Political Roundtable/Black hole of doom Part Deux

[dobrojim]

What if the rich essentially stole the (extra) money to begin with
by corrupting the system in unjust and unproductive ways?
Would be really be theft for the public to 'steal' it back?

[nate33]

The ones in the financial sector are stealing money because they're first in line at the inflation spigot, but I don't see how execs at, say, Exxon or Cisco are stealing money. They're doing everything legally in their power to maximize shareholder value, but they're not stealing. I don't blame them for trying to convince Congress to write bills favorable to them (as long as the campaign donations are within the boundaries of campaign finance laws). I blame Congress for succumbing to the temptation.

[dobrojim]

The ones in the financial sector are stealing money because they're first in line at the inflation spigot, but I don't see how execs at, say, Exxon or Cisco are stealing money. They're doing everything legally in their power to maximize shareholder value, but they're not stealing. I don't blame them for trying to convince Congress to write bills favorable to them (as long as the campaign donations are within the boundaries of campaign finance laws). I blame Congress for succumbing to the temptation.

first of all Stiglitz disagrees with you about the difficulty of taxing income.
See the interview video I posted

wrt say resource companies stealing money, well the system has been rigged
for them to do it 'legally' but they are extracting resources from public lands
at a deep discount. That has been a major contributing factor to ExxonMobile
becoming the most profitable company in the history of the world.

In the face of the money that can be used against a sitting congress-critter,
it would be difficult at best for them to be able to stand up to the threat
of massive dollars being used to defeat them. This idea that money is the
same as speech COMBINED with the idea that corporations have the same
rights as individuals is working quickly to destroy what had been great
about this country.

[dobrojim]

wait, campaign finance laws? Did you say campaign finance laws?

since Citizens united, there are no effective limits on what corporations
can spend for or against political candidates. Those 'investments' end
up being pennies on the dollar to the advantages they gain.

[nate33]

I dunno. Somebody once described campaign finance reform as trying to stop diarrhea with scotch tape. No matter how much you try and block it, it'll find another way out. There is too much money at stake.

I think the solution is to give much less power to government in general, and when you do give them power, do so at the state level as much as possible. Like capitalism, government regulation would benefit from competition over time.

On the subject of extracting resources, I'm certainly open minded to the government exacting royalties from resources. I don't know to what extent that is done already and I don't know how we compare to other nations in this regard. Obviously, there's the issue of competition again. If we charge too much, companies will look elsewhere where they can be more profitable.

[dobrojim]

You're worried about Exxon's ability to make a profit!?!?!?

I think just the opposite. We need to SHARPLY curtail the
power of corporations. The govt is We the People. We're allowed
to do this. Giving corporations power over govt is exactly what
has led us to this point of tinkering on the edge if not already descending
towards 3rd world status.

[LyricalRico]

If, instead of bailing out AIG, Fannie Mae and the other banks, we would have done nothing but shift additional funds into the FDIC, lots of rich people would have been wiped out, the taxpayers wouldn't have taken the hit, inflation wouldn't have kicked in, and the ordinary citizen with $100,000 or less in their bank accounts would have been protected. Homeprice would have dropped. Banks would have been forced to renegotiate new loan arrangements as people threaten to default on mortgages. It would have been ugly for a while, but a new equilibrium would have been restored with the wealthy bearing most of the brunt of the loss.

I dunno. Somebody once described campaign finance reform as trying to stop diarrhea with scotch tape. No matter how much you try and block it, it'll find another way out. There is too much money at stake.

[Zonkerbl]

Guys, guys, guys.

The U.S.' comparative advantage is in high tech goods and services that require high skilled labor. Incomes in high tech industries are growing. Low tech manufacturing and services industries are having their wages set by the going wage in China, so they're stagnant. Look up H1-B - that's the visa for skilled workers who are unavailable in the US - and there's an enormous hue and cry from the business community for more workers in the high tech industries. Why are we importing high tech laborers? Because our education sucks. The cure to the income gap is to educate, educate, educate so that we can fill the high paying jobs with natural born U.S. citizens. We need to invest in America, as the dems say.

