Socialism Vs Capitalism

There s a reasonably good case that free education (subject to meeting acceptance criteria at higher levels) is actually good economic practice. Lots of highly successful people who have contributed much to their societies have come from poor backgrounds.
Not just warm and fuzzy socialism but pragmatic hard nosed investment.

Daryl wrote:There s a reasonably good case that free education (subject to meeting acceptance criteria at higher levels) is actually good economic practice. Lots of highly successful people who have contributed much to their societies have come from poor backgrounds.
Not just warm and fuzzy socialism but pragmatic hard nosed investment.

Lincoln & Ford just to name 2

What I recall from my college days way back when, is that the students who worked the hardest were the ones who were paying their own way through school (loans don't count) with no economic/race based free ride scholarships or for that matter help from mom and dad. I guess if you work hours and hours slaving away at a lousy minimum wage job to pay for something it makes you value it. Incidentally that hard work didn't necessarily translate into good grades. Probably because it was hard to study and work a lousy job at the same time. So they didn't look nearly as good to employers coming out of college as they should have. The other group that worked the hardest was those who were there on earned scholarships i.e. academic or some other scholarship you had to work hard to earn not one based on race/economic status etc.

The economic/race based scholarships resulted in a tremendous amount of individual variance. Those kids didn't have to do anything to earn them they just had to be black/hispanic/poor etc. To some of them it was a golden opportunity, to others a chance to party on Uncle Sam's dime. Because it was about who they were which they had no control over not about what they did, those scholarships didn't do a thing to sort the hard working from the not hard working. So they got all kinds. The group that was the absolute worst at working hard was the rich kids, there on mom and dad's dime to party for 4 years. For them education really didn't matter. Connections would get them a good job when they graduated. So they didn't care and there parents didn't either (as long as they didn't flunk). Middle class kids also on mom and dad's dime, were motivated by my parents will kill me after they spent all this money, if I don't at least do OK.

So to get the maximum value of the college experience, we need to make sure that the kids themselves have some skin in the game. That they have to do something to earn their way (loans don't count, they don't produce the same psychological effect). At the same time college has gotten so expensive that one can't pay their own way through college like they could in the old days.

So pure system of free college isn't the best because Peter is right, too many people don't value what they don't pay for. But a pure pay for it system, is also bad. We'd be best served by some sort of hybrid, where everyone (even the rich kids) was forced to pay for part of it via their own efforts. Either a lousy minimum wage job or a work for it scholarship of some type would work.

Education is a great equalizer. Putting quality education behind paywalls only serves those who are already on top of the dung pile; If the great promise of western civilization is that everyone has an equal chance at the top spots (disregarding for the moment that that has never been the case in reality), then it behooves us to ensure that everyone can get enough education to make good decisions about their future careers.

Turning education into a private enterprise does not serve this. The goals and constraints for a private enterprise are not compatible with the goals and constraints of a service for the public good.

The E wrote:Education is a great equalizer. Putting quality education behind paywalls only serves those who are already on top of the dung pile; If the great promise of western civilization is that everyone has an equal chance at the top spots (disregarding for the moment that that has never been the case in reality), then it behooves us to ensure that everyone can get enough education to make good decisions about their future careers.

Turning education into a private enterprise does not serve this. The goals and constraints for a private enterprise are not compatible with the goals and constraints of a service for the public good.

I agree with the bolded goal above. What I disagree with is the means to achieve that end. The best way to make education available is to reduce costs. This is true for publically or privately funded education. Reducing the cost of education is most effectively done by making the recipient of the education and the person who pays the bills the same person. I believe that the education system must have standards imposed on it by outside sources. Those sources must not be tied to whatever/whoever is managing the system itself. That suggests to me that the system is best privately managed but publically regulated. The competing interests keep each side honest.

There is nothing wrong with scholarships that are earned. Those can be funded privately or publically. Providing that scholarships are earned rather than free grants anyone who breathes can get. Those sorts of free money grants inflate the costs of education for everyone involved and defeats the purpose of lowering costs to improve availability.

MAD-4A wrote:And sea power as well (since 1918 anyway)

Navies are expensive, don' cha know.

Not having an Empire and it's captive market any more hasn't done wonders for the size of the UK's revenue stream.

Mike.

Note: Socialism is not a market type, it is a government type. The market type under a socialist regime is a Monopoly. The socialist government controls EVERYTHING and thus controls ALL the businesses. It is a monopoly where the Robber-Baron is the Government. The reason labor in China is so low is not just because of the high population but also because under a monopolistic market type the monopolist can higher fewer workers for lower wages (you work for what I say or you don’t work at all) to maximize profit. This screws the consumer who has to pay higher prices with lower supplies available then if it were a free market. With a socialist system, not only are the companies owned by the government, as a monopoly, but you can’t complain to the government about the company because the company IS the Government. What’s worse is that you are also owned by the government and so you don’t have the right to choose what to buy or where to work. If the government tells you to work somewhere then that’s where you work, and if the government tells you to buy somewhere then that’s where you buy from! Whether you want to or not. One of my schools teachers grew up in Cuba. We were talking the other day. Yes they have socialized medicine there & anybody can go to the doctor whenever they need to. Who you have to go to is up to the government. She mentioned needing to go to the doctor one day, she walked in and found that she knew the doctor she was sent to, a incompetent moron, she turned around and left without care “never mind!"
Note that government regulation of “companies” is NOT socialism! The government telling a company that it can’t use cheap lead paint in its plastic cereal bowls is not socialism. The sole purpose for the Government is to protect its people from threats (foreign & domestic). If a company is actively poisoning or cheating people then it’s the government’s duty (regardless of type of government) to protect its PEOPLE from that company, just as it would (or intend to) protect you from a burglar breaking into your house and trying to rob & kill you. It is not the government’s prevue to control the people (except where it is directly protecting another - as before). Telling you (the individual) what they must buy (or can’t buy) is socialism (as the case for obamacare). Making people have liability car insurance and wear seatbelts is borderline, but in those cases you don’t really HAVE to have car insurance or wear a seatbelt if you really don’t want too – you just can’t drive on public roads, you can walk. That’s the difference.

As for strengthening the middle class. The real problem is the arbitrary nature of “minimum wage”. This should be replaced with a hard and fast “wage disparity” law. If companies were not allowed to pay one employee (the CEO) one wage, and another employee (the person who cleans out the restroom in the store) another wage, of such high disparity, then the companies couldn’t cheat people and pay slave labor. That’s not to say “all” wages have to be the same, but that they have to be within a certain % of one another (I say 300%), that means that if the CEO wants a TOTAL of $100,000/year (including ALL compensation – free company jet, stock options, golden parachute etc…) then he can’t pay the bathroom cleaner less than $33,333.34/Year – if he only wants to pay them $10,000/year without benefits then he can’t have more than $30.000/year! This should include any (contractors/temp) doing any kind of production/sales work that’s directly associated with the companies purpose (not a plumber hired to fix the employees bathroom – but temps hired to run the production line, shipping dock, sales counters etc…). This would prevent companies for simply firing everyone below management level and filling their slots with temps, then replacing them when they want to become permanent. This would also have the effect of helping employees gain benefits. A company can often negotiate benefits (insurance, HC etc…) for less cost than the listed “value” of the benefit, and can pass them onto the employees as “compensation”. So (say) an employee making $20,000/year with $10,000 worth of benefits (costing the company $8,000) the company would be out $28,000 but could list that employee as $30,000 and (if the lowest) the CEO can grant himself $90,000 that year instead of the $84,000 If the emplyee were only payed the cash and told to get his own insurance/etc...