Total Posts:60|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Government Student Loans

Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 9:58:13 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Under the old system, the student-loan industry received billions in taxpayer subsidies to provide a service the government could perform for less. Essentially the government guaranteed student loans so that private banks assumed zero risk in lending them... yet still profited from the interest.

What Democrats have done is remove the middleman (banks) thereby streamlining the process and making a better taxpayer investment. Now instead of the banks profiting from student loans, the interest goes back to the tax payers who can in turn invest those returns (they have put them toward Pell Grants).

Mitt Romney wants to reverse this legislation and go back to letting banks profit from student loans despite assuming zero risk. What is the logic behind this, Conservatives?
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 10:03:52 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/25/2012 10:00:45 AM, darkkermit wrote:
I'm against government subsidizing higher education in general.

Great. I'm against the State in general. Unfortunately we have to operate within a realistic framework rather than an ideological one. That's why I'm posing this question to all Republicans and/or Romney supporters.
President of DDO
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 10:09:02 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/25/2012 10:03:52 AM, Danielle wrote:
At 5/25/2012 10:00:45 AM, darkkermit wrote:
I'm against government subsidizing higher education in general.

Great. I'm against the State in general. Unfortunately we have to operate within a realistic framework rather than an ideological one. That's why I'm posing this question to all Republicans and/or Romney supporters.

Republicans are less likely to actual know this and the process just looks more "free-market" oriented because banks are doing it when it really isn't a free market solution. It provides the best of both worlds. Romney needs the support of bankers.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,281
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 10:18:23 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/25/2012 9:58:13 AM, Danielle wrote:
Under the old system, the student-loan industry received billions in taxpayer subsidies to provide a service the government could perform for less. Essentially the government guaranteed student loans so that private banks assumed zero risk in lending them... yet still profited from the interest.

What Democrats have done is remove the middleman (banks) thereby streamlining the process and making a better taxpayer investment. Now instead of the banks profiting from student loans, the interest goes back to the tax payers who can in turn invest those returns (they have put them toward Pell Grants).

Mitt Romney wants to reverse this legislation and go back to letting banks profit from student loans despite assuming zero risk. What is the logic behind this, Conservatives?

The only answer I think of right now is more efficient oversight on pursuing people that default on their loan.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2012 4:59:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I think because you're essentially talking about a government run bank. You aren't really eliminating the bank, you're just making the government the bank, because you have to have a bank of money from where the loans would come. Most conservatives shy away, or vehemently oppose government run banks because when there is a problem it's a disaster, because all risk is centrally held, and that risk is that of the US tax payer. Governments have never had great experiences when they have been in the business of banking. Furthermore in this particular sort of loan, the risk of default is quite high, and the low interest may not accommodate this. Keep in mind that most educational loans have no credit requirements on the recipients and default rates are much higher than that of say a mortgage. Now you can say that the default rate is due to the interest rate, but that's circular if the interest rate must accommodate the defaults.
strengthdebate
Posts: 184
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2012 11:47:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/25/2012 9:58:13 AM, Danielle wrote:
Under the old system, the student-loan industry received billions in taxpayer subsidies to provide a service the government could perform for less. Essentially the government guaranteed student loans so that private banks assumed zero risk in lending them... yet still profited from the interest.

What Democrats have done is remove the middleman (banks) thereby streamlining the process and making a better taxpayer investment. Now instead of the banks profiting from student loans, the interest goes back to the tax payers who can in turn invest those returns (they have put them toward Pell Grants).

Mitt Romney wants to reverse this legislation and go back to letting banks profit from student loans despite assuming zero risk. What is the logic behind this, Conservatives?

The government should remove the other businesses and take them over that way the taxpayer can have a more streamlined system and get all the profit. Worked for the post office.
strengthdebate
Posts: 184
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2012 11:48:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/25/2012 6:06:37 PM, Sillouette wrote:
Universal college education would be a well worthwhile investment.

