Why is private profit more important than clean air and energy security? Switching to another fossil fuel is just bailing out the Titanic, you're still going down sooner or later.
In New Hampshire they'll still be living under the large federal government. If they really want small government they should really think about emigrating altogether. Although they won't find many first-world countries where the government isn't significantly involved in the regulating society and running public services.
What exactly counts as a 'fat' health package? One which ensures people are fully treated for their ailments? Seems odd that something so straightforward is considered extravagant.
Apparently they get a decent retirement too, the scoundrels!
That's interesting, because Americans are always telling us that universal healthcare is bad because it means people interfering with their lifestyle choices. Yet here in the land of the free, we have people being fined for smoking and being fat, something which doesn't happen in socialist healthcare systems.
Allowing school choice will allow more low income parents to send their children to good private schools.
Yeah because private schools are champing at the bit to kick out all the nice middle class students and replace them with kids from deprived backgrounds who are further behind in their education, many of whom having special needs or behavioural issues, or may even be black.
In the UK they've started a scheme to allow people to set up their own schools, free of government control yet funded by the government, and the most famous example is a school which is settings its catchment area to specifically exclude a poor area near the school, but including rich areas much further away. Then there's the one being set up to teach creationism...
After cherry picking the most able and easy to teach kids, these schools will no doubt do better in standardised exams, and everyone will proclaim how great school choice is. Of course everyone with any education at all will realise that due to selection bias it's total bullshit, but that won't stop the government, media, and ill-informed idiots on the Internet calling for school vouchers etc. even though everywhere they've been tried they just led to anglo-american style ghettoisation.
Interestingly, the best school system in the world is in Finland, which doesn't have choice, just good quality, well-funded state schools, but since when does actual evidence count for anything these days?
Tolls are the fairest system. If you use it, you pay for it, either directly on in the price of the products you use that were shipped over it.
Otherwise the bridge is paid for by general taxation, which means people get to cross an expensive bridge, subsidised by people who live more efficient lifestyles.
What makes you think cutting spending will lower the debt? Putting millions of people out of work crushes the economy, reduces consumer spending, and means lower tax revenues.
Britain has tried cutting spending, but it just increased the debt as the economy suffers and people stop spending.
Fucking your economy to appease the markets is like a modern day version of sacrificing goats to ensure a good harvest.
I can assure you that in most of the EU, you go to your local school and that's that. Wherever it's tried, choice just leads to ghettoisation.
Finland supposedly has the best schools in Europe (or the world), and I don't think they have vouchers or charter schools or private schools or any of that, just good, well-funded government schools.
Our national problems could be solved if we'd admit that a stratified society is not only natural, but healthy (which is not the same as saying that 1% should control 90% of the wealth, that's another argument).
Actually all the evidence suggests that the less stratified the society, the healthier it is. You only have to compare the UK to the Nordic countries to see the social (and economic) problems caused by uneven wealth distribution.
The reason the standard of living for the common man rose so rapidly from the 19th century to later 20th century is that we had the gold standard, which secured the value of their labor on one end, and we didn't indulge in ridiculous social engineering to make everyone equal.
Actually, it was down to industrialisation, vast natural resources, and various mechanisms to ensure that everyone benefited from growth and productivity gains. Such mechanisms included high taxes on the rich, worker safety legislation, and strong unions. Not to mention grand government projects to push forward technology and stimulate the economy.
The greatest era of prosperity for the average American was when income distribution was the most equal. Since the taxes were lowered, and the unions smashed, nearly all of the economic gains have accumulated with a small elite, and the American dream is dying a painful, lingering death.
The best people to advertise to are those who think they're too intelligent to be influenced. Especially those who watch trashy shows 'ironically'. Those brainy people who are too smart to be told what to buy, but are never seen without a handful of the latest consumer gadgets, whose computer graphics cards are more powerful than most people's computers, and monitors the size of the wall, which are of course used for watching smart shows that you're too dumb to understand.
But what if borrowing leads to more growth that pays off the debt? What if cutting spending in a depression lowers economic activity and therefore tax revenues? What if interest rates are low enough to make it non-sensical to pay more than the bare minimum?
Your model may work for a household, but not a government.
Citation needed. Bear in mind that in Benjamin Franklin's time the vast majority of the population worked back-breaking labour and lived in horrific poverty just to make people like him rich. And that the most functional societies today are those with the most generous welfare provisions.
Yeah we should definitely base criminal justice on a crappy TV show. And btw that attitude of disproportionate response is one of many reasons why people fly planes into your buildings.
How is it not practical to enforce rules in a school? You simply state that phones are not allowed in classrooms or exam rooms, and if a child is found with one, they are expelled.
You do realise that having to manage a shared phone pool would actually mean more bureaucracy than just giving everyone their own cheap pay as you go phone?
Yes. Government is the employer of last resort. People need jobs, and the private sector has no interest in providing them. Even though they're swimming in unimaginable amounts of cash, they'd rather sit on it or invest in third-world sweat-shops. This means that either the government spends money or people starve to death like in the Great Depression.
Slashdot Mirror
Why is private profit more important than clean air and energy security? Switching to another fossil fuel is just bailing out the Titanic, you're still going down sooner or later.
