Discussion in 'Off-Topic Discussions' started by Abner, May 2, 2018.
Actually, California was the first state in the union to make community college free [sic] for everyone. However, after California taxpayers realized that it was not free [sic] (because the taxpayers were paying for it through higher taxation), then it was stopped.
Similarly, the Soviet Union provided free [sic] education, until they went bankrupt -- and ceased to exist financially. Socialists (communists) like to tout that things are free [sic] when, in fact, they are not free because taxpayers are paying for it.
I have paid for all my education. However this is great news for the people of Tennessee. In my opinion, tuition is a barrier to education, not a success factor. My guess, the next step in this strategy is attract businesses to take advantage of a more educated labor force.
I think it is a great thing as well!
True enough. The people of Tennessee are paying the bill. Apparently they have decided that it is in everyone's interest to have a better educated population. I suppose time will tell whether it actually works out that way.
Also the people of Tennessee are paying for roads, police, firefighters etc. A strategy of having an educated population is apolitical. One can argue it is one of the key ingredient to have a free market.
By definition, publicly funded services are not part of a free market. If you want to argue that they're worthwhile exceptions you'll be in a lot of company, but it's still not laissez faire.
Duh. So? Yep, there are good arguments for keeping education out of the free market; eg. education availability is directly related to the equality of opportunity (not outcomes as people keep claiming). Same for justice system, police, post office... and, oh btw, healthcare - to differing degrees. I know there are theoretical systems that describe how a pure market can provide these, but just like communism, no one was yet able to implement one.
And also, to be clear - public community college systems are not exactly "free market" anywhere, anyway.
I am going outside my comfort zone, however no country in the world practice pure laissez faire. In the USA, maybe neo-liberalism, the same as China. Most economies are mixed economy. I don’t know enough to distinguish between what is political and what is economic but is that even relevant?
So don't use the phrase if that's not actually what you're talking about. I mean, you wouldn't want to sound like when me again refers to everything as "communism".
Wait......you mean everything is not communism?
Many of these isms are about maintaining balance, Aristotle. We know too much red tape is bad for business and too little red tape is bad for the environments, human rights etc. Ireland has been able to do well with low taxation and free education. Norway has been able to do well with high taxation and a free education, Canada is somewhere in between. There is no magic elixir just balance. Venezuela went too far on one side, so was Iceland at one time, both with different models.
No they haven't - done well, that is. Not at all. I'm not saying education was a tipping factor, but Ireland had an economic meltdown, didn't you hear? It's one of the four debt-ridden Eurozone PIGS (Portugal Ireland Greece and Spain) that we always hear about. That was followed by a partial recovery "boomlet" that threatens to become a bust again.
Norway is a whole different thing. They've usually done well - not "joiners," tend to be self-reliant and hey - they've got North Sea oil. High taxes? OK. They can afford them and they treat their own people well. When Spain had 20%+ unemployment, Norway had 2%.
Yes, both Iceland and Ireland go hit very hard by the 2008 crises
Interesting note from Wikipedia on the Irish downturn:
"Official statistics showed a drop in most crimes coinciding with the economic downturn. Burglaries, however, rose by approximately 10% and recorded prostitution offences more than doubled from 2009 to 2010."
My read: Crime drops, but chump-change offences increase. Some are desperate just to get by, and there's no big money left to steal. I've heard that in Moscow (but not Ireland), some of the prostitutes are grossly underpaid (by the Government) medical doctors, "moonlighting" to survive.
And in Venezuela, too (doctors moonlighting as prostitutes). The authors blame socialism. "Me Again" probably likes that reasoning(?)
The problem is going to the extreme on any system.
Although in that case, he's right.
Just for accuracy's sake, as a Tennessee resident (and working taxpayer) I figured I'd point out I'm not paying a dime towards anyone's free community college. It's funded by the lottery (all lottery proceeds go towards educational programs) and I don't play the lottery. Those who choose to play know (or should know) where the proceeds go.
Well, if there is going to be gambling, the proceeds may as well pay for education. Government lottery is a form of taxation.
In one of the Arctic community where I live, there will be bingo to fund the food bank. Guess who were clients of the foodbank, the bingo players?
Separate names with a comma.