Oh definetly. All those janitors should be able to do calculus to figure out the best way to mop the floors. Also those aliens living in a different galaxy, we should fly them here and educate them.
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2012 9:10:01 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/25/2012 6:06:37 PM, Sillouette wrote:
Universal college education would be a well worthwhile investment.

That implies 100% graduation rate thus the lowering of standards and ultimately a college education meaning nothing. "I have a college education" so what, who doesn't.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,281
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2012 10:58:08 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/27/2012 9:10:01 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 5/25/2012 6:06:37 PM, Sillouette wrote:
Universal college education would be a well worthwhile investment.

That implies 100% graduation rate thus the lowering of standards and ultimately a college education meaning nothing. "I have a college education" so what, who doesn't.

Should the government subsidize all investments toward a better society?

Let's look at what happened to the colleges. Colleges used to be the ones who were endowed money. Colleges used to decide which students received loans. Colleges used to be the oversight and bore the responsibility for default loans. It used to be very difficult for a student to prove to the colleges that they were eligible for a student loan.

Today, student loans are around 3% which for all basic purposes is a zero percent loan considering inflation. There are very few qualifications now for a student loan. There exists very little oversight monitoring default loans. The colleges now seek to increase enrollment at the expense of qualifications since the students now have unprecedented access to loans. The colleges no longer have a motivation to be selective about who gets a peace of the limited funds the government once allocated to them. Colleges today are huge bastions of massive architectural edifices with the only goal being to increase enrollment and increase tuition to accommodate the massive surge in available student loans.

If the case could be made that 50% of the incoming freshmen in college never graduate, why not just hand a government loan to every venture capital business which also has a 50% failure rate over 5 years? The importance given to universal higher education is overrated; but the public is sold on the idea, so the politicians have a blank check to ruin the tax coffers on this particular investment.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2012 11:03:56 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/27/2012 10:58:08 AM, Greyparrot wrote:

I could not for the life of me understand how anyone could possibly come to your conclusions, until I read:

The importance given to universal higher education is overrated;

And now, I see that you simply have no idea what you're talking about whatsoever.

No offense.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2012 11:07:44 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/26/2012 11:48:34 PM, strengthdebate wrote:
At 5/25/2012 6:06:37 PM, Sillouette wrote:
Universal college education would be a well worthwhile investment.

Oh definetly. All those janitors should be able to do calculus to figure out the best way to mop the floors. Also those aliens living in a different galaxy, we should fly them here and educate them.

Well, if a janitor has a rudimentary understanding of chemistry, he or she would be savvy enough to know which chemicals to best use to do his or her job, which ones to avoid, and which do not mix.

But, what's more, is that if everyone were educated enough to make being a janitor strange, then I'm sure we could figure out a way to eliminate the need for janitors.

On the other hand, there is always the fact that universal access to education does not necessarily guarantee an education.

What it does guarantee is that those who would positively utilize an education has the opportunity to, even if so many other never make it through.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2012 11:19:10 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/27/2012 11:03:56 AM, Ren wrote:
At 5/27/2012 10:58:08 AM, Greyparrot wrote:

I could not for the life of me understand how anyone could possibly come to your conclusions, until I read:

The importance given to universal higher education is overrated;

And now, I see that you simply have no idea what you're talking about whatsoever.

No offense.

That's hardly a rebuttal; I thought he made a pretty good case.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,281
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2012 11:23:15 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/27/2012 11:19:10 AM, innomen wrote:
At 5/27/2012 11:03:56 AM, Ren wrote:
At 5/27/2012 10:58:08 AM, Greyparrot wrote:

I could not for the life of me understand how anyone could possibly come to your conclusions, until I read:

The importance given to universal higher education is overrated;

And now, I see that you simply have no idea what you're talking about whatsoever.

No offense.

That's hardly a rebuttal; I thought he made a pretty good case.

Thanks innomen!
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2012 12:10:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/27/2012 11:19:10 AM, innomen wrote:
At 5/27/2012 11:03:56 AM, Ren wrote:
At 5/27/2012 10:58:08 AM, Greyparrot wrote:

I could not for the life of me understand how anyone could possibly come to your conclusions, until I read:

The importance given to universal higher education is overrated;

And now, I see that you simply have no idea what you're talking about whatsoever.

