Nah, you're just simply wrong. Your analogy is the difference between everyone having a chance to attend Exeter if they're smart enough and everyone receiving a decent education; what it is *not* is an argument for price rationing of education. Your analogy leads us to something more like China's educational system than like any libertarian vision.

(Above is @Zmaj, naturally.)

@Hauta, I never said the team shares equally. Why should they? National teams don't share medals in the Olympics either. But nation as a whole profits.

@Leth, I just can't be arsed to try to understand your convoluted trains of thought, sorry.

@orathaic, Monbiot seems like an OK guy. I'll listen to a few more of his videos.

Anyway, he doesn't say anything new here. It was already Friedman who noticed that capitalism could prefer non-democratic societies, and he clearly said he gave priority to democracy.

As for his other claim, that the US somehow has a weak government that can't resist the demands of big corporations, I'll think about it some more before replying.

Then I'll make it super simple. If your goal is to find people who can jump 7 feet, why would you only search the richest 10% of the population?

@Leth, I won't search. Those richest 10% will search. They need smart people for their companies.

Ugh, torture your metaphor some more, why don't you.

That said, thank you for being clear about your advocacy of plutocracy. The solution is to wait for the enlightened-self-interest benevolence of rich people to trickle down. Of course it is.

@Leth, rhetoric won't get you out of this.

Leth said:

"The solution is to wait for the enlightened-self-interest benevolence of rich people to trickle down."

So... I have a company and educate my employees because I want them to do a better job. I'd call it good business. Leth calls it "enlightened-self-interest benevolence."

Once again, Leth is dissatisfied with simplicity. Because when things are simple... you know... it's easy to see the truth. And Leth doesn't like that.

letting people be free to do as much as they are capable of doing.

doesn't sound too awful at all. in fact, the reason why so many people STAY poor, is dependency on gov't. it's how Democrats win. they make hand out systems under the guise of helping people, then they incentivize staying out gov't assistance, and people vote Democrats in to continue getting such support.

if people really could maintain self-reliance, we wouldn't be having so many problems with wealth/income distribution on a spectrum in this country.

furthermore, when gov't create regulations and helps companies become monopolist (or at least in large oligopolies with regional monopolies) there is a perfect storm of a large poor class that is easily exploited by businesses.


and then they blame too much freedom for being the problem...


don't ask me how that last claim works ( ask Clinton how well it works :P )

I, too, would call it good business to educate nobody until they get a job, and then only the education they need for that specific job. Except wait, no, that's preposterous. Job training is well and good, some industries benefit from apprenticeship, but it's not a viable substitute for educating the general public.

I would be interested to know if Zmaj can cite a single example of a country that's 'winning the Olympics', in his parlance, without public education. If it's such a natural benefit, rather than wishful thinking, *someone* must be making it work.

are you kidding me? college degrees are getting less and less influential, ALL THE WHILE they get more expensive.

i hate this world view where learning a specific trade is bad, and people need a "common core" knowledge.

I had to take 4 goddamn years of English in high school. My mom was and English teacher and we had enough arguments about this, but the system we have is TERRIBLE.

i could have done with 1 year of english, maybe 2. so could most kids who speak english their entire lives. but instead of putting more requirements on STEM areas (aka: the future) we had to have impractical things taught to us, which will make us less viable in a job market.

the guy who has a well rounded education vs the guy who only went to welding school:

the second guy is getting a paying job as a welder. it's called LIFE.

furthermore, the federal gov't has done an awful, AWFUL job with the department of education. they've been a large part responsible for increasing college prices, and also they push down this common core bullshit.

remember when local municipalities funded education? because THEY'RE the ones who are supposedly smarter than our MODERN generation!!! we have regressed, and it's thanks to braid ideas on education like that..

"I would be interested to know if Zmaj can cite a single example of a country that's 'winning the Olympics', in his parlance, without public education. If it's such a natural benefit, rather than wishful thinking, *someone* must be making it work."

this is a fallacy derived off of a single-variable analysis of a multi-variable situation.

furthermore, "winning the olympics" is a bad metaphor, but simply because there is an end goal: a gold medal, a 7 foot bar, etc.

the best metaphor is 5 people are running on a track, and each of them finish with different times, according to their ability

freedom should be the end goal.

@Leth, that one is easy. It's the US. Just a bit earlier in this thread, Pastoralan gave some fine examples of people who went to exclusive schools and became the great men we all know and admire. So I guess someone is making it work after all.

@Leth, I bet you are not and have never been an entrepreneur. Things that are natural to us, because we have to rely on ourselves, are unnatural and suspicious to you, because you never had to do it. Also, you think big taxes are not a problem because you have never been really taxed. It all boils down to experience, and you have none.

"this is a fallacy derived off of a single-variable analysis of a multi-variable situation."

Tell it to Zmaj. It's his argument.

Meanwhile, you're arguing against positions I never took. "this world view where learning a specific trade is bad"? What? Vocational school is great. That has nothing to do with the discussion.

"@Leth, that one is easy. It's the US. Just a bit earlier in this thread, Pastoralan gave some fine examples of people who went to exclusive schools and became the great men we all know and admire. So I guess someone is making it work after all."

Yes, I'm sure those people didn't benefit at all from an educated workforce. (Not to mention an educated consumer base.)

Zmaj said:

"@Leth, I bet you are not and have never been an entrepreneur."

Your silence is deafening, Leth :D

They are all the same. Can't cut it in capitalism, so they vote for a free lunch of gruel for everyone.

Well, sure, I skipped it 'cause it was content-free noise.

Now that I look at it, of course, it's even funnier, because I entered the discussion cautioning pastoralan about the cost of his vision of public education, and now you're scolding me for insufficient faith in the religion of tax cuts. If that's the conclusion you reach by making blind guesses about my history, you're really grasping at straws.

"or steal from them as some Libertarians would put it"

Hey! I got a shout out :)

"I don't think automation is quite as robust as you think it is. There are still a lot of jobs that can't be replaced by machines."

You'd be surprised...

Re:automation, give it five years.

Just watching an interesting take on this whole situation with Russian-US relations.

Basically saying that Trump will have no political room to manouver because of acqusations that he is a Russian Stooge.

That there is a new cold war in Syria, Ukraine and elsewhere, and the US must negotiate a peaceful solution.

So i would assume that the intented effect of A) claims

... Russia has incriminating evidence to black mail Trump and B) Trump and Exxon friends bought 19% of the Russian oil company.

Are both designed to prevent any peaceful resolution.

So the question remains, who benefits from these issues. (Not whether or not they are true, merely who has the power and influence to push this, and why they would).

Now far be it for me to make uninformed acqusations, but it seems reasonable that agencies which have for decades derived their funding from painting Russia as the 'big enemy' have the most to lose and have the power and influence to actually push their agenda.

https://youtu.be/OV4MqxPJAhw

Call it the deep state, all those parts of the US security aparatus (NSA, Pentagon, CIA etc.) who are not replaced each election.

that last video ends with Stephen Cohen basically saying Trump needs to learn from Regan (who suvcessfully ended the cold war by negptiating with the Soviet Union) when it comes to dealing with Putin's Russia, and his own party...

I'd love to hear what US republicans think.

Some of Trump's old team certainly thought they should make Russia their ally. I'm not sure it was in the US' interest, though.

http://www.vox.com/world/2017/3/22/15003774/trump-russia-ties-flynn-manafort