In New Hampshire they'll still be living under the large federal government. If they really want small government they should really think about emigrating altogether. Although they won't find many first-world countries where the government isn't significantly involved in the regulating society and running public services.
What exactly counts as a 'fat' health package? One which ensures people are fully treated for their ailments? Seems odd that something so straightforward is considered extravagant.
Apparently they get a decent retirement too, the scoundrels!
That's interesting, because Americans are always telling us that universal healthcare is bad because it means people interfering with their lifestyle choices. Yet here in the land of the free, we have people being fined for smoking and being fat, something which doesn't happen in socialist healthcare systems.
Yeah because private schools are champing at the bit to kick out all the nice middle class students and replace them with kids from deprived backgrounds who are further behind in their education, many of whom having special needs or behavioural issues, or may even be black.
In the UK they've started a scheme to allow people to set up their own schools, free of government control yet funded by the government, and the most famous example is a school which is settings its catchment area to specifically exclude a poor area near the school, but including rich areas much further away. Then there's the one being set up to teach creationism...
After cherry picking the most able and easy to teach kids, these schools will no doubt do better in standardised exams, and everyone will proclaim how great school choice is. Of course everyone with any education at all will realise that due to selection bias it's total bullshit, but that won't stop the government, media, and ill-informed idiots on the Internet calling for school vouchers etc. even though everywhere they've been tried they just led to anglo-american style ghettoisation.
Interestingly, the best school system in the world is in Finland, which doesn't have choice, just good quality, well-funded state schools, but since when does actual evidence count for anything these days?
Yeah Russia's prison system must be effective. That's why there's no crime whatsoever, especially not organised crime.
Tolls are the fairest system. If you use it, you pay for it, either directly on in the price of the products you use that were shipped over it.
Otherwise the bridge is paid for by general taxation, which means people get to cross an expensive bridge, subsidised by people who live more efficient lifestyles.
Yes, they could do all those millions of vacant jobs that employers are desperate to fill.
What makes you think cutting spending will lower the debt? Putting millions of people out of work crushes the economy, reduces consumer spending, and means lower tax revenues.
Britain has tried cutting spending, but it just increased the debt as the economy suffers and people stop spending.
Fucking your economy to appease the markets is like a modern day version of sacrificing goats to ensure a good harvest.
I can assure you that in most of the EU, you go to your local school and that's that. Wherever it's tried, choice just leads to ghettoisation.
Finland supposedly has the best schools in Europe (or the world), and I don't think they have vouchers or charter schools or private schools or any of that, just good, well-funded government schools.
Actually all the evidence suggests that the less stratified the society, the healthier it is. You only have to compare the UK to the Nordic countries to see the social (and economic) problems caused by uneven wealth distribution.
Actually, it was down to industrialisation, vast natural resources, and various mechanisms to ensure that everyone benefited from growth and productivity gains. Such mechanisms included high taxes on the rich, worker safety legislation, and strong unions. Not to mention grand government projects to push forward technology and stimulate the economy.
The greatest era of prosperity for the average American was when income distribution was the most equal. Since the taxes were lowered, and the unions smashed, nearly all of the economic gains have accumulated with a small elite, and the American dream is dying a painful, lingering death.
Where are these countries where companies have all been run by the workers?
Had a look at America's social mobility statistics lately?
The best people to advertise to are those who think they're too intelligent to be influenced. Especially those who watch trashy shows 'ironically'. Those brainy people who are too smart to be told what to buy, but are never seen without a handful of the latest consumer gadgets, whose computer graphics cards are more powerful than most people's computers, and monitors the size of the wall, which are of course used for watching smart shows that you're too dumb to understand.
Of course now with televisions, radios and ipods, there less reason than ever for a household to have any piano at all in their house.
I think they did, and the market sent all their jobs to the third world.
But what if borrowing leads to more growth that pays off the debt? What if cutting spending in a depression lowers economic activity and therefore tax revenues? What if interest rates are low enough to make it non-sensical to pay more than the bare minimum?
Your model may work for a household, but not a government.
Citation needed. Bear in mind that in Benjamin Franklin's time the vast majority of the population worked back-breaking labour and lived in horrific poverty just to make people like him rich. And that the most functional societies today are those with the most generous welfare provisions.
Yeah we should definitely base criminal justice on a crappy TV show. And btw that attitude of disproportionate response is one of many reasons why people fly planes into your buildings.
Thanks for proving my point. You consider a distractive toy as important to you as sanitation.
Why would they sit empty the rest of the time? Oh noes, someone can't text their friends during the lecture...
Somehow people managed without instant communication for millions of years, but now people can't go half an hour without their electronic pacifier.
How is it not practical to enforce rules in a school? You simply state that phones are not allowed in classrooms or exam rooms, and if a child is found with one, they are expelled.
What happened to discipline?
You do realise that having to manage a shared phone pool would actually mean more bureaucracy than just giving everyone their own cheap pay as you go phone?
Yes. Government is the employer of last resort. People need jobs, and the private sector has no interest in providing them. Even though they're swimming in unimaginable amounts of cash, they'd rather sit on it or invest in third-world sweat-shops. This means that either the government spends money or people starve to death like in the Great Depression.
What happens to California's economy when millions of government workers lose their jobs?