No offense.

That's hardly a rebuttal; I thought he made a pretty good case.

I've lost my taste for arguing with people who aren't even interested in learning about a subject.

Higher education, as proven by quantitative, qualitative, quant/qual, and hermeneutic study, is universally beneficial for society.

That is why we have higher education.

You disagree with me and agree with him?

*shrug*

I'd rather discuss it with someone who knows what they're talking about.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2012 12:36:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/27/2012 10:58:08 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 5/27/2012 9:10:01 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 5/25/2012 6:06:37 PM, Sillouette wrote:
Universal college education would be a well worthwhile investment.

That implies 100% graduation rate thus the lowering of standards and ultimately a college education meaning nothing. "I have a college education" so what, who doesn't.

Should the government subsidize all investments toward a better society?

Let's look at what happened to the colleges. Colleges used to be the ones who were endowed money. Colleges used to decide which students received loans. Colleges used to be the oversight and bore the responsibility for default loans. It used to be very difficult for a student to prove to the colleges that they were eligible for a student loan.

Today, student loans are around 3% which for all basic purposes is a zero percent loan considering inflation. There are very few qualifications now for a student loan. There exists very little oversight monitoring default loans. The colleges now seek to increase enrollment at the expense of qualifications since the students now have unprecedented access to loans. The colleges no longer have a motivation to be selective about who gets a peace of the limited funds the government once allocated to them. Colleges today are huge bastions of massive architectural edifices with the only goal being to increase enrollment and increase tuition to accommodate the massive surge in available student loans.

If the case could be made that 50% of the incoming freshmen in college never graduate, why not just hand a government loan to every venture capital business which also has a 50% failure rate over 5 years? The importance given to universal higher education is overrated; but the public is sold on the idea, so the politicians have a blank check to ruin the tax coffers on this particular investment.

Okay, fine. Let's say I'm really just being an assshole, and we can legitimately assume that it's up for question as to whether higher education is beneficial for society.

Then, first, sorry. I don't mean to be an assshole.

But, to approach your argument -- it's preposterous. Public schools have always received gratuitous funds from the State. They were, and continue to be endowed massive amounts of money, mostly from alumni, every year.

In fact, there's currently a controversy in Rhode Island, for example, because the capital, Providence, is going broke, while it's highest grossing organization, Brown University, maintains tax relief that was bestowed upon them in the 1800's. So, they can take, but they never give back (unless it's to students).

In this regard, the strength of a college's alumni and its ranking determines how much money it receives. Therefore, they have every incentive in the world to remain as selective as possible when admitting new students. For most schools, it's just as much about academics as it is about money -- I don't care how rich your family is, you're not getting into MIT or CalTech on a dollar bill.

Then, of course, there's competition with global schools, such as the likes of Tokyo U, Oxford U, and Sussex U, and if our country wants to maintain its prominence in the global education world (foreign study is HUGE), then we'll need to remain academically competitive.

All this aside, I know a lot of people like to claim that they didn't learn anything in college, but that's probably because they probably never went to class and barely got their degree.

I can always tell when I'm speaking with a college graduate. Well, 9 times out of 10.

You think that student loans will compromise this? Since when does any 17-18 year old have the sort of financial acumen necessary to obtain any sort of loan for thousands of dollars?!

Lol, getattahea.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2012 2:09:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/27/2012 12:36:03 PM, Ren wrote:
At 5/27/2012 10:58:08 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 5/27/2012 9:10:01 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 5/25/2012 6:06:37 PM, Sillouette wrote:
Universal college education would be a well worthwhile investment.

That implies 100% graduation rate thus the lowering of standards and ultimately a college education meaning nothing. "I have a college education" so what, who doesn't.

Should the government subsidize all investments toward a better society?

Let's look at what happened to the colleges. Colleges used to be the ones who were endowed money. Colleges used to decide which students received loans. Colleges used to be the oversight and bore the responsibility for default loans. It used to be very difficult for a student to prove to the colleges that they were eligible for a student loan.