Treat the disease, not the symptoms.

Although a lot of the problem is cultural. We're lazy here. We expect life to be handed to us on a platter. The immigrants who come to this country work their butts off to get what we take for granted, and they expect the same level of effort from their kids. We don't have that here and it's why the poor are getting poorer. I'm blaming the victim here but we really have to look in the mirror to see the root of the income gap.

[nate33]

You're worried about Exxon's ability to make a profit!?!?!?

No, I'm worried about Exxon transferring jobs overseas.

[nate33]

Guys, guys, guys.

The U.S.' comparative advantage is in high tech goods and services that require high skilled labor. Incomes in high tech industries are growing. Low tech manufacturing and services industries are having their wages set by the going wage in China, so they're stagnant. Look up H1-B - that's the visa for skilled workers who are unavailable in the US - and there's an enormous hue and cry from the business community for more workers in the high tech industries. Why are we importing high tech laborers? Because our education sucks. The cure to the income gap is to educate, educate, educate so that we can fill the high paying jobs with natural born U.S. citizens. We need to invest in America, as the dems say.

Treat the disease, not the symptoms.

Although a lot of the problem is cultural. We're lazy here. We expect life to be handed to us on a platter. The immigrants who come to this country work their butts off to get what we take for granted, and they expect the same level of effort from their kids. We don't have that here and it's why the poor are getting poorer. I'm blaming the victim here but we really have to look in the mirror to see the root of the income gap.

All good points.

But when we focus on education, we need to consider our methods. We currently spend more per pupil than any other developed nation except Switzerland, but get much less for it. Our problem isn't the money spent, it's how we're spending it. I don't profess to have all the answers, but the people in the Department of Education clearly don't have the answers either. Education should be voucherized. Let the market decide the most efficienty and productive way to educate our youth.

[Zonkerbl]

Well, that's what my last paragraph is about. I don't think what's wrong with education in our country is something that can be fixed by messing around with the educational system. We have to change our culture somehow to value academic achievement more. I admit I haven't the slightest clue how we might go about doing this -- we arrive here as immigrants hungry and poor and motivated, two or three generations later we're all rich and satiated and lazy. It's disappointing but not surprising.

[DCZards]

But when we focus on education, we need to consider our methods. We currently spend more per pupil than any other developed nation except Switzerland, but get much less for it. Our problem isn't the money spent, it's how we're spending it. I don't profess to have all the answers, but the people in the Department of Education clearly don't have the answers either. Education should be voucherized. Let the market decide the most efficienty and productive way to educate our youth.

I share your concerns about our education system and how our kids seem to be falling further and further behind. Although, it's hard to compare what we spend on education with what other countries spend given the diversity of languages, cultures, races, socioeconomic levels, etc. that our schools have to deal with...which can be far more costly than educating kids in many other countries, most of which are far more homogenous.

But vouchers (or the free-market system) is not the answer. In fact, it would only increase the gap between the well-educated and the under-educated. The free-market is notorius for creating winners and losers. We can't let that happen in education. We can't let low-income kids go to schools that are even more vastly under-resourced than they are now. The inequity in the funding and the conditions of our public schools is already appalling. Let's not make it worse.

Some of you have been discussing (and agreeing) in detail the "wealth disparity" that currently exists in our country. Isn't that, in large part, a direct result of the free-market system? Let's not bring that into our system of public education, which, imo, needs to remain free of the pressures of free-market competition.

[Severn Hoos]

The discrepancy in attitude toward education far exceeds the discrepancy in funding, resources, and facilities. If you can get children and their parents to actually care about education and value it, they will end up being successful. Even if little "book knowledge" is transferred to the student, the lessons learned in hard work, effort, completing projects, and self-sufficiency will be hugely beneficial for that child later in life. To the extent that education is ignored, marginalized, or - tragically - mocked, subsequent generations will be doomed to stagnation.

