Spreading Democracy?!
Moderator: Moderators
-
SpikedHelmet
- MC: Legacy & Spring 1944 Developer
- Posts: 1948
- Joined: 21 Sep 2004, 08:25
If by "coming back to me" you mean it'll largely be spent on weapons, administrative charges, politician's salaries and funding Israeli war crimes, I'd rather it not.You forgot that the money taxed away will come back to you with the services the system provides for you.
It's funny that the moral measure of an economy lies in how much money a society's super-rich can afford to throw around into "risky" investments. Excuse me for not giving a damn how much wealth the wealthy have.
SpikedHelmet wrote:If by "coming back to me" you mean it'll largely be spent on weapons, administrative charges, politician's salaries and funding Israeli war crimes, I'd rather it not.You forgot that the money taxed away will come back to you with the services the system provides for you.
It's funny that the moral measure of an economy lies in how much money a society's super-rich can afford to throw around into "risky" investments. Excuse me for not giving a damn how much wealth the wealthy have.
Do i sense anti-semitism in your post? ; )
-
Felix the Cat
- Posts: 2383
- Joined: 15 Jun 2005, 17:30
I wouldn't say that they are "government propaganda indoctrination centers", but public schools are certainly quite biased in terms of their curricula. There's a couple of reasons for this.KDR_11k wrote:Many US Americans seem to consider public schools to be government propaganda indoctrination centers. Dunno why.
1) Since the government is paying for schools, the government has ultimate control over what is taught. While we could probably argue all day over the merits of giving the government control over the curriculum, and whether the government will truly and honestly serve the needs of the population, I think we can all agree that government control means that politicians are free to fiddle with the curriculum as they see fit. (See also the various attempts to teach creationism or "intelligent design" in schools.)
2) Of the groups that take an active interest in the politics of education, the teachers' unions have the most money, most members, and most influence. Teachers' unions are not afraid to pressure school boards and state legislatures to buy certain textbooks, teach certain things, or create policies that are good for the teachers' unions. This hits in two places.
First, the teachers' unions generally are to the left of the political spectrum, and will tend to want books that present a view of history or other subjects that is skewed to the left. For example, American history textbooks generally portray Native Americans as peace-loving paleo-hippies and European colonists as aggressive, warlike slaughterers of natives. This is quite incorrect; the Native Americans were at least as aggressive as the Europeans, and employed some rather distasteful tactics. As another example, my US history textbook's World War 2 section devoted 3 pages to discussion of the war and 15 pages to discussion of how Mexicans, blacks, women, gays, Jews, Chinese, Japanese, Muslims, Native Americans, and the lower class were affected by the war.
Second, the teachers' unions advocate policies that are good for teachers, often at the expense of students. Tenure is one example. Tenure was originally instituted by colleges to ensure a free and open discourse of ideas by professors and students; this isn't really applicable to most public schooling, as we are not looking for elementary-school teachers to engage in free and open discourse with 8 year olds. It is often nearly impossible to fire teachers for poor performance; teachers who would have been sacked by private schools for incompetence are quite common in public schools.
@Sleska: There is a diffrence between Socialism (where the State owns everything & there is no Property) and social Democratism, where the Taxed Money is redistributed to give everybody a equal Chance to start again, to get along with live even while unlucky. However - you are right that the great North of Europe is a good place to live in :)
@ Forb: I would have mentioned the Idea of a "full" Socialsystem earlier, just to have the usual hysteric Conservative Masspanic. Sorry to rain with Cause and Reason on this (childish) End of Days Parade
First thing. Beeing poor, hungry or uneducated is not nessecary to be inventiv, able or motivated for a Job. (Poor Example African Continent) Most Inventions are done in developed countrys, by rather well educated Students, Workers or Scientists. And having a lot of rich people around doesen`t nessecary mean they will start investing in risky buisness (e.g. Saudi Arabia)
As far as i understand, the true Reason why in America the Conservative prefer a "smallest Possible"Socialsystem is, that anything bigger threatens another "holy" value: Family.
You don´t divorce that easy if that cuts away half of your social backup-network. In a state with social system, Relationships don´t need to last that long - once the love is gone. Long lasting Familys have statistically more children - that gives America as one of the few democratic, developed Cilisations a demographic Independence.
Concerning Growth and Tax: Once in the early Dasy of America Tax on the Rich and Owning was 70% and more, Growth still was 3 %.
Quote : ... need is a cursory bit of history. From 1947 to 1973, the U.S. economy grew at a rate of nearly 4 percent a year--a massive boom, fueling rapid growth in living standards across the board. During most of that period, from 1947 until 1964, the highest tax rate hovered around 91 percent. For the rest of the time, it was still a hefty 70 percent. Yet the economy flourished anyway. None of this is to say that those high tax rates caused the ..." / End of Quote
http://www.tnr.com/docprint.mhtml?i=200 ... hait091007
So always remember: DON´T PANIC! (If there are no Taliban, Reds, Nazis, Iraquis, Russian, Liberals, Feminists at the Gates.)
The Answer is still 42 :)
@ Forb: I would have mentioned the Idea of a "full" Socialsystem earlier, just to have the usual hysteric Conservative Masspanic. Sorry to rain with Cause and Reason on this (childish) End of Days Parade
First thing. Beeing poor, hungry or uneducated is not nessecary to be inventiv, able or motivated for a Job. (Poor Example African Continent) Most Inventions are done in developed countrys, by rather well educated Students, Workers or Scientists. And having a lot of rich people around doesen`t nessecary mean they will start investing in risky buisness (e.g. Saudi Arabia)
As far as i understand, the true Reason why in America the Conservative prefer a "smallest Possible"Socialsystem is, that anything bigger threatens another "holy" value: Family.
You don´t divorce that easy if that cuts away half of your social backup-network. In a state with social system, Relationships don´t need to last that long - once the love is gone. Long lasting Familys have statistically more children - that gives America as one of the few democratic, developed Cilisations a demographic Independence.
Concerning Growth and Tax: Once in the early Dasy of America Tax on the Rich and Owning was 70% and more, Growth still was 3 %.
Quote : ... need is a cursory bit of history. From 1947 to 1973, the U.S. economy grew at a rate of nearly 4 percent a year--a massive boom, fueling rapid growth in living standards across the board. During most of that period, from 1947 until 1964, the highest tax rate hovered around 91 percent. For the rest of the time, it was still a hefty 70 percent. Yet the economy flourished anyway. None of this is to say that those high tax rates caused the ..." / End of Quote
http://www.tnr.com/docprint.mhtml?i=200 ... hait091007
So always remember: DON´T PANIC! (If there are no Taliban, Reds, Nazis, Iraquis, Russian, Liberals, Feminists at the Gates.)
The Answer is still 42 :)
tombom wrote:I'm interested about anybody participating in this conversation: do you have any formal qualification/education in politics or economics? Have you read good books on the subject?
Just wondering.
Books i read concerning Human Development:
Jared Diamond: Collaps, Guns, Germs & Gems
Various
Lousise Richardson: What Terrorist want
Efraim Karsh: islamic Imperialsm
Non Political but coming close to my View on Humans:
Albert Camus The Pestilence
Simone de Beauvoir All Humans are mortal
Okay, no pure Economics, but i read some Essays over that.
P.S.: Sorry for double Posting, must have been the invisible Hand