Today, student loans are around 3% which for all basic purposes is a zero percent loan considering inflation. There are very few qualifications now for a student loan. There exists very little oversight monitoring default loans. The colleges now seek to increase enrollment at the expense of qualifications since the students now have unprecedented access to loans. The colleges no longer have a motivation to be selective about who gets a peace of the limited funds the government once allocated to them. Colleges today are huge bastions of massive architectural edifices with the only goal being to increase enrollment and increase tuition to accommodate the massive surge in available student loans.

If the case could be made that 50% of the incoming freshmen in college never graduate, why not just hand a government loan to every venture capital business which also has a 50% failure rate over 5 years? The importance given to universal higher education is overrated; but the public is sold on the idea, so the politicians have a blank check to ruin the tax coffers on this particular investment.

Okay, fine. Let's say I'm really just being an assshole, and we can legitimately assume that it's up for question as to whether higher education is beneficial for society.

Then, first, sorry. I don't mean to be an assshole.

But, to approach your argument -- it's preposterous. Public schools have always received gratuitous funds from the State. They were, and continue to be endowed massive amounts of money, mostly from alumni, every year.

IN terms of the state providing funds for school, it has substantially increased more and more:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com...

In fact, there's currently a controversy in Rhode Island, for example, because the capital, Providence, is going broke, while it's highest grossing organization, Brown University, maintains tax relief that was bestowed upon them in the 1800's. So, they can take, but they never give back (unless it's to students).

In this regard, the strength of a college's alumni and its ranking determines how much money it receives. Therefore, they have every incentive in the world to remain as selective as possible when admitting new students.

They do have an incentive to remain selective. However they also have an incentive to allow students in for obvious reasons, especially if its not a selective college to begin with.

For most schools, it's just as much about academics as it is about money -- I don't care how rich your family is, you're not getting into MIT or CalTech on a dollar bill.

Then, of course, there's competition with global schools, such as the likes of Tokyo U, Oxford U, and Sussex U, and if our country wants to maintain its prominence in the global education world (foreign study is HUGE), then we'll need to remain academically competitive.

All this aside, I know a lot of people like to claim that they didn't learn anything in college, but that's probably because they probably never went to class and barely got their degree.

I can always tell when I'm speaking with a college graduate. Well, 9 times out of 10.

You think that student loans will compromise this? Since when does any 17-18 year old have the sort of financial acumen necessary to obtain any sort of loan for thousands of dollars?!

Lol, getattahea.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2012 2:11:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Obviously colleges do have some incentive to be selective, but their motivation to be selective has decreased quite a bit.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Sillouette
Posts: 26
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2012 4:08:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/27/2012 10:58:08 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 5/27/2012 9:10:01 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 5/25/2012 6:06:37 PM, Sillouette wrote:
Universal college education would be a well worthwhile investment.

That implies 100% graduation rate thus the lowering of standards and ultimately a college education meaning nothing. "I have a college education" so what, who doesn't.

Should the government subsidize all investments toward a better society?

Let's look at what happened to the colleges. Colleges used to be the ones who were endowed money. Colleges used to decide which students received loans. Colleges used to be the oversight and bore the responsibility for default loans. It used to be very difficult for a student to prove to the colleges that they were eligible for a student loan.

Today, student loans are around 3% which for all basic purposes is a zero percent loan considering inflation. There are very few qualifications now for a student loan. There exists very little oversight monitoring default loans. The colleges now seek to increase enrollment at the expense of qualifications since the students now have unprecedented access to loans. The colleges no longer have a motivation to be selective about who gets a peace of the limited funds the government once allocated to them. Colleges today are huge bastions of massive architectural edifices with the only goal being to increase enrollment and increase tuition to accommodate the massive surge in available student loans.

If the case could be made that 50% of the incoming freshmen in college never graduate, why not just hand a government loan to every venture capital business which also has a 50% failure rate over 5 years? The importance given to universal higher education is overrated; but the public is sold on the idea, so the politicians have a blank check to ruin the tax coffers on this particular investment.