I do feel for those parents who highly value education and see it as the pathway to vast opportunity for their kids, but whose children are in school environments where success in school is not held up as something to aspire to. Those are exactly the kids who would benefit from a true school choice program. Kind of like the DCOSP that allowed kids from DC to go to Sidwell Friends, to attend school with the President's daughters. Too bad that program got canceled.

[nate33]

But vouchers (or the free-market system) is not the answer. In fact, it would only increase the gap between the well-educated and the under-educated. The free-market is notorius for creating winners and losers. We can't let that happen in education. We can't let low-income kids go to schools that are even more vastly under-resourced than they are now. The inequity in the funding and the conditions of our public schools is already appalling. Let's not make it worse.

If it increases the gap between well-educated and under-educated by making the well-educated even more well-educated (without hurting the under-educated), that's fine with me. I think we place an overemphasis on the equality when we should be focusing on excellence.

My simple blueprint would be: whatever amount of dollars a district is currently paying per pupil, I'd offer any kid that wanted it, a voucher worth half that amount to be used on a private school of his choice. Every kid that leaves the public system would actually result in more money being left over for the remaining public school kids.

[DCZards]

If it increases the gap between well-educated and under-educated by making the well-educated even more well-educated (without hurting the under-educated), that's fine with me. I think we place an overemphasis on the equality when we should be focusing on excellence.

So it's alright to leave the under-educated just as they are (mostly poor, ignorant and jobless) as long as we increase the number of well-educated Americans? Those are pretty low standards, Nate.

I believe firmly in both equity AND excellence. I realize that's not easy to achieve, but I'm not willing to accept anything less.

[nate33]

If it increases the gap between well-educated and under-educated by making the well-educated even more well-educated (without hurting the under-educated), that's fine with me. I think we place an overemphasis on the equality when we should be focusing on excellence.

So it's alright to leave the under-educated just as they are (mostly poor, ignorant and jobless) as long as we increase the number of well-educated Americans? Those are pretty low standards, Nate.

I believe firmly in both equity AND excellence. I realize that's not easy to achieve, but I'm not willing to accept anything less.

Obviously, everyone wants equity and excellence. I'm saying that with our overemphasis on equity, we may be doing a disservice to those at the front end of the bell curve. Anyone who works in public education can tell you that the top kids in the class are often bored while they're waiting for everyone else to catch up. That's criminal, in my opinion. You can't squander a society's best assets like that.

[DCZards]

Obviously, everyone wants equity and excellence. I'm saying that with our overemphasis on equity, we may be doing a disservice to those at the front end of the bell curve. Anyone who works in public education can tell you that the top kids in the class are often bored while they're waiting for everyone else to catch up. That's criminal, in my opinion. You can't squander a society's best assets like that.

Most of those on the "front end of the bell curve" got there as a result of inequities. I think it's about time we level the playing field.

[fishercob]

W.E.B. DuBois would beg to differ, having written about "the Talented Tenth" at great length.

I don't think equity and excellence is an either/or in absolute terms, do i do think it's critically important that the "pushing to the middle" of NCLB be stopped. The future leaders of our country are not being properly challenged, taught, etc.

[greendale]

Most of those on the "front end of the bell curve" got there as a result of inequities. I think it's about time we level the playing field.

No, you want to tilt the playing field even more than it already is.

I'm not even certain what educational equity means.

Nor do I see why you would even want educational equity.

[barelyawake]

When you privatize the public school system, in ten years (without a doubt in my mind) you will end up with the majority of the south being taught in creationist schools and the majority of city kids being taught at McDonald's and Walmart High (where they will replace art and science classes with register operation courses).

Privatizing energy lead to Enron. Deregulation of the oil industry lead to the gulf covered in oil. Privatizing of the airline industry? How's that workin' out for safety and cheaper fares? Deregulation of the banking industry? How'd that work out? Perhaps we shouldn't make the same mistake with our nation's children.