as there is no such thing as beneficial central planning on the state level. It can be perceived (erroneously, in the long run) as beneficial for a while, but it's bound to go down in flames sooner or later. I'm no economist, but from what I've seen, even on the most basic level, a monopoly is hopelessly Pareto un-optimal and the market equilibrium goes down the toilet. It's a market failure.
The fact that there was never a market free enough to give time and space for government unassisted monopolies to form doesn't mean that they wouldn't happen, should they be given the chance. Totalitarian socialist regimes were a pretty unknown thing in the beginning of the past century. Then look what happened.
@MVass
We seem to agree on most facets of this discussion. Those that we disagreed on since the early Paleolithic of HC - such as healthcare - are still there, but don't really have too much to do with the topic at hand.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 10, 2013 06:39 PM |
|
Edited by xerox at 18:39, 10 Oct 2013.
|
How can there be a proper monopoly in a free market?
A monopoly owns the entire market and uses coercion to prevent others from accessing. Afaik, Standard Oil never did that.
It wouldn't have grown that big had it not been for support from the consumers.
The idea of a market monopoly is a fallacy.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
| |
|
|