Obviously when you introduce such subsidization to an institution which operates on the profit motive, the mechanism will no longer function properly.

If we are to have universal education, it needs to be run publicly. It can compete alongside with private collages.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2012 4:12:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/27/2012 4:08:20 PM, Sillouette wrote:
At 5/27/2012 10:58:08 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 5/27/2012 9:10:01 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 5/25/2012 6:06:37 PM, Sillouette wrote:
Universal college education would be a well worthwhile investment.

That implies 100% graduation rate thus the lowering of standards and ultimately a college education meaning nothing. "I have a college education" so what, who doesn't.

Should the government subsidize all investments toward a better society?

Let's look at what happened to the colleges. Colleges used to be the ones who were endowed money. Colleges used to decide which students received loans. Colleges used to be the oversight and bore the responsibility for default loans. It used to be very difficult for a student to prove to the colleges that they were eligible for a student loan.

Today, student loans are around 3% which for all basic purposes is a zero percent loan considering inflation. There are very few qualifications now for a student loan. There exists very little oversight monitoring default loans. The colleges now seek to increase enrollment at the expense of qualifications since the students now have unprecedented access to loans. The colleges no longer have a motivation to be selective about who gets a peace of the limited funds the government once allocated to them. Colleges today are huge bastions of massive architectural edifices with the only goal being to increase enrollment and increase tuition to accommodate the massive surge in available student loans.

If the case could be made that 50% of the incoming freshmen in college never graduate, why not just hand a government loan to every venture capital business which also has a 50% failure rate over 5 years? The importance given to universal higher education is overrated; but the public is sold on the idea, so the politicians have a blank check to ruin the tax coffers on this particular investment.

Obviously when you introduce such subsidization to an institution which operates on the profit motive, the mechanism will no longer function properly.

If we are to have universal education, it needs to be run publicly. It can compete alongside with private collages.

There are public college. Not free but they are cheaper than private colleges.

In terms of universal education, we already have K-12 and they perform horribly.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Sillouette
Posts: 26
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2012 4:15:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/27/2012 4:12:56 PM, darkkermit wrote:
There are public college. Not free but they are cheaper than private colleges.

In terms of universal education, we already have K-12 and they perform horribly.

Find me a country without public schooling that has a good literacy rate.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2012 4:27:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/27/2012 4:15:25 PM, Sillouette wrote:
At 5/27/2012 4:12:56 PM, darkkermit wrote:
There are public college. Not free but they are cheaper than private colleges.

In terms of universal education, we already have K-12 and they perform horribly.

Find me a country without public schooling that has a good literacy rate.

Colleges would like to do more than teach people how to read.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Sillouette
Posts: 26
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2012 4:33:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/27/2012 4:27:40 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 5/27/2012 4:15:25 PM, Sillouette wrote:
At 5/27/2012 4:12:56 PM, darkkermit wrote:
There are public college. Not free but they are cheaper than private colleges.

In terms of universal education, we already have K-12 and they perform horribly.

Find me a country without public schooling that has a good literacy rate.

Colleges would like to do more than teach people how to read.

It was an example. The fact is, with public schooling, people are learning something when they other otherwise wouldn't have.

Sometimes it isn't run properly and it results in a less than preferable outcome. But it is, over-all, still a very wise investment in a nation.

The key to a people's success is their intellectual achievement.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2012 4:38:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/27/2012 4:33:37 PM, Sillouette wrote:
At 5/27/2012 4:27:40 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 5/27/2012 4:15:25 PM, Sillouette wrote:
At 5/27/2012 4:12:56 PM, darkkermit wrote:
There are public college. Not free but they are cheaper than private colleges.

In terms of universal education, we already have K-12 and they perform horribly.

Find me a country without public schooling that has a good literacy rate.

Colleges would like to do more than teach people how to read.

It was an example. The fact is, with public schooling, people are learning something when they other otherwise wouldn't have.

Sometimes it isn't run properly and it results in a less than preferable outcome. But it is, over-all, still a very wise investment in a nation.

The key to a people's success is their intellectual achievement.

And my point is that it isn't much of an accomplishment stating that it takes 13 years to teach people how to read. Primary and secondary education curriculum run incredibly slow, and require much more time in class simply because the students there aren't motivated because they are coerced to be there. The dumber students drag everyone else down. Not to mention that public education is filled with the inefficiencies of government programs (teacher unions, no profit motive to make education cheaper or the quality better, no school choice)

Everyone needs to learn how to read. Not everyone needs to learn calculus.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Sillouette
Posts: 26
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2012 4:43:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/27/2012 4:38:55 PM, darkkermit wrote:
And my point is that it isn't much of an accomplishment stating that it takes 13 years to teach people how to read. Primary and secondary education curriculum run incredibly slow, and require much more time in class simply because the students there aren't motivated because they are coerced to be there. The dumber students drag everyone else down. Not to mention that public education is filled with the inefficiencies of government programs (teacher unions, no profit motive to make education cheaper or the quality better, no school choice)

Everyone needs to learn how to read. Not everyone needs to learn calculus.

You're confusing how the system is run with the concept of the system itself. Personally, I would run things much differently. I would give the students themselves more reigns over everything.

But I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the value of providing it for free so the maximum amount of people have the opportunity to grow intellectually.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2012 4:54:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/27/2012 4:43:02 PM, Sillouette wrote:
At 5/27/2012 4:38:55 PM, darkkermit wrote:
And my point is that it isn't much of an accomplishment stating that it takes 13 years to teach people how to read. Primary and secondary education curriculum run incredibly slow, and require much more time in class simply because the students there aren't motivated because they are coerced to be there. The dumber students drag everyone else down. Not to mention that public education is filled with the inefficiencies of government programs (teacher unions, no profit motive to make education cheaper or the quality better, no school choice)

Everyone needs to learn how to read. Not everyone needs to learn calculus.

You're confusing how the system is run with the concept of the system itself. Personally, I would run things much differently. I would give the students themselves more reigns over everything.

But I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the value of providing it for free so the maximum amount of people have the opportunity to grow intellectually.

Any government-run system will inherently be worse because it does not have the positive incentives or proper signals that the market has.

There ain't no such thing as "free". Either your paying for it or someone else is.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Sillouette
Posts: 26
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2012 5:04:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/27/2012 4:54:04 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Any government-run system will inherently be worse because it does not have the positive incentives or proper signals that the market has.

False. "Government" doesn't mean much of anything unless you specify what kind of government. It's really gotten to the point where it's become and ad hom. "doh, the guberment did it, dat means it's bad"

The problem with liberal democracies is that they are simply designed around fairness without any concept of goal orienting mechanism. A government can be just as much, and I would argue even more than, efficient than the "free market" with the right structuring.

There ain't no such thing as "free". Either your paying for it or someone else is.

This is true. Universal is a better word. "Free" is simply meaning to say that it's a guarantee irrespective of your income.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2012 5:09:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/27/2012 5:04:17 PM, Sillouette wrote:
At 5/27/2012 4:54:04 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Any government-run system will inherently be worse because it does not have the positive incentives or proper signals that the market has.

False. "Government" doesn't mean much of anything unless you specify what kind of government. It's really gotten to the point where it's become and ad hom. "doh, the guberment did it, dat means it's bad"

All government-run systems get their funding through taxation and coercion, not through voluntary transaction like in the private sector. Stating that "well I don't support the government doing it like this, I support it doing it like that" doesn't make sense because it's like stating "well, I don't support Mcdonalds or other corporation doing it like this, I support it doing it like that". Your completely ignoring public choice theory which is inherent in all forms of democratic government.

The problem with liberal democracies is that they are simply designed around fairness without any concept of goal orienting mechanism. A government can be just as much, and I would argue even more than, efficient than the "free market" with the right structuring.

There ain't no such thing as "free". Either your paying for it or someone else is.

This is true. Universal is a better word. "Free" is simply meaning to say that it's a guarantee irrespective of your